[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6021-6022]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31411; Amdt. No. 3993]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2022. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of February 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them
operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the
same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97;

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 21, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 24 March 2022

Siloam Springs, AR, KSLG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Prescott, AZ, KPRC, VOR RWY 12, Amdt 3
Fresno, CA, KFCH, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1A
Hanford, CA, KHJO, VOR-A, Amdt 10, CANCELLED
Napa, CA, KAPC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 3
Napa, CA, KAPC, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 15
Ontario, CA, KONT, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26L, Amdt 3
Ontario, CA, KONT, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26R, Amdt 3
Ontario, CA, Ontario International Airport, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 9A
Rio Vista, CA, O88, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 4
Salinas, CA, KSNS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig
Tulare, CA, KTLR, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Alamosa, CO, KALS, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 3
Alamosa, CO, KALS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2
Alamosa, CO, KALS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2
Alamosa, CO, KALS, VOR-B, Amdt 6
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, KFNL, ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 7
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, KFNL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-C
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, KFNL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2
Donalsonville, GA, 17J, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2
Donalsonville, GA, 17J, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2
Wellington, KS, KEGT, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Falmouth, MA, 5B6, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Falmouth, MA, 5B6, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Falmouth, MA, Falmouth Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Coldwater, MI, KOEB, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 5B, CANCELLED
Coldwater, MI, KOEB, VOR/DME RWY 25, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Detroit, MI, KDET, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-D
Bowling Green, MO, H19, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Bowling Green, MO, H19, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Bowling Green, MO, Bowling Green Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Keene, NH, KEEN, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 6
Saranac Lake, NY, KSLK, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2
Columbus, OH, KCMH, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 2A
Albany, OR, S12, VOR-A, Amdt 5
Elizabethton, TN, 0A9, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Decatur, TX, KLUD, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-C

[FR Doc. 2022-02137 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27118-27121]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11337]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64400; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending its Fee
Schedule To Eliminate Registered Representative Fees for Amex Trading
Permit (``ATP'') Holders and To Institute a New Transaction-Based
``Options Regulatory Fee''

