[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43315]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52, 62, and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0470; FRL-9967-50-Region 7]

State of Iowa; Approval and Promulgation of the State
Implementation Plan, the 111(d) Plan, and the Operating Permits Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Iowa the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the
111(d) plan, and the Operating Permits Program. These revisions update
and clarify rules and make minor revisions and corrections. Approval of
these revisions will ensure consistency between the state and
Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal enforceability of the
state's revised air program rules. In the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register, we are approving the state's SIP
revisions as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. EPA is
taking direct final action because we view this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained
our reasons for these actions in the Technical Support Document that is
included with this docket. If we receive no adverse comment, we will
not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0470, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on the
Iowa the SIP, the 111(d) plan, and the Operating Permits Program. We
have published a direct final rule approving these revisions in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for these actions in the
Technical Support Document that is included with this docket. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the
direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-19348 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 51935-51939]
[DOCID:fr08oc09-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60775; File No. SR-CHX-2009-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposal Relating to
Exchange Rule Regarding Clearly Erroneous Transactions

October 2, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 1, 2009, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``CHX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its rules regarding clearly erroneous
transactions. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (http://www.chx.com) and in the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Article 20, Rules 10 and 11 in
order to improve the Exchange's policies and procedures regarding
clearly erroneous executions. The proposed changes are part of a
market-wide effort designed to provide transparency and finality with
respect to clearly erroneous executions. This effort seeks to achieve
consistent results for participants across U.S. equities exchanges
while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and
protecting the public interest. The proposed changes are more fully
discussed below.
Definition
    The Exchange will maintain the meaning of the definition of a
clearly erroneous execution, but proposes to add clarifying language
with respect to cancelled trades. The proposed change identifies that a
transaction made in clearly erroneous error and agreed to be canceled
by both parties or determined by the Exchange to be clearly erroneous
will be removed ``from the Consolidated Tape.''\4\ A trade will only be
removed from the Consolidated Tape when the determination is deemed
final and any applicable appeals have been exhausted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this Rule, ``removed from the Consolidate
Tape'' means that a subsequent message will be sent to the
Consolidated Tape indicating that a previously executed trade has
been cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participant Initiated Review Requests
    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 20, Rule 10(b) to update the
procedures for requesting a review of a clearly erroneous transaction.
First, the proposed rule would require that requests for review be made
only by electronic mail (``email'') or other electronic means specified
from time to time by the Exchange. Under its current rules, the
Exchange also allows requests to be made via facsimile. Requiring
requests for review to be made via email creates a standard format that
can easily be logged and tracked. The Exchange will republish the email
address or other electronic means to be used for all clearly erroneous
filings in a circular distributed to Participants.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Article 1, Rule 1(s) defines a Participant as any
Participant Firm that holds a valid Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended rule specifies that requests for review must be
received by the Exchange within 30 minutes of the execution time for
orders initially routed to and executed on the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes that Participants submit certain essential identifying
information with the request including the time of the transaction(s),
security symbol(s), number of shares, price(s), side (bought or sold),
and factual basis for believing that the trade is clearly erroneous.
The current rule already requires requests for review to be received
within 30 minutes of the execution, but only requires submission of
such information which is ``reasonably necessary for use by the
Exchange in resolving the matter.''
    The proposed rule also requires the Exchange to notify the
counterparty to a trade upon receipt of a timely filed request for
review that satisfies the numerical guidelines set forth within the
Rule. This proposed language requires notice only when a request is
filed in a timely manner and satisfies the Numerical Guidelines. This
change alleviates any potential burden on the Exchange of notifying the
counterparty when a request for review does not merit a ruling.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 20, Rule 10 to allow an
Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee (``Officer'')
of CHX to request additional information from each party to a
transaction under review. Parties to the review will have 30 minutes
from the time of the request to provide additional supporting
information.
    Routed Executions
    The Exchange proposes to give other market centers an additional 30
minutes from the receipt of their participant's timely filing to
request a ruling, but no longer than 60 minutes from the time of the
execution under review. This provision accounts for those executions
initially directed to an away market center and subsequently routed by
that away market center to the Exchange.
    For example, assume an order is initially routed by a participant
to Market Center A and subsequently routed to the CHX where the order
is executed at a price outside of the Numerical Guidelines. This
provision generally requires Market Center A to file with the Exchange
within 30 minutes from the time it receives its participant's timely
filed request for review. This provision caps the filing deadline for
an away market center at 60 minutes from the time of the execution
under review.
    Threshold Factors
    Currently, the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous Execution rule
specifies numeric guidelines for determining what constitutes a clearly
erroneous transaction. These guidelines are an offset of at least
twenty percent (20%) from the prevailing National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO'') at the time of trade execution for transactions under $1.
For transactions at or exceeding $1, the relevant NBBO offset is ten
percent (10%). The Exchange proposes to modify its existing numerical
thresholds to conform to those being adopted by other trading centers.
    Numerical Guidelines
    The proposed numerical guidelines state that a transaction executed
during the Early Session, \6\ Regular Trading Session ,\7\ Late Trading
Session \8\ or Late Crossing Session \9\ may be found to be clearly
erroneous only if the price of the transaction to buy is greater, or
less in the case of a sale, than the reference price by an amount that
equals or exceeds the numerical guidelines for a particular transaction
category. The Reference Price shall be equal to the Consolidated Last
Sale immediately prior to the execution under review, unless unusual
circumstances are present. The proposed guidelines for sales greater
than $0.00 up to and including $25.00 are 10% for the Regular Trading
Session and 20% for the Early, Late Trading and Late Crossing Sessions.
The proposed guidelines for sales greater than $25.00

