[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22793-22795]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0249; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-012-AD;
Amendment 39-15490; AD 2008-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models 228-200,
228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During production testing of a batch of control cables, cracks
inside the cable terminal were detected. Despite the specified
strength at the date of delivery was achieved, it can not be
excluded that the mechanical properties of the cable will degrade.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 2, 2008.
    On June 2, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2008 (73 FR
11841). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During production testing of a batch of control cables, cracks
inside the cable terminal were detected. Despite the specified
strength at the date of delivery was achieved, it can not be
excluded that the mechanical properties of the cable will degrade.

The MCAI requires replacing rudder control cables, part number (P/N) B-
422420A00F delivered with European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Form
One tracking number RS52074/05 after January 1, 2006 (also identified
by production batch number 1141044, which is printed on the fork end
next to the P/N), with FAA-approved serviceable rudder control cables.
You

may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 17 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 15 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $20,400 or $1,200 per product.

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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-09-09 DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH: Amendment 39-15490; Docket No.
FAA-2008-0249; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-012-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 2,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and
228-212, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with rudder control cables, part number (P/N) B-
422420A00F delivered with European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Form One tracking number RS52074/05 after January 1, 2006 (also
identified by production batch number 1141044, which is printed on
the fork end next to the P/N); and
    (2) Certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During production testing of a batch of control cables, cracks
inside the cable terminal were detected. Despite the specified
strength at the date of delivery was achieved, it can not be
excluded that the mechanical properties of the cable will degrade.

The MCAI AD requires replacing rudder control cables, P/N B-
422420A00F delivered with EASA Form One tracking number RS52074/05
after January 1, 2006 (also identified by production batch number
1141044, which is printed on the fork end next to the P/N), with
FAA-approved serviceable rudder control cables.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Replace the rudder control cables identified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this AD with FAA-approved serviceable rudder control
cables following RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Alert
Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-269, dated March 23, 2007, at whichever
of the following occurs first:
    (i) Upon reaching 1,200 total hours time-in-service (TIS) on the
rudder control cables identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD or
within 30 days after June 2, 2008 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs later; or
    (ii) Within the next 3 months after June 2, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD).
    (2) As of June 2, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), do not
install any rudder control cables, P/N B-422420A00F delivered with
EASA Form One tracking number RS52074/05 after January 1, 2006 (also
identified by production batch number 1141044, which is printed on
the fork end next to the P/N).
    (3) Within 30 days after doing the replacement required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, return the removed rudder control
cables and any held as spares to the manufacturer at the address on
RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin
No. ASB-228-269, dated March 23, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) AD No. D-2007-353,
dated December 28, 2007, and RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology
Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-269, dated March 23,
2007, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228
Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-269, dated March 23, 2007, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG
Aerospace Services, Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling,
Germany.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on April 18, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9055 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51205-51210]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20969]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87056; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 104 To Specify Designated
Market Maker Requirements for Exchange Traded Products Listed on the
Exchange

September 23, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On June 7, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 104 to specify Designated
Market Maker (``DMM'') requirements for Exchange Traded Products
(``ETPs'') listed on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rules 5P and 8P.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 25, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86151 (June 19,
2019), 84 FR 29908 (June 25, 2019) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 24, 2019, the Commission extended to September 23, 2019,
the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the
proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposal.\4\ The Commission has received one comment on
the proposal.\5\ On September 18, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposal, which supersedes the original filing in its
entirety. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86460 (July 24,
2019), 84 FR 36983 (July 30, 2019).
    \5\ See Letter from Bernard B. Fudim, to Secretary, Commission
(June 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposal, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 (Dealings and
Responsibilities of DMMs) to specify DMM requirements for ETPs listed
on the Exchange pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P.
Background
    Currently, the Exchange trades securities, including ETPs, on its
Pillar trading platform on an unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'')
basis, subject to Pillar Platform Rules 1P-13P.\6\ In the next phase of
Pillar, the Exchange proposes to transition trading of Exchange-listed
securities to the Pillar trading platform, which means that DMMs would
be trading on Pillar in their assigned securities.\7\ Once transitioned
to Pillar, such securities will also be subject to the Pillar Platform
Rules 1P-13P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``UTP Security'' is defined as a security that is listed on
a national securities exchange other than the Exchange and that
trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. See
Rule 1.1.
    \7\ The Exchange has announced that, subject to rule approvals,
the Exchange will begin transitioning Exchange-listed securities to
Pillar on August 5, 2019, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Revised_Pillar_Migration_Timeline.pdf.
The Exchange will publish by separate Trader Update a complete
symbol migration schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 5P (Securities Traded) and 8P (Trading of Certain Exchange
Traded Products) provide for the listing of certain ETPs \8\ on the
Exchange that (1)

