[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19316-19318]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91493; File No. SR-ICC-2021-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Management
Model Description

April 7, 2021.
    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 March 31, 2021, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by ICC. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to make
changes to ICC's Risk Management Model Description. These revisions do
not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes revising its Risk Management Model Description to
include an enhancement related to the index liquidity charge (``LC'')
methodology and other clarifications. ICC believes that such revisions
will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to make such
changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule
change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
    ICC proposes to amend the ``Initial Margin Methodology'' section of
the Risk Management Model Description. The proposed changes memorialize
the review and approval process of the document, which consists of
review by the Risk Committee and review and approval by the Board at
least annually.
    ICC proposes to revise the ``Liquidity Charge for Index Risk
Factors'' subsection (Subsection II.2) to include an enhancement
related to the index LC methodology. The proposed changes amend a
formula for the index series LC. Currently, to arrive at the index
series LC, ICC takes into account the estimated LCs for the instruments
that belong to the same index series and the sign of the notional
amount of the instrument. Under the proposed changes, the index series
LC is established as the more

conservative liquidity requirement associated with the sum of the
bought and sold protection position LCs for the instruments that belong
to the same index series. Such enhancement represents a unification of
the index LC with the single name and credit default index swaption
(``Index Option'') \3\ LC methodologies. ICC does not propose any
further changes to the methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Index Swaptions are also referred to herein and in the Risk
Management Model Description as ``index options'' or ``index CDS
options'', or in similar terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposes additional clarifications in the Risk Management Model
Description. In the ``Liquidity Charge for Index Options'' subsection
(Subsection II.2.1), ICC proposes a clarification with respect to long
Index Option instruments to specify that the LC combined with the
integrated spread response requirement will not exceed the end-of-day
option instrument price. Such amendment reflects the maximum loss
condition. In the ``Anti-Procyclicality Measures'' subsection
(Subsection VII.5.3), ICC proposes clarifications regarding the
scenarios associated with extreme price decreases and extreme price
increases (the ``Extreme Price Change Scenarios''). Specifically, the
proposed changes clarify that the extreme price decrease and increase
scenarios for Index Options incorporate hypothetical forward price
decreases and increases, respectively. Further, in respect of the
maximum loss condition, ICC proposes to update formulas related to the
final portfolio initial margin in the ``Portfolio Loss Boundary
Condition'' section (Section IX) to incorporate reference to the
portfolio level integrated spread response.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\
requires that the rule change be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest. The proposed amendments include an enhancement related
to the index LC methodology. Such enhancement represents a unification
of the index LC with the single name and Index Option LC methodologies,
which would simplify the LC methodology and promote ease of
understanding. The proposed rule change would also strengthen the
governance arrangements set out in the Risk Management Model
Description by memorializing the review and approval process for the
document. The proposed clarifications would further ensure readability
and clarity with respect to ICC's risk methodology in the Risk
Management Model Description to ensure that it remains up-to-date,
clear, and transparent to support the effectiveness of ICC's risk
management system. The proposed rule change is therefore consistent
with the prompt and accurate clearing and settlement of the contracts
cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of
investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) \8\ requires each covered clearing
agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance
arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify clear and
direct lines of responsibility. ICC's Risk Management Model Description
clearly assigns and documents responsibility and accountability for
risk decisions and requires consultation or approval from relevant
parties. The proposed