up to and including $50.00 are 5% for the Regular Trading Session and
10% for the Early, Late Trading and Late Crossing Sessions. The
proposed guidelines for sales greater than $50.00 are 3% for the
Regular Trading Session and 6% for the Early, Late Trading and Late
Crossing Sessions. A filing involving five or more securities by the
same ETP Holder will be aggregated into a single filing called a
``Multi-Stock Event.'' In the case of a Multi-Stock Event, the proposed
guidelines are 10% for the Regular Trading Session and 10% for the
Early, Late Trading and Late Crossing Sessions. In the case of
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities, the above guidelines are to be multiplied
by the leverage multiplier of the security. Executions that do not meet
or exceed the Numerical Guidelines will not be eligible for review
under this section. The following chart summarizes the proposed
Numerical Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Early Session '' shall begin at 6 a.m. and shall end at
8:30 a.m. [Central Time] and shall end at 8:30 a.m. [Central
Time].'' Article 20, Rule 1(b).
    \7\ The Regular Trading Session ``shall begin at 8:30 a.m.
[Central Time] and shall end at 3 p.m. each day for all
securities.'' Article 20, Rule 1(b).
    \8\ The Late Trading Session begins ``immediately after the
close of the second session and shall end at 3:15 p.m. [Central
Time].'' Article 20, Rule 1(b).
    \9\ The Late Crossing Session begins ``immediately after the
close of the third session and shall end at 4 p.m. [Central Time].''
Article 20, Rule 1(b).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Early, Late Trading and Late
                                             Regular Trading Session Numerical     Crossing Session Numerical
  Reference price: Consolidated Last Sale    Guidelines (subject transaction's         Guidelines (subject
                                                   % difference from the         transaction's % difference from
                                                  Consolidated Last Sale):        the Consolidated Last Sale):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00 up to and including       10%..............................  20%.
 $25.00.
Greater than $25.00 up to and including      5%...............................  10%.
 $50.00.
Greater than $50.00........................  3%...............................  6%.
Multi-Stock Event--Filings involving five    10%..............................  10%.
 or more securities by the same ETP Holder
 will be aggregated into a single filing.
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities...............  Regular Trading Session Numerical  Regular Trading Session
                                              Guidelines multiplied by the       Numerical Guidelines multiplied
                                              leverage multiplier (i.e., 2x).    by the leverage multiplier
                                                                                (i.e., 2x).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing Numerical Guidelines which are consistent with other
market centers within the Rule brings regulatory transparency and
consistency in the application of the rules of the Exchange. These
Numerical Guidelines represent the general consensus approach and were
developed based on the collective experiences of a market-wide group.
The Exchange believes that the Thresholds established are fair and
appropriate and apply evenly to all participants.