meet the applicable requirements set forth in those rules, and (2) do
not have any component NMS Stock \9\ that is listed on the Exchange or
is based on, or represents an interest in, an underlying index or
reference asset that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange. ETPs
listed under Rules 5P and 8P are ``Tape A'' listings and would be
traded pursuant to the rules applicable to NYSE-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 1.1P(k) defines ``Exchange Traded Product'' as a
security that meets the definition of ``derivative securities
product'' in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.
    \9\ NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not currently list any ETPs and anticipates that
it would not do so until Exchange-listed securities transition to
Pillar. Once an ETP is listed, it will be assigned to a DMM pursuant to
Rule 103B. The DMMs' role with respect to ETPs assigned to them will be
subject to the same DMM rules governing all other listed securities,
including Rules 36, 98, and 104. For example, DMMs will be responsible
for facilitating the opening, reopening, and close of trading for
assigned ETPs as required by Rule 104(a)(2) and (3). To facilitate DMM
trading of Exchange-listed ETPs pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P, with this
proposed change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 relating
specified DMM requirements.
Current Rule 104
    Rule 104 sets forth the obligations of Exchange DMMs. Under Rule
104(a), DMMs registered in one or more securities traded on the
Exchange are required to engage in a course of dealings for their own
account to assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market
insofar as reasonably practicable. Rule 104(a) also enumerates the
specific responsibilities and duties of a DMM, including: (1)
Maintenance of a continuous two-sided quote, which mandates that each
DMM maintain a bid or an offer at the National Best Bid (``NBB'') and
National Best Offer (``NBO'') (together, the ``NBBO'' or ``inside'') at
least 15% of the trading day for securities with a consolidated average
daily volume of less than one million shares, and at least 10% for
securities with a consolidated average daily volume equal to or greater
than one million shares,\10\ and (2) the facilitation of, among other
things, openings, re-openings, and the close of trading for the DMM's
assigned securities, all of which may include supplying liquidity as
needed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 104(a)(1)(A).
    \11\ See Rule 104(a)(2)-(3). Rule 104(e) further provides that
DMM units must provide contra-side liquidity as needed for the
execution of odd-lot quantities eligible to be executed as part of
the opening, reopening, and closing transactions but that remain
unpaired after the DMM has paired all other eligible round lot sized
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 104(f) imposes an affirmative obligation on DMMs to maintain,
insofar as reasonably practicable, a fair and orderly market on the
Exchange in assigned securities, including maintaining price continuity
with reasonable depth and trading for the DMM's own account when lack
of price continuity, lack of depth, or disparity between supply and
demand exists or is reasonably to be anticipated. The Exchange supplies
DMMs with suggested Depth Guidelines for each security in which a DMM
is registered, and DMMs are expected to quote and trade with reference
to the Depth Guidelines.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 104(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 104(g) provides that transactions on the Exchange by a DMM for
the DMM's account must be effected in a reasonable and orderly manner
in relation to the condition of the general market and the market in
the particular stock. Rule 104(g)(1) also describes certain
transactions on the Exchange by a DMM for the DMM's account must be
effected in a reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the
condition of the general market and the market in the particular stock.
In addition, if a DMM unit engages in an ``Aggressing Transaction,''
i.e., a transaction that (i) is a purchase (sale) that reaches across
the market to trade as the contra-side to the Exchange published offer
(bid); and (ii) is priced above (below) the last-differently priced
trade on the Exchange and above (below) the last differently-priced
published offer (bid) on the Exchange, such DMM is subject to specified
requirements to re-enter on the opposite side of the Aggressing
Transaction. Rule 104(g) also sets forth the re-entry obligations for
DMM transactions. Specifically, Rule 104(g)(2) provides that a DMM
unit's obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market may require re-
entry on the opposite side of the market after effecting one or more
transactions and that such re-entry should be commensurate with the
size of the transaction(s) and the immediate and anticipated needs of
the market.
    Rules 104(g)(2)(A) and (B) specify the re-entry obligations for
Aggressing Transactions. Following an Aggressing Transaction, Rule
104(g)(2)(A) requires the DMM unit to re-enter the opposite side of the
market at or before the applicable PPP for that security commensurate
with the size of the Aggressing Transaction. Under Rule 104(g)(2)(B),
immediate re-entry on the opposite side of the market at or before the
applicable PPP for the security commensurate with the size of the
Aggressing Transaction is required if the Aggressing Transaction (i) is
10,000 shares or more or has a market value of $200,000 or more, and
(ii) exceeds 50% of the published offer (bid) size.
Proposed Rule Change
    To reflect the differences in how ETPs trade and the unique role of
exchange market makers in the trading of ETPs, in order to facilitate
DMM trading of Exchange-listed ETPs pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P, the
Exchange proposes certain amendments to Rule 104.
    Unlike operating company securities listed on the Exchange, the
value of ETPs are derived from the underlying assets owned. The end-of-
day net asset value (``NAV'') of an ETP is a daily calculation based
off the most recent closing prices of the underlying assets and an
accounting of the ETP's total cash position at the time of calculation.
The NAV generally is calculated by taking the sum of fund assets,
including any securities and cash, subtracting liabilities, and
dividing by the number of outstanding shares. Additionally, ETPs are
generally subject to a creation and redemption mechanism to ensure that
the ETP's price does not fluctuate too far away from NAV, which
mechanisms mitigate the potential for exchange trading to impact the
price of an ETP.
    Moreover, each business day, ETPs make publicly available a
creation and redemption ``basket'' which may, for example, be in the
form of a portfolio composition file (i.e., a specific list of names
and quantities of securities or other assets designed to track the
performance of the portfolio as a whole). ETP shares are created when
an Authorized Participant, typically a market maker or other large
institutional investor, deposits the daily creation basket or cash with
the issuer. In return for the creation basket or cash (or both), a
``creation unit'' is issued to the Authorized Participant that consists
of a specified number of ETF shares.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, assume a given ETP is designed to track the
performance of a specific index. An Authorized Participant will
generally purchase certain of the constituent securities of that
index, then deliver those shares to the issuer. In exchange, the
issuer gives the Authorized Participant a block of equally valued
ETP shares, on a one-for-one fair value basis. This process also
works in reverse. A redemption is achieved when the Authorized
Participant accumulates a sufficient number of shares to constitute
a creation unit and then exchanges these shares with the issuer,
thereby decreasing the supply of ETP shares in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal, and perhaps most important, feature of ETPs is their