May 4, 2011.
    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 April 28, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate
registered representative fees for Amex Trading Permit (``ATP'')
Holders and institute a new transaction-based ``Options Regulatory
Fee.'' The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change is based on a rule change previously
submitted by NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. on behalf of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') that was effective upon filing.\3\ The
Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Fee Schedule to institute a
new transaction-based ``Options Regulatory Fee'' and eliminate
registered representative fees. Each ATP Holder that registers an
options principal and/or representative who is conducting business on
NYSE Amex currently is assessed a registered representative fee (``RR
Fee'') based on the action(s) associated with the registration. There
are annual fees as well as initial, transfer and termination fees.\4\
RR Fees and other regulatory fees collected by the Exchange were
intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs. Prior to rule changes by other options exchanges,
such as the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), BOX, NASDAQ OMX
PHLX (``PHLX'') and the International Securities Exchange (``ISE''),
all options exchanges, regardless of size, charged registered
representative fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61388 (January 20,
2010), 75 FR 4431 (January 27, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-001) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Registered Representative Fee and Options Regulatory Fee).
    \4\ In this regard, the Exchange proposes to eliminate from its
options fee schedule any reference to fees the Exchange no longer
asks FINRA to collect on its behalf relating to the processing of
registered representatives. In particular, the following
``Registration Fees'' will be eliminated from the options fee
schedule: The Initial Processing Fee, the Annual Renewal Processing
Fee, the Transfer Processing Fee, the Web CRD System Transition Fee,
and the Terminations Fee. Fees relating to the processing of
registered representatives that FINRA collects and retains will
remain in the Exchange's options fee schedule. In particular, the
following ``Registration Fees'' will remain in the options fee
schedule: the Disclosure Processing Fee, the Fingerprint Card
Processing Fee, and the fee for Fingerprint Results Processed thru
other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current RR Fee is no longer
equitable. The options industry has evolved to a structure with many
more Internet-based and discount brokerage firms. These firms have few
registered representatives and thus pay very little in RR Fees compared
to full service brokerage firms that have many registered
representatives. Further, due to the manner in which RR Fees are
charged, it is possible for an NYSE Amex ATP Holder to restructure its
business to avoid paying these fees altogether. For example, a firm can
avoid RR Fees by terminating its ATP status and sending its business to
NYSE Amex through another separate NYSE Amex ATP Holder, even an
affiliated firm that has many fewer registered representatives. If
firms terminated their ATP status to avoid RR Fees, the Exchange would
suffer the loss of a source of funding for its regulatory programs.
More importantly, the regulatory effort the Exchange expends to review
the transactions of each type of firm is not commensurate with the
number of registered representatives that each firm employs.
    In order to address the inequity of the current regulatory fee
structure and to offset more fully the cost of the Exchange's
regulatory programs, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the current RR
Fee for NYSE Amex ATP Holders and adopt an Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') of $0.004 per contract.\5\ As described below, this fee would
be assessed by the Exchange on each ATP Holder for all options
transactions executed or cleared by the ATP Holder that are cleared by
OCC in the customer range, regardless of the marketplace of execution.
In particular, the Exchange would impose the ORF on all options
transactions executed in the customer range by an ATP Holder,\6\ even
if the transactions do not take place on NYSE Amex. The ORF would also
be charged for transactions that are not executed by an ATP Holder but
are ultimately cleared by an ATP Holder. In the case where an ATP
Holder executes a transaction and a different ATP Holder clears the
transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the ATP Holder who executes
the transaction. In the case where a non-ATP Holder executes a
transaction and an ATP Holder clears the transaction, the ORF would be
assessed to the ATP Holder who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the annual component of the RR Fee has already been
assessed for 2011, the Exchange will make a pro rata refund for the
remaining portion of the year following elimination of the RR Fee.
In addition, the Exchange notes that permit holders who conduct only
equities business will no longer be subject to the RR Fee as a
result of the elimination of this fee. Consequently, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate from its NYSE Amex Equities Price List any
reference to fees the Exchange no longer asks FINRA to collect on
its behalf relating to the processing of registered representatives.
In particular, the following ``Registration Fees'' will be
eliminated from the equities fee schedule: the Initial Processing
Fee, the Annual Renewal Processing Fee, the Transfer Processing Fee,
the Web CRD System Transition Fee, and the Terminations Fee. Fees
relating to the processing of registered representatives that FINRA
collects and retains will remain in the Exchange's equities fee
schedule. In particular, the following ``Registration Fees'' will
remain in the equities fee schedule: the Disclosure Processing Fee,
the Fingerprint Card Processing Fee, and the fee for Fingerprint
Results Processed thru other SROs. The Exchange will separately
submit a rule filing to address funding for equities regulation.
    \6\ Such transactions must be cleared by an ATP Holder in the
customer range for the ORF to apply. Subject to the foregoing, the
ORF would apply to all customer orders executed by an ATP Holder on
NYSE Amex. Exchange rules require each ATP Holder to submit trade
information in order to allow the Exchange to properly prioritize
and match orders and quotations and report resulting transactions to
the OCC. See NYSE Amex Rule 956NY. The Exchange represents that it
has surveillances in place to verify that ATP Holders comply with
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the ORF would replace RR Fees, which relate to an ATP
Holder's options customer business. Further, RR Fees constituted the
single-largest fee assessed that is related to regulation of customer
trading activity, and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge
the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The
Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to an ATP Holders' activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by an ATP Holder. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether an ATP
Holder executes a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its
behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider
trading.\7\ These activities span across multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange also participates in The Options Regulatory
Surveillance Authority (``ORSA'') national market system plan and in
doing so shares information and coordinates with other exchanges
designed to detect the unlawful use of undisclosed material
information in the trading of securities options. ORSA is a national
market system comprised of several self-regulatory organizations
whose functions and objectives include the joint development,
administration, operation and maintenance of systems and facilities
utilized in the regulation, surveillance, investigation and
detection of the unlawful use of undisclosed material information in
the trading of securities options. The Exchange compensates ORSA for
the Exchange's portion of the cost to perform insider trading
surveillance on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF will cover the costs
associated with the Exchange's arrangement with ORSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the initial level of the fee is reasonable
because it relates to the recovery of the costs of supervising and
regulating an ATP