    Unusual Circumstances
    The CHX further proposes that in Unusual Circumstances the Exchange
may, in its discretion and with a view toward maintaining a fair and
orderly market, use a Reference Price other than the consolidated last
sale. Unusual Circumstances may include periods of extreme market
volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues. Other
Reference Prices that the Exchange may use would include the
consolidated inside price, the consolidated opening price, the
consolidated prior close, or the consolidated last sale prior to a
series of executions.
    The following example explains the use of a Reference Price equal
to the consolidated last sale prior to a series of executions.

    ABC has a consolidated last sale of $10.00. During the Regular
Trading Session Customer A enters a market order to buy 10,000
shares, although it had intended a market order for 1,000 shares.
The size of the order is such that the order sweeps the CHX Book,
which reflects 1,000 shares of liquidity offered at each of the
following prices. Executions occur, moving through the depth of
Book, as follows:

Trade 1--1000 shares @ $10.00 (9000 remaining)
Trade 2--1000 shares @ $10.20 (8000 remaining)
Trade 3--1000 shares @ $10.40 (7000 remaining)
Trade 4--1000 shares @ $10.60 (6000 remaining)
Trade 5--1000 shares @ $10.80 (5000 remaining)
Trade 6--1000 shares @ $11.00 (4000 remaining)
Trade 7--1000 shares @ $11.20 (3000 remaining)
Trade 8--1000 shares @ $11.40 (2000 remaining)
Trade 9--1000 shares @ $11.60 (1000 remaining)
Trade 10--1000 shares @ $11.80 (complete)
    Thus, to be eligible for review, a transaction must be at a price
that is at least 10% higher than the consolidated last sale prior to
the series of executions. Customer A could request a ruling for trades
6 through 10, priced at $11.00 and above, but trades
1 through 5 would not be eligible for review.
    Under the proposed rule the Exchange may also use a higher
numerical guideline if, after market participants have been alerted to
erroneous activity, the price of the security returns toward its prior
trading range but continues to trade beyond the price it would have
normally been busted.

    Joint Market Rulings
    In the interest of achieving consistency across markets, the
Exchange proposes that, in events that involve other markets, the
Exchange would have the ability to use a different Reference Price and/
or Numerical Guideline. In these instances the Reference Price would be
determined based on a consensus among the Exchanges where the
transactions occurred. Furthermore, when a ruling is made across
markets, the Exchange may determine that the ruling is not eligible for
appeal because immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and
orderly market and to protect investors and the public interest.

    Additional Factors
    The proposed amendments to Article 20, Rules 10 and 11 also
enumerate some additional factors that an Officer may consider when
determining whether an execution is clearly erroneous. These factors
include, but are not limited to, system malfunctions or disruptions,
volume and volatility for the security, derivative securities products
that correspond to greater than 100% in the direction of a tracking
index, news released for the security, whether trading in the security
was recently halted/resumed, whether the security is an IPO, whether
the security was subject to a stock-split, reorganization, or other
corporate action, overall market conditions, Late Session executions,
validity of the consolidated tapes trades and quotes, consideration of
primary market indications, and executions inconsistent with the
trading pattern in the stock. Each additional factor shall be
considered with a view toward maintaining a fair and orderly market,
the protection of investors and the public interest.

    Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market Opens
    The Exchange proposes to give itself the ability to expand the
Numerical Guidelines applicable to transactions occurring between 9:30
a.m. and 10 a.m. ET based on the disseminated value of the S & P 500
Futures at 9:15 a.m. ET. When the S&P Futures are up or down from 3% up
to but not including 5% at

9:15 a.m., the Numerical Guidelines are doubled. When the S&P Futures
are up or down 5% or greater at 9:15 a.m., the Numerical Guidelines are
tripled. The Exchange believes that the S&P 500 futures contract is an
appropriate and reliable barometer of market activity prior to the
market opening due to its broad based market coverage and deep
liquidity. Using the S&P 500 Futures disseminated value at 9:15 a.m. as
the barometer of market activity, the Exchange is providing a
transparent means of offering adjusted guidelines in times of volatile
market activity.