reliance on an ``arbitrage function'' performed by market participants
that influences the supply and demand of shares and, thus, trading
prices relative to NAV. As noted above, new ETP shares can be created
and existing shares redeemed based on investor demand; thus, ETP supply
is generally open-ended. As the Commission has acknowledged, the
arbitrage function helps to keep an ETP's price in line with the value
of its underlying portfolio, i.e., it minimizes deviation from NAV.\14\
Generally, the higher the liquidity and trading volume of an ETP, the
more likely the ETP's price will not deviate from the value of its
underlying portfolio. Market makers registered in ETPs play a key role
in this arbitrage function and DMMs, along with other market
participants, would perform this role for ETPs listed on the Exchange.
In short, the Exchange believes that the arbitrage mechanism is
generally an effective and efficient means of ensuring that intraday
pricing in ETPs closely tracks the value of the underlying portfolio or
reference assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75165, 80 FR 34729,
34733 (June 17, 2015) (S7-11-15) (arbitrage ``generally helps to
prevent the market price of ETP Securities from diverging
significantly from the value of the ETP's underlying or reference
assets''). See also generally id., 80 FR at 34739 (``In the
Commission's experience, the deviation between the daily closing
price of ETP Securities and their NAV, averaged across broad
categories of ETP investment strategies and over time periods of
several months, has been relatively small[,]'' although it had been
``somewhat higher'' in the case of ETPs based on international
indices.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect the role of market makers--including DMMs--in the
trading of ETPs, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 in several
respects. First, the Exchange proposes to exclude ETPs from the re-
entry obligations for Aggressing Transactions in Rule 104(g)(2) (Re-
Entry Obligations). The Exchange believes that because of the unique
characteristics of ETPs--in particular, that ETPs trade at intra-day
market prices rather than at NAV and the existence of arbitrage pricing
mechanisms that are designed to help ensure that secondary market
prices of ETP shares do not vary substantially from the NAV--the re-
entry obligations set forth in Rule 104(g)(2) not only are not
necessary, but also could impede the ability of a DMM to effectively
make markets in ETPs. For example, a market maker engaging in the
arbitrage function may need to update the quote for an ETP to bring the
price of the security in line with the underlying assets. If updating
the quote consistent with that arbitrage function were to require the
DMM to first to engage in an Aggressing Transaction (i.e., to trade
with the existing BBO in order to post a new quote), the Exchange
believes that the current re-entry obligations for Aggressing
Transactions would defeat the purpose of the DMM engaging in such
Aggressing Transaction to update the quote in the first place. More
specifically, the re-entry obligation could be inconsistent with the
new quote that the DMM is seeking to post as part of the arbitrage
function. Indeed, the Exchange believes that without the proposed
changes, DMMs assigned to ETPs would be at a competitive disadvantage
vis-[agrave]-vis registered market makers in the same ETP on competing
exchanges as well as other market participants on the NYSE and would be
impeded in their ability to effectively make competitive markets in
their assigned ETP securities.
    To maintain the balance between DMM benefits and obligations under
Rule 104, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 to require heightened
DMM quoting obligations for Exchange-listed ETPs. As proposed, for
listed ETPs, DMMs would be required to maintain a bid or offer at the
NBB and NBO at least 25% of the trading day. Time at the inside for
ETPs would be calculated in the same way as other securities in which
DMM units are registered as the average of the percentage of time the
DMM unit has a bid or offer at the inside. In other words, this would
be a portfolio-based quoting requirement. Orders entered by the DMM in
ETPs that are not displayed would not be included in the inside quote
calculation as is also currently the case for other securities in which
DMM units are registered. Reserve or other non-displayed orders entered
by the DMM in their assigned ETP would not be included in the inside
quote calculations.
    To effectuate this change, Rule 104(a)(1)(A) would be amended as
follows:
     The phrase ``for securities in which the DMM unit is
registered'' would be added following the first sentence in Rule
104(a)(1)(A) and the comma following that initial sentence would be
removed;
     New subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) would be created;
     The phrase ``that are not ETPs'' would be added following
``at least 15% of the trading day for securities'' in new subsection
(i) and ``in which the DMM unit is registered'' would be deleted;
     The phrase ``of the trading day'' \15\ would added after
``at least 10%'' and ``that are not ETPs'' would be added after ``for
securities'' in new subsection (ii). The phrase ``in which the DMM unit
is registered'' would be deleted since it would appear in the first
sentence of the amended rule;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This is a non-substantive conforming change that would
mirror the current rule text for the 15% requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New subdivision (iii) providing that DMM units must
maintain a bid or an offer at the inside ``at least 25% of the trading
day for ETPs'' would be added;
     The phrase ``respective percentage'' would replace ``15%
and 10%'' in the next to last sentence of Rule 104(a)(1)(A) and ``non-
displayed'' would replace ``hidden'' in the last sentence of the rule;
and
     The phrase ``other than Aggressing Transactions involving
an ETP'' would be added to Rule 104(g)(2)(A) and (B) following
``Following an Aggressing Transaction.''
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to replace
the terms ``stock'' and ``stocks'' in Rule 104(f)(2) (Function of DMMs)
with the terms ``security'' and ``securities,'' respectively, and to
replace the term ``stock'' in Rule 104(g)(1) with ``security.'' The
Exchange would also add a new subsection (5) to Rule 104(f) providing
that, for those ETPs in which they are registered, DMM units will be
responsible for the affirmative obligation of maintaining a fair and
orderly market, including maintaining price continuity with reasonable
depth for their registered ETPs in accordance with Depth Guidelines
published by the Exchange. To provide the Exchange time to collect
trading data adequate to calculate appropriate Depth Guidelines for