Holder's customer options business. The Exchange believes the amount of
the ORF is fair and reasonably allocated because it is a closer
approximation to the Exchange's actual costs in administering its
regulatory program with respect to customer options activity.
    The ORF would be collected indirectly from ATP Holders through
their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The Exchange
expects that ATP Holders will pass-through the ORF to their customers
in the same manner that firms pass-through to their customers the fees
charged by Self Regulatory Organizations (``SROs'') to help the SROs
meet their obligations under Section 31 of the Exchange Act.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of ATP Holders,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, as well as
policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities.\8\ The
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF will cover the
substantial majority of the Exchange's regulatory costs related to the
NYSE Amex options market. At present, RR Fees make up the largest part
of the Exchange's total options regulatory fee revenue, however, the
total amount of NYSE Amex specific regulatory fees collected by the
Exchange is significantly less than the regulatory costs incurred by
NYSE Amex on an annual basis. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to an ATP Holder's compliance with
options sales practice rules have been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2
agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options sales
practice regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As stated above, the RR Fees collected by the Exchange were
originally intended to cover only a portion of the cost of the
Exchange's regulatory programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other NYSE Amex
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor NYSE Amex regulatory
costs and revenues at a minimum on an annual basis. If the Exchange
determines NYSE Amex regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the
Exchange would adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the
Commission. The Exchange would notify ATP Holders of adjustments to the
ORF via a Regulatory Bulletin.
    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitably allocated
because it would be charged to all ATP Holders on all their customer
options business. The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is reasonable
because it will raise revenue related to the amount of customer options
business conducted by an ATP Holder, and thus the amount of Exchange
regulatory services those ATP Holders will require with respect to that
activity, instead of how many registered representatives a particular
ATP Holder employs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange expects that implementation of the proposed ORF
will result generally in many traditional brokerage firms paying
less regulatory fees while Internet and discount brokerage firms
will pay more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With almost all transactions on the Exchange conducted
electronically, the amount of resources required by the Exchange to
surveil non-customer trading activity is significantly less than the
amount of resources the Exchange must dedicate to surveil customer
trading activity. This is because surveilling customer trading activity
is much more labor-intensive and requires greater expenditure of human
and technical resources than surveilling non-customer trading activity,
which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result,
the costs associated with administering the customer component of the
Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the
costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g.,
market maker) of its regulatory program.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by ATP Holders and their associated
persons under the Exchange Act and the rules of the Exchange and to
surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants
(including non-ATP Holders) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange
cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and
evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's
market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and
evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations.\10\ Also,
the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a
consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') system in order to surveil
an ATP Holder's activities across markets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2
agreement allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities
relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring
exercise declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and
Large Option Position Report reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61588 (February 25, 2010).
    \11\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\12\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the Exchange Act requirement
that it have coordinated surveillance with markets on which security
futures are traded and markets on which any security underlying
security futures are traded to detect manipulation and insider
trading.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \13\ See Exchange Act Section 6(h)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having ATP Holders direct their trades to other markets in order
to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share of
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then an
ATP Holder would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's
activity, including the activity of those members on NYSE Amex.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that CBOE currently assesses an options
regulatory fee similar to the one proposed herein, which fee is also
assessed on the trading activity of a CBOE member on NYSE Amex. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58817 (October 20, 2008), 73 FR
63744 (October 27, 2008). Similar regulatory fees have also been
instituted by PHLX (See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133
(December 9, 2009), 74 FR 66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-
100)); and ISE (See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61154
(December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-
105)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee
\15\ and the CBOE's, PHLX's, ISE's and BOX's ORF.