    Outlier Transactions
    The proposed amendments to Article 20, Rule 10 provide that an
Officer of the Exchange may consider requests for review received after
thirty minutes, but not longer than sixty minutes after the execution
in question in the case of an Outlier Transaction. An Outlier
Transaction is a transaction where, (1) the execution price of the
security is greater than three times the current Numerical Guidelines,
or (2) the execution price of the security breaches the 52-week high or
low, in which case the Exchange may consider Additional Factors to
determine if the transaction qualifies for review or if the Exchange
shall decline to act.
Review Procedures
    Initial Determination
    The Exchange proposes to remove language in Article 20, Rules 10
and 11 that currently allows an Officer to modify one or more of the
terms of a transaction under review. Under the proposed rule, the
Officer of the Exchange will only have the authority to break the
trades or rule to let the trades stand. This change attempts to remove
the subjectivity from the rule that is necessitated by an adjustment.
    The Exchange also proposes adding language stating that a
determination shall be made generally within 30 minutes of receipt of
the complaint, but in no case later than the start of Regular Trading
on the following trading day. Rulings made outside of 30 minutes by an
Officer will not fail for lack of timeliness. The guideline simply
provides participants an appropriate expectation that a ruling will
generally be made within 30 minutes, and in no case later than the
start of Regular Trading on the following trading day.

    Appeals
    The Exchange proposes to amend the appeals procedure for trades
that are deemed to be clearly erroneous. First, the Exchange will no
longer accept appeal requests via facsimile or in writing (i.e., hand
delivered). Similar to the proposed language for an initial request for
a ruling, all appeal requests must be made via email.
    The current rule provides that the Exchange shall review and render
a decision upon an appeal without specifying any particular timeframe
in which a decision would be provided by the Exchange. The proposed
rule offers more definite guidelines to ensure the expedient resolution
of appeals. It requires the Exchange to review appeals as soon as
practicable, but generally on the same day as the executions under
review. Appeals received between 2 p.m. CT and the close of trading in
the Late Crossing Session should be made as soon as practicable, but in
no case later than the trading day following the date of the execution
under review. This revised provision provides participants a reasonable
expectation of when a ruling on appeal will generally be made.
    Further, the proposed rule declares that any determination made by
an Officer or by the Committee on Exchange Procedure shall be rendered
without prejudice as to the right of the parties to the transaction to
submit their dispute to arbitration. This provision simply clarifies
the fact that nothing in the proposed rule limits or impedes the rights
of the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
System Disruption and Malfunctions
    Currently, Systems Disruptions and Malfunctions are addressed in
Article 20, Rule 11. The Exchange proposes to consolidate these
provisions within Article 20, Rule 10 for the sake of inter-market
consistency. Within the current System Disruptions and Malfunctions
provisions, after an Officer determines that a trade was clearly
erroneous he may declare the transaction null and void or modify the
trade to attempt to achieve and equitable rectification of the error.
The proposed Rule eliminates the Exchange's ability to modify a clearly
erroneous execution. The Exchange must either uphold or nullify the
execution based upon the findings of the Officer reviewing the
execution.
    The proposed Rule provides that, in the event of a disruption or a
malfunction, an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee
designee will rely on the proposed numerical guidelines in determining
whether an execution is clearly erroneous. However, the Officer or
senior level employee may also use a lower Numerical Guideline if
necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market, protect investors, and
protect the public interest. The proposed rule also adds that actions
taken under these circumstances must be taken within 30 minutes of
detection of the erroneous transaction in the ordinary case, and by no
later than the start of the Regular Trading Session on the day
following the date of the execution under review when extraordinary
circumstances exist.
Officers Acting on Their Own Motion
    The Exchange proposes to add a section to the Rule that will grant
Officers (or such other senior level employee designee) the ability to
act on their own motion to review potentially erroneous executions.
Under the current rule, Officers have the ability to act upon their own
motion only in the event of a system disruption or malfunction, or when
extraordinary market conditions or other circumstances exist in which
the nullification or modification of transactions may be necessary for
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market or the protection of
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule would allow an
Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee to
review executions and rely on the Numerical Guidelines, under any
circumstance. In extraordinary circumstances an Officer (or such other
senior level employee designee) may apply a lower Numerical Guideline
if it is determined that such action is necessary to maintain a fair
and orderly market or protect investors and the public interest. In
some instances the Exchange may detect a single execution that breaches
the Numerical Guidelines but is not the subject of a ruling request.
This provision gives the Exchange the ability to review such
executions. Additionally, in practice clearly erroneous executions
commonly involve multiple parties and multiple executions. In such
instances, all affected parties may not request a ruling. The Exchange
proposes this provision to permit an Officer (or such other senior
level employee designee) to rule on a group of transactions related to
the same occurrence or event as a whole, without a formal request for a
ruling from every affected party.
Trade Nullification for UTP Securities That Are Subject of Initial
Public Offerings
    The proposed rule also provides a specific policy on trade
nullification and for UTP securities that are subject to initial public
offerings. Under the proposed rule, Officers must either declare an
opening transaction null and void or decline to take action, but can no
longer be adjusted. Furthermore, the proposed rule requires that, in
extraordinary circumstances, the reviewing Officer (or such other
senior