listed ETPs, the Exchange proposes that these provisions would not be
operative until 18 weeks after the approval of the proposed rule change
by the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62479 (July
9, 2010), 75 FR 41264, 41265 (July 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-31)
(providing for a delayed implementation of Depth Guidelines to
enable the collection of trading data adequate to calculate the
guidelines in connection with the Floor-based DMM trading of Nasdaq
securities on a UTP basis). Such an approach is necessary so that
appropriate Depth Guidelines may be calculated based on actual
trading data on the Exchange. Accordingly, following implementation
and roll-out of the pilot program, the Exchange proposes to collect
60 trading days of trade data before implementing Depth Guidelines
for trading ETPs securities on the Exchange within 30 calendar days
of the collection of the trade data. See generally id., 75 FR at
41267 & n. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\18\ in particular, because it is 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 mechanisms of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed requirements for
DMM trading of ETPs would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
facilitating market making by DMMs in listed ETPs and maintaining the
Exchange's current structure to trade listed securities. The Exchange
believes that the proposed exclusion of listed ETPs from the
requirements of Rule 104(g)(2) would not be inconsistent with the
public interest and the protection of investors because the unique
characteristics of ETPs, including that ETPs trade at intra-day market
prices rather than end-of-day NAV and are constrained by arbitrage
pricing mechanisms that are designed to ensure that secondary market
prices of ETP shares do not vary substantially from the NAV, render
those obligations unnecessary or potentially even harmful. As discussed
above, the Exchange also believes the DMM obligations set forth in Rule
104(g)(2) could impede the ability of a DMM to effectively make markets
in ETPs.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed heightened quoting
obligations for DMMs in listed ETPs requiring maintenance of a bid or
offer at the inside of at least 25% of the trading day would maintain
the balance of benefits and obligations under Rule 104 because
exclusion of listed ETPs from the re-entry requirements for Aggressing
Transactions under Rule 104(g)(2) would be offset by the heightened DMM
quoting obligations for listed ETPs. DMMs would also be required to
facilitate the opening, reopening, and closing of listed ETPs assigned
to them, as required by Rule 104(a)(2) and (3), which is an obligation
unique to the Exchange. As noted, listed ETPs would also be subject to
the requirement that DMM transactions be effected in a reasonable and
orderly manner in relation to the condition of the general market and
the market in the particular stock. These safeguards are designed to
ensure that DMM transactions in listed ETPs bear a reasonable
relationship to overall market conditions and that DMMs cannot
destabilize, inappropriately influence or manipulate a security. For
the same reasons, the proposal would not alter or disrupt the balance
between DMM benefits and obligations of being an Exchange DMM.
    The proposed heightened quoting obligation for listed ETPs assigned
to a DMM would also encourage additional stable displayed liquidity on
the Exchange in listed securities, thereby promoting price discovery
and transparency. The Exchange further believes that by establishing
distinct requirements for DMMs, the proposal is also designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote
just and equitable principles of trade.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors. As noted, the
proposal would subject DMMs to the Exchange's current structure for
trading listed securities and the responsibilities and duties of DMMs
set forth in Rule 104, including facilitating openings, reopenings, and
closings and adding a heightened quoting obligation at the inside. In
addition, the proposed rule would subject listed ETPs to the
requirement that all DMM transactions be effected in a reasonable and
orderly manner in relation to the condition of the general market and
the market in the particular stock. Although the implementation of
Depth Guidelines will be delayed, DMM units will still have the
obligation once ETPs are listed and begin trading to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The Exchange believes that the delayed
implementation of Depth Guidelines will allow it to develop guidelines
that are appropriately tailored for how ETPs will trade on the
Exchange, which should improve the DMM units' ability to maintain a
fair and orderly market and also the broader market for those
securities here on the Exchange and on other markets.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
would promote competition by facilitating the listing and trading of
ETPs on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that without this proposed
change, DMMs assigned to ETPs would be at a competitive disadvantage
vis-[agrave]-vis registered market makers in the same ETP on competing
exchanges or other market participants on the NYSE because if they were
required to comply with the re-entry requirements for Aggressing
Transactions in Rule 104(g)(2), they would be impeded in their ability
to effectively make markets in their assigned ETP securities. The
Exchange believes that the proposed heightened DMM quoting obligations
in listed ETPs would promote competition by promoting the display of
liquidity on an exchange, which would benefit all market participants.
These proposed rule changes would facilitate the trading of Exchange-
listed ETPs by DMMs on Pillar, which would enable the Exchange to
further compete with unaffiliated exchange competitors that also trade
ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, as modified by Amendment No.
1, and the comments received, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\21\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities 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 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; and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
which provides that the rules of a national securities exchange must
not ``impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of'' the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the propose rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to alter certain requirements of NYSE
Rule 104 (Dealings and Responsibilities of DMMs) with respect to ETPs.
Currently, under NYSE Rule 104(g)(1), DMMs are prohibited from engaging
in Aggressing Transactions in the last ten minutes prior to the