While the Exchange does not have all the same regulatory
responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other
exchanges that have adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to an ATP Holders' activities,
irrespective of where their transactions take place, supports a
regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other markets. Unlike
FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only to a an ATP
Holder's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on May 1,
2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section6(b)(4) \17\ of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its ATP Holders and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the ORF is objectively allocated
because it would be charged to all ATP Holders for all their
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC through an ATP Holder.
Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing
higher fees to those participants that require more Exchange regulatory
services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission has addressed the funding of
an SRO's regulatory operations in the Concept Release Concerning Self-
Regulation\18\ and the release on the Fair Administration and
Governance of Self-Regulatory Organizations.\19\ In the Concept
Release, the Commission states that: ``Given the inherent tension
between an SRO's role as a business and as a regulator, there
undoubtedly is a temptation for an SRO to fund the business side of its
operations at the expense of regulation.''\20\ In order to address this
potential conflict, the Commission proposed in the Governance Release
rules that would require an SRO to direct monies collected from
regulatory fees, fines, or penalties exclusively to fund the regulatory
operations and other programs of the SRO related to its regulatory
responsibilities.\21\ The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate
revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other
regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's
regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that
regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the
Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange believes that
the initial level of the fee is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004) (``Governance Release'').
    \20\ Concept Release at 71268.
    \21\ Governance Release at 71142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-27. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. 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-
NYSEAmex-2011-27 and should be submitted on or before May 31, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11337 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in section 175A of
the CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance Plan because we
find they meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements
under 40 CFR 93.118(e). Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve the 2008
inventory, which serves as the Sacramento PM10 Maintenance
Plan's attainment year inventory, as satisfying the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal for 30 days following
publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those by State law.
For these reasons, these proposed actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. In addition, there
are no federally recognized tribes located within the Sacramento
PM10 nonattainment area.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-17825 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 183 (Tuesday, September 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57086-57090]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0753; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-128-AD;
Amendment 39-18270; AD 2015-19-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-19-04,
for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD
2011-19-04 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the left-
hand and right-hand inboard and outboard elevator servo-control rod
eye-ends, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires an
inspection to determine if certain elevator servo-control parts are
installed, and replacement if necessary. This AD was prompted by a
determination that certain elevator servo-control parts that do not
conform to the approved type design have been installed and may have
the potential of cracks in the rod eye-end. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct rod eye-end cracking, which could result in
uncontrolled elevator surface and consequent reduced control of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 27, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 27,
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
October 21, 2011 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
September 22, 2009 (74 FR 41611 August 18, 2009).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0753; or in person at the
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.
    For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. For UTC service information identified in this AD,
contact UTC Aerospace Systems; Roger Dangremont; telephone +01 34 32 63
28; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630,
September 16, 2011). AD 2011-19-04 applied to all Model A318, A319,
A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62928). The NPRM was prompted by a
determination that certain elevator servo-control parts that do not
conform to the approved type design have been installed and may have
the potential of cracks in the rod eye-end. The NPRM proposed to
continue to require repetitive inspections of the left-hand and right-
hand inboard and outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for
cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed
to require an inspection to determine if certain elevator servo-control
parts are installed, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct rod eye-end cracking, which could result in
uncontrolled elevator surface and consequent 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
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0137, dated May 28, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection was reported on
an A320 family aeroplane. Investigation results revealed that the
failure occurred at the servo-control rod eye-end. Prompted by this
finding, additional inspections revealed cracking at the same
location on a number of other servo-control rod eye-ends. In several
cases, both actuators of the same elevator surface were affected.
    It was determined that the detected rod end cracks are caused by
fatigue, induced by a bending effect which is linked to the
spherical bearing rotational torque. As the elevator surface is
neither actuated nor damped, a dual servo-control disconnection on
the same elevator would result in an uncontrolled surface.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced
control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued [an
airworthiness directive (later revised)] [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009)] to
require a one-time inspection of the elevator servo-control rod eye-
ends for aeroplanes which had accumulated more than 10,000 flight
cycles (FC) since aeroplane first flight and, in case of findings,
accomplishment of corrective actions.
    As a result of EASA AD 2008-0149, a significant number of rod
eye-ends were found cracked. In addition, some cracks were reported
on rod eye-ends that had not yet accumulated the 10,000 FC of the
established threshold.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued [an airworthiness
directive (later revised)] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-19-04,
Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011)], which
partially retained the initial inspection requirement of EASA AD
2008-0149, which was superseded, reduced the compliance time of the
initial inspection and introduced a repetitive inspection programme.
    After EASA AD 2010-0046R1 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0046_R1_superseded.pdf/AD_2010-0046R1_1) was issued, a
new elevator servo-control rod eye-end was developed, incorporating
a re-greasable roller bearing.
    Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2013-0309 (later corrected)
(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0309_superseded.pdf/AD_2013-0309_1), retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0046R1,
which was superseded, and introduced an

optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections by
replacing the existing elevator servo-control rod eye-ends with the
new elevator servo-control rod eye-end. In addition, that [EASA] AD
prohibited, for aeroplanes that incorporate this optional
modification, (re)installation of unmodified elevator servo-
controls.
    At the time that EASA AD 2013-0309 was issued, it was planned
that Airbus would proceed with the certification of certain elevator
servo-controls, Part Number (P/N) 31075-0xx, P/N 31075-1xx and P/N
31075-3xx (originally certified only for installation on Model A320-
111 aeroplanes, which are no longer in service), to allow
installation of those parts on other A320 family aeroplane Models.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus decided not to progress
with certification of the affected elevator servo-controls for
installation on other Models.
    For the reason described above, and because of evidence that
such parts remain available as spares in the field, this [EASA] AD
retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0309, which is superseded,
and adds a prohibition to install the affected elevator servo-
controls that were only intended for A320-111 aeroplanes.