level employee designee) may take action by no later than the start of
Regular Trading on the day following the date of the execution under
review.
Effective Date
    As noted above, the proposed rule amendments are submitted as part
of a marketwide initiative to standardize the various clearly erroneous
rules of national securities exchanges. As such, the exchanges have
agreed to a coordinated implementation and effective date of October 5,
2009 for these changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\10\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\11\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transaction in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change provides
transparency and finality for participants and creates consistent
results across U.S. equities exchanges with respect to clearly
erroneous executions. This proposed change further promotes the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the protection of investors
and the protection of the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that it may
implement the new rule on October 5, 2009, the same date as the other
equities exchanges. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the Exchange to begin applying
the new rule on the same date as the other equities exchanges.\16\
Application of the new rule on this date should help foster
transparency and consistency among those exchanges that adopt clearly
erroneous execution rules substantially similar to those previously
approved by the Commission.\17\ For these reasons, the Commission
designates that the proposed rule change become operative on October 5,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60706 (September
22, 2009), 74 FR 49416 (September 28, 2009) (NYSEArca-2009-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2009-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2009-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2009-11 and should be
submitted on or before October 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24242 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54942-54943]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21659]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70296; File No. SR-Topaz-2013-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Topaz Exchange, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees

August 30, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 26, 2013, the Topaz Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Topaz'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Topaz is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish a
surcharge fee of $0.22 per contract for non-Priority Customer orders in
options on the Nasdaq-100 Stock Index. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has entered into a license agreement with The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. in connection with the listing and trading of options
on the Nasdaq-100 Stock Index (``NDX''), and is proposing to adopt a
surcharge fee of $0.22 per contract applicable to non-Priority Customer
orders in these options to defray the licensing costs. Absent the
license agreement, market participants would be unable to trade NDX
options on the Exchange.
    This fee reflects the pass-through charges associated with the
licensing of this product, and the Exchange believes that charging the
participants that trade these instruments is the most equitable means
of recovering the costs of the license. The Exchange notes that the
proposed surcharge fee does not apply to Priority Customer orders in
this product.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed surcharge fee is reasonable because it is a direct
result of the licensing fee charged to the Exchange by the index
provider that owns the intellectual property associated with the index,
and reflects the pass-through charges associated with obtaining the
license to trade NDX options, which the Exchange believes is the most
equitable means of recovering the costs of the license. The proposed
fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all similarly situated Exchange participants, and is
assessed only on those non-Priority Customer participants who choose to
transact in NDX options. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess this surcharge on all participants
except Priority Customers because the Exchange seeks to encourage
Priority Customer order flow and the liquidity such order flow brings
to the marketplace, which in turn benefits all market participants.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\5\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. By providing all participants on the Exchange with
the ability to hedge via NDX options, the Exchange is not placing any
burden on competition among its various participants. The Exchange
further notes that the licensing agreement it has secured is not an
exclusive agreement as many other option exchanges currently trade NDX
options and charge a fee related to such license.\6\ As such, there is
no burden on competition among exchanges for the trading of NDX
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \6\ For example, NYSE Amex Options (``Amex''), NYSE Arca Options
(``Arca''), BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''), and the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') each also charge a
surcharge fee of $0.22 for trades in NDX options. See Amex Fee
Schedule, Royalty Fees; Arca Fees and Charges, Royalty Fees; BOX Fee
Schedule, Section I, Exchange Fees, Options Surcharge; and ISE
Schedule of Fees, Section VI, Other Options Fees and Rebates, Non-
Priority Customer License Surcharge for Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on