scheduled close of trading that would result in a new high (low) price
for a security on the Exchange for the day at the time of the DMM's
transaction (``Prohibited Transactions''). Furthermore, DMMs are
subject to certain quote re-entry obligations, following an Aggressing
Transaction, under NYSE Rule 104(g)(2).
    In its original proposal, the Exchange proposed to exclude DMM
transactions in ETPs from the definition of ``Aggressing Transactions''
in NYSE Rule 104(g)(1) and, by extension, to exempt DMM transactions in
ETPs from the rule on Prohibited Transactions. The Exchange also
proposed to exclude Aggressing Transactions in ETPs from the DMM re-
entry obligations in NYSE Rule 104(g)(2). The Exchange also proposed to
require DMMs in ETPs to meet heightened quoting obligations for listed
ETPs, requiring DMMs to maintain a quote at the national best bid or
offer at least 25% of the trading day for ETPs (rather than the current
requirement of 15% of the trading day for non-ETPs).
    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange amended its original proposal
significantly to no longer seek to exclude DMM transactions in ETPs
from definition of Aggressing Transactions and thereby no longer seek
to exempt DMM transactions in ETPs from the rule on Prohibited
Transactions.\24\ As amended, the proposal would make two main
substantive changes: (1) Exclude Aggressing Transactions in ETPs from
the quote re-entry obligations in NYSE Rule 104(g)(2), and (2) require
DMMs to meet heightened quoting obligations for ETPs during the trading
day (maintaining bids or offers at the inside at least 25% of the
trading day, instead of 15% of the trading day as required for non-
ETPs).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In the one comment letter received on the proposed rule
change, the commenter states that ``any rule changes that might
negatively affect the ability of the designated market manager to
maintain the best interests of the investing public should not be
impaired [sic].'' See supra note 5. As noted above, the Commission
believes that Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
    \25\ As in the original proposal, the Exchange further proposes
to apply the requirements pertaining to the function of DMMs in NYSE
Rule 104(f)(2) and (3) to DMMs in ETPs on a delayed basis--upon
implementation of the Depth Guidelines, but in no event later than
eighteen weeks after the approval of this proposed rule change by
the Commission. Similarly, the Exchange also proposes certain non-
substantive changes to the rule text of NYSE Rule 104 (e.g.,
replacing the term ``stock'' with ``security'') to accommodate the
listing of ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange proposes to relieve DMMs in ETPs from the quote
re-entry obligations in NYSE Rule 104(g)(2), the Exchange has argued
that such an exclusion is necessary because DMMs engaging in an
arbitrage function to keep an ETP's share price in line with the value
of the ETP's underlying assets may need to update their quotes to align
the price of the ETP and the value of the underlying assets, and may
need to engage in Aggressing Transactions in the process. Therefore,
the Exchange argues that requiring a DMM to re-enter a quote on the
opposite side of the Aggressing Transaction would defeat the purpose of
entering into the Aggressing Transaction to update its quote as part of
the arbitrage function.\26\ Although the Exchange proposes to ease
these DMM quoting obligations, it also proposes to strengthen other DMM
quoting obligations in ETPs (i.e., increasing the inside quoting
obligation from 15% to 25%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange also asserts that, without this proposed
change, DMMs assigned to ETPs would be at a competitive disadvantage
as compared to registered market makers in the same ETP on competing
exchanges on the Exchange and would be impeded in their ability to
effectively make competitive markets in their assigned ETP
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's amended proposal with
respect to DMMs in ETPs is consistent with the Act. In 2015, when the
Commission approved the NYSE's proposal to make the New Market Model
permanent,\27\ the Commission noted the Prohibited Transactions
rule,\28\ among other aspects of the New Market Model, and reiterated
that the pilot program had been conducted, among other reasons, to seek
``further evidence that the benefits proposed for DMMs are not
disproportionate to their obligations.'' \29\ Given that the Exchange
has proposed to offset relief from one quoting obligation with another
heightened quoting obligation, and in light of the other requirements
of NYSE Rule 104 that would continue to apply to DMM transactions in
ETPs--particularly the requirements that DMMs assist in the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets and that transactions by DMMs be effected
in a reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the condition of the
general market and the market of a particular security \30\--the
Commission believes that the proposal would not substantially alter the
balance of DMM benefits and obligations previously approved by the
Commission.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75578 (July 31,
2015), 80 FR 47008 (Aug. 6, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-26) (``NMM Approval
Order'').
    \28\ See NMM Approval Order, 80 FR at 47010.
    \29\ See id. at 47013.
    \30\ See NYSE Rule 104(a) and (g), respectively.
    \31\ The proposal would delay the operation of NYSE Rule
104(f)(2) and (3) to DMMs in ETPs until the implementation of Depth
Guidelines by the Exchange (but in no event later than eighteen
weeks after the approval of this proposed rule change by the
Commission). The Exchange represents that this delay is necessary to
provide the Exchange time to collect trading data adequate to
calculate the appropriate Depth Guidelines for listed ETPs. The
Commission notes that this aspect of the proposal is consistent with
a previous proposal approved by the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 62479 (July 9, 2010), 75 FR 41264, 41265
(July 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified By
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, Amendment No. 1
substantially modifies the original proposed rule change with respect
to excluding ETPs Rule from the requirements in Rule 104(g) relating to
Aggressing Transactions, narrowing the proposed rule change
significantly so that the only substantive change to the existing rule
would be to exclude Aggressing Transactions by DMMs in ETPs from the
quote re-entry obligations and to increase the requirements for DMM
quoting at the inside market in ETPs. As noted above, the Commission
does not believe that the proposal substantially alters the balance of
DMM benefits and obligations previously approved by the