This AD requires an inspection to determine whether any elevator
control part having P/N 31075-0xx, 31075-1xx, or 31075-3xx is
installed, and replacement if necessary.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0753-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 62928, October 21, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Affected Airplanes for Certain Proposed Requirements

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that, for clarity reasons, we
revise the identity of affected airplanes in paragraphs (g) through (j)
of the proposed AD (79 FR 62928, October 21, 2014) to pertain only to
elevator servo-controls having part number (P/N) 341203 or P/N 341203-
xxx rod eye-ends. UAL stated that per Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011; and Goodrich Service
Bulletin 31075-27-22, dated July 2, 2013, it understands that only the
rod eye-ends fitted with self-lubricating spherical bearings are
required to have initial and repetitive inspections for cracks.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that only
certain elevator servo-controls and rod eye-ends are affected. However,
paragraph (n) of this AD addresses the commenter's concern. Paragraph
(n) of this AD identifies airplanes that are not affected by the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (k) and (l) of this AD. We have
not changed this AD as requested by the commenter, but we have revised
the heading of paragraph (n) of this AD to more accurately reflect the
content of that paragraph.

Request To Permit the Use of Serviceable Parts, and Relocate the
Definition of Serviceable Parts

    UAL requested that we permit the use of serviceable parts in
paragraph (l)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 62928, October 21, 2014),
and move the definition of a serviceable part from paragraph (l)(2) of
the proposed AD to paragraph (l)(1) of the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenter's requests. We have determined that the
use of serviceable parts is acceptable as replacement parts in
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We have changed the wording of paragraph
(l)(1) of this AD to specify that serviceable parts may be used as
replacement parts. We have also moved the definition of serviceable
parts from paragraph (l)(2) of this AD to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD
since both paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD specify the use of
serviceable parts.

Request To Revise Service Information Title

    UAL requested that we revise paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD
(79 FR 62928, October 21, 2014) to replace the service information
nomenclature from Goodrich Service Bulletin 31075-27-22, dated July 2,
2013, to UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 31075-27-22, dated July
2, 2013.
    We agree with the commenter's request. The requested service
bulletin title change is correct. We have revised paragraph (l)(2) of
this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 62928, October 21, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62928, October 21, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1223, dated September 3,
2013; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 31075-27-22, dated
July 2, 2013. The service information describes procedures for
modifying and replacing the elevator servo-control eye-end. 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 of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809
(76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011), and retained in this AD take about
25 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that
are required by AD 2011-19-04 is $2,125 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 14 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,012,690, or $1,190 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $4,000, for a cost of
$4,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0753; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

2015-19-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18270; Docket No. FAA-2014-0753;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-128-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 27, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630,
September 16, 2011).

(c) Applicability

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

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that certain elevator
servo-control parts that do not conform to the approved type design
have been installed and may have the potential of cracks in the rod
eye-end. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rod eye-end
cracking, which could result in uncontrolled elevator surface and
consequent reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011),
with no changes.
    (1) At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)
and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand
inboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for cracking, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT)
A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1186,
Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011. As of October 21, 2011 (the
effective date of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630,
September 16, 2011)), use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1186,
Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight
cycles or more as of September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009)): At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) and
(g)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 1,500 flight cycles after September 22, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611,
August 18, 2009)).
    (B) Within 1,500 flight cycles after accumulating 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total
flight cycles as of September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009)): At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and
(g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles.
    (B) Within 20 months after October 21, 2011 (the effective date
of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16,
2011)) but no later than before the accumulation of 11,500 total
flight cycles.
    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand
outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for cracking, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-27A1186,
Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2,
2011. As of October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-19-04,
Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011)), use Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight
cycles or more as of September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009)): At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A) and
(g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 3,000 flight cycles after September 22, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611,
August 18, 2009)).
    (B) Within 3,000 flight cycles after accumulating 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total
flight cycles as of September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009)): At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A) and
(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 7,500 total flight cycles.
    (B) Within 40 months after October 21, 2011 (the effective date
of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16,
2011)), but no later than before the accumulation of 13,000 total
flight cycles.

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011),
with no changes. Repeat the inspections of the left-hand and right-
hand inboard and outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for
cracking as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at
the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of
this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
    (1) Within 5,000 flight cycles after the last inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD as applicable.

    (2) Within 6 months after October 21, 2011 (the effective date
of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16,
2011)).

(i) Retained Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011),
with no changes. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, before further flight,
accomplish all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions and figures of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011.