this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any
unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by Topaz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Topaz-2013-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Topaz-2013-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Topaz-2013-03, and should be submitted on or before September 27, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21659 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26874-26877]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0533; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-156-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-603 and A300 B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600R
series airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; Model A300
F4-600R series airplanes; and Model A310-203, A310-221, A310-222, A310-
304, A310-322, A310-324, and A310-325 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) that
indicates that a section of the fuselage structure above the forward
cargo door is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed
AD would require an inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling
holes at certain locations and a check of the diameter of the holes,
and repair or modification of the affected fuselage structure if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NRPM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office-EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0533; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0533;
Directorate Identifier

2016-NM-156-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and
energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments
received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD.
As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if
the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all transport
category airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For
existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule
requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its
LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive AD 2016-0178, dated September 12, 2016
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) analysis,
some structural areas were identified as requiring embodiment of a
structural modification.
    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the fuselage
structural integrity.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin
(SB) A310-53-2145 and SB A300-53-6187 to provide instructions for
structural reinforcement of the fuselage frames (FR) between FR20
Right Hand side (RH) and FR25 RH and the frame couplings between
stringer (STGR) 20 RH and STGR23 RH, hereafter collectively referred
to as `the affected fuselage structure' in this [EASA] AD.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
accomplishment of a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) of
the fastener and tooling holes, and modification of the affected
fuselage structure.

    The required actions include a rototest inspection for cracks of
the fastener and tooling holes at certain locations and a check of the
diameter of the holes, and repair or modification of the affected
fuselage structure if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0533.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus issued the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated
May 31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a
rototest inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at
certain locations, a check of the diameter of the holes, repair, and
modification of the affected fuselage structure by reinforcing the
frames between right hand FR 20 RH and FR 25 RH, or FR 21 RH and FR 25
RH, depending on the configuration; and reinforcing the frame couplings
between stringer STGR 20 RH and STGR 23 RH.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated
May 31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a
rototest inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at
certain locations, a check of the diameter of the holes, repair, and
modification of the affected fuselage structure by reinforcing the
frames between right hand FR20 RH and FR25 RH; and reinforcing the
frame couplings between STGR 20 RH and STGR 23 RH.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 132 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, check, repair, and       45 work-hours x $85 per              $2,360          $6,185        $816,420
 modification.                        hour = $3,825.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0533; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
156-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A300 B4-603 and A300 B4-622 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-605R and A300 B4-622R airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 F4-605R and A300 F4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (5) Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder that indicates that a section of the fuselage structure above
the forward cargo door is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We
are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of these
airplanes due to the failure of certain structural components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Check and Rototest Inspection of Affected Fastener and Tooling
Holes

    Before exceeding 42,500 flight cycles since the first flight of
the airplane, do a check of the diameter of the fastener holes and
tooling holes and a rototest inspection for cracks of all holes of
removed fasteners and the tooling holes at the locations specified
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31,
2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated
May 31, 2016; as applicable.

(h) Repair of Detected Cracks

    If any condition specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with 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).
Concurrently with the repair, unless the approved repair
instructions specify otherwise, modify the affected structure, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as
applicable.
    (1) Any crack is found during the rototest inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Any hole diameter is greater than or equal to the maximum
starting hole diameter specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31,
2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated
May 31, 2016; as applicable, is found during the check required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Modification

    If, during the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
crack is found and the hole diameter is less than the maximum
starting hole diameter specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31,
2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated
May 31, 2016; as applicable, before further flight, modify the
affected fuselage structure, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00,
dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145,
Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person

identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0178, dated September 12, 2016, for related
information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2017-0533.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
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>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12056 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P