Commission.\32\ Amendment No. 1 made no other substantive changes to
proposal as published in the original Notice.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 31 and accompanying text.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\34\ to approve the proposed rule change, SR-NYSE-
2018-34, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to 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-NYSE-2019-34 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-NYSE-2019-34. 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-NYSE-2019-34 and should be submitted on
or before October 18, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20969 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63705-63707]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22226]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0751; FRL-9952-33-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; MS Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of
Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) on February 28, 2013, to demonstrate that the State
meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. The MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2010 NO2 NAAQS are
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. With the
exception of the state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income, for which EPA is disapproving, EPA has
determined portions of Mississippi's SIP submission, provided to EPA on

February 28, 2013, satisfies certain required infrastructure elements
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0751. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Richard Wong can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On January 22, 2010, (published at 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010),
EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a
level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were
required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA
no later than January 22, 2013.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on May 24, 2016, EPA proposed to
approve Mississippi's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submission submitted on February 28, 2013, with the exception of
the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs
1, 2, and 4), and the state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). On March 18, 2015
(80 FR 14019), EPA approved Mississippi's February 28, 2013,
infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements
for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J)
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not taking
any action today pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i),
and (J). Additionally, on May 25, 2016, EPA took final action on prong
4 of D(i) element of Mississippi's February 28, 2013, SIP submission
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and is not acting on this
prong in this action. See 81 FR 33139. With respect to the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2),
Mississippi provided a separate submission on July 14, 2016. EPA is
considering action on Mississippi's submission related to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) through a separate action. The
details of Mississippi's submission and the rationale for EPA's actions
for this final rulemaking are explained in the May 24, 2016, proposed
rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before
June 23, 2016. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.