(j) Retained Parts Installation Limitation for Elevator Servo-Control
Rod Eye-Ends

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011),
with a new exception. As of October 21, 2011 (the effective date of
AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57360, September 16,
2011)), and except as required by paragraph (p) of this AD, no
person may install on any airplane an elevator servo-control rod
eye-end unless it is new or has been inspected in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2011, with no crack findings.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection To Determine Part Numbers

    As of the effective date of this AD: At the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, do an
inspection to determine whether any elevator control part having
part number (P/N) 31075-0xx, 31075-1xx, or 31075-3xx is installed. A
review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the part numbers of the elevator control parts can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) Concurrently with the accomplishment of the next inspection
required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD.
    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of Certain Parts

    If the inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD reveals
that any elevator servo-controls having P/Ns 31075-0xx, 31075-1xx,
or 31075-3xx are installed: Before further flight, do the actions
specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Replace all elevator servo-controls having P/N 31075-0xx,
31075-1xx, or 31075-3xx with serviceable parts having P/N 31075-2xx
or 31075-4xx, as applicable, using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). Serviceable parts are those that
have been inspected for cracks in the rod eye-ends without any crack
findings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 07, dated March 2,
2011.
    (2) Replace all elevator servo-controls having P/N 31075-0xx,
31075-1xx, or 31075-3xx with serviceable parts having P/N 31075-6xx
or 31075-8xx, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1223, dated
September 3, 2013; or UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 31075-
27-22, dated July 2, 2013.

(m) New Optional Terminating Action for Certain Inspections

    Modification of an airplane by replacing all 4 elevator servo-
control rod eye-ends with modified (i.e. re-greasable) parts, and
re-identification of those elevator servo-controls to P/N 31075-6xx
or P/N 31075-8xx, as applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1223,
dated September 3, 2013; constitutes terminating action for the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (k), and (l) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD:  Maintenance Review Board
Report task reference 27.34.00/06, Lubrication of Elevator Servo-
control Rod Eye End Bearing, is applicable to elevator servo-
controls having P/N 31075-6xx or P/N 31075-8xx.

(n) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Inspection Requirements

    Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 154554 (installation of
servo-controls having P/N 31075-6xx or P/N 31075-8xx, fitted with
modified rod eye-end roller bearing) has been embodied in production
are not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (k),
and (l) of this AD, provided that no elevator servo-control having
P/N 31075-0xx, or P/N 31075-1xx, or P/N 31075-2xx, or P/N 31075-3xx,
or P/N 31075-4xx, fitted with rod eye-end assembly P/N 341203-xxx,
has been reinstalled since first flight.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit specified in paragraph
(k) of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16,
2011).
    (i) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-19-
04, Amendment 39-16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011)), using the
service information specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i)(A) through
(o)(1)(i)(E) of this AD.
    (A) Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, dated June 23, 2008, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (B) Airbus AOT A320-7A1186, Revision 01, dated August 11, 2008,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (C) Airbus AOT A320-7A1186, Revision 02, dated March 30, 2009,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (D) Airbus AOT 320-7A1186, Revision 03, dated April 1, 2009,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (E) Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009,
which was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-17-04, Amendment 39-
15995 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009), which continues to be
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-
16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011)), using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 06, dated December 14, 2010;
which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
October 21, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-
16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011)), using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 06, dated December 14, 2010, which
is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(p) New Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane an elevator servo-control having P/N 31075-0xx,
31075-1xx, or 31075-3xx.
    (2) No person may install on any airplane an elevator servo-
control having P/N 31075-2xx or P/N 31075-4xx, or an elevator servo-
control rod eye-end having P/N 341203 or P/N 341203-XXX, as required
by paragraphs (p)(2)(i) and (p)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that do not have Airbus Modification 154554
embodied in production: After optional modification of the airplane
as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 154554 has been
embodied in production: As of the effective date of this AD.

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2011-19-04, Amendment 39-
16809 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0137, dated May 28, 2014,
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-2014-0753.
    (2) Airbus Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (s)(6) and (s)(8) of this AD.

(s) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 27, 2015.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1223, dated September 3,
2013.
    (ii) UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 31075-27-22, dated
July 2, 2013.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 21, 2011 (76 FR 57630, September 16, 2011).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 07, including
Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, dated March 2, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 22, 2009 (74 FR 41611, August 18, 2009).
    (i) Airbus All Operators Telex A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated
April 3, 2009. The document number and issue date of Airbus AOT
A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009, are specified only
on the first page of the AOT.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (6) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (7) For UTC service information identified in this AD, contact
UTC Aerospace Systems; Roger Dangremont; telephone +01 34 32 63 28;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (8) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (9) 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 September 11, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-23541 Filed 9-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P