II. Final Action

    With regard to the state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of
Mississippi's February 28, 2013, infrastructure submission. Under
section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that
addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan, or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call), starts a sanctions clock. The portion of
the submittal being disapproved in this notice (the portion addressing
certain provisions of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)) was not submitted to
meet requirements for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, no sanctions
will be triggered. However, this final action will trigger the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves
the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP. With the
exceptions described above, EPA is taking final action to approve
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS because these portions of the submission are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is 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.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is 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
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 15, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 2, 2016.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e), is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                   EPA Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           State
                                                                         submittal
 Name of  nonregulatory  SIP provision    Applicable  geographic or        date/               EPA approval date                    Explanation
                                             nonattainment  area         effective
                                                                           date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        Mississippi.................      02/28/2013  09/16/2016, [Insert Federal          With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2                                                  Register citation].                  sections: 110(a)(2)(C) and
 National Ambient Air Quality Standard.                                                                                (J) concerning PSD
                                                                                permitting requirements;
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)
                                                                                (prongs 1 through 4)
                                                                                concerning interstate
                                                                                transport requirements and
                                                                                the state board majority
                                                                                requirements respecting
                                                                                significant portion of
                                                                                income of section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1272 is amended by adding a paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1272  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (d) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Mississippi, through
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on February
28, 2013, to address the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) concerning state board majority requirements
respecting significant portion of income of section 128(a)(1). EPA is
disapproving MDEQ's submittal with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
because a majority of board members may still derive a significant
portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders
issued by the Mississippi Boards, and therefore, its current SIP does
not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2016-22226 Filed 9-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52181-52184]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0190; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-188-AD;
Amendment 39-17959; AD 2014-17-06]
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) 2011-17-08 for
all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter
series airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2011-17-08
required revising the maintenance program by incorporating certain
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs). This new AD requires a revision
to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
new or revised structural inspection requirements. This AD was prompted
by a revision of certain airworthiness limitations items (ALI)
documents, which specifies more restrictive instructions and/or
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in certain structure, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 8, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 8,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
September 30, 2011 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0190; 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS--
Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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
425-227-1221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, 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 2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303,
August 26, 2011), which superseded AD 2006-09-07, Amendment 39-14577
(71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006). AD 2011-17-08 applied to all Airbus Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes,
and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19294). The NPRM was prompted by a
revision of certain airworthiness limitations items (ALI) documents,
which specifies more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness
limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance
program by incorporating certain ALIs. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in certain
structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0211, dated October 12, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes,
and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and
published in the Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS).
    The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently specified in
Airbus A330 ALI, Airbus Document reference AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97,
which is approved by EASA and referenced in Airbus ALS Part 2.
    Issue 19 of the Airbus A330 ALI Document introduces more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. Failure to comply with the relevant instructions could
result in an unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2010-0174 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/
easaad20100174superseded.pdf/
AD2010-01741] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-
17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011)], which is
superseded, and requires the implementation of the new or more
restrictive maintenance instructions and/or airworthiness
limitations as specified in Airbus A330 ALI Document reference AI/
SE-M4/95A.0089/97 issue 19.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in
certain structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
0190-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 19294, April 8,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or
misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/
operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of
deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The
Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other
information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a

manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's
EASA design organization approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized are not EASA-approved, unless
EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data 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
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 19294, April 8, 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 19294, April 8, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 30 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772
(76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011), and retained in this AD take about 1
work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were
required by AD 2011-17-08 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $2,550, or $85 per product.

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-2014-0190; 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)
2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-17-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-17959. Docket No. FAA-2014-0190;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-188-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 8, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303,
August 26, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -
243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
inspections.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness
limitations items (ALI)

documents, which specifies more restrictive instructions and/or
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in certain
structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011), with
no changes. Within 3 months after September 30, 2011 (the effective
date of this AD 2011-17-08): Revise the maintenance program by
incorporating Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010. At
the times specified in Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010,
comply with all applicable maintenance requirements and associated
airworthiness limitations included in Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/
95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17,
dated May 28, 2010.

(h) Retained Requirement: No Alternative Intervals or Limits

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011), with
no changes. Except as provided by paragraphs (i) and (k)(1) of this
AD, after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternatives to the maintenance tasks, intervals, or
limitations specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be used.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by
incorporating Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012;
``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2)
Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation
reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and ``Variation
to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage
Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation
reference 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013.
    (2) Comply with all applicable instructions and airworthiness
limitations included in Airbus Document AI/SE M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012;
``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2)
Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation
reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and ``Variation
to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage
Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation
reference 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013. The initial
compliance times for the actions specified Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/
95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 19,
dated March 23, 2012; ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document
(referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation
Items (DT ALI),'' variation reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October
24, 2012; and ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in
ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT
ALI),'' 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013; are at the times
specified in Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012;
``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2)
Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation
ref. 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and ``Variation to
Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),'' variation ref.
0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013; or within 3 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the
revision in this paragraph ends the requirements in paragraph (g) of
this AD.

(j) New Optional Compliance

    Compliance with tasks 533021-02-01, 533021-02-02, and 533021-02-
03, specified in ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced
in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT
ALI),'' variation ref. 0GVLG120022/C0S, dated December 21, 2012, may
be used as a method of compliance to tasks 533021-01-01, 533021-01-
02, 533021-01-03 specified in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Section 2,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Airbus Document AI/SE M4/95A.0089/
97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 19, dated March
23, 2012.

(k) New Requirement: No Alternative Intervals or Limits

    Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, after the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised
as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions
(e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, 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: Vladimir
Ulyanov, 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>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. AMOCs
approved previously for AD 2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR
53303, August 26, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraph (g) 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 the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

 (m) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0211,
dated October 12, 2012, for related information. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0190-0002.

(n) 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
October 8, 2014.
    (i) Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012.
    (ii) ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS
Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),''
variation ref. 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012.
    (iii) ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS
Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),''
variation ref. 0GVLG120022/C0S, dated December 21, 2012.
    (iv) ``Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS
Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI),''
variation ref. 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 30, 2011 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011).
    (i) Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (6) 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.
    (7) 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 August 15, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20258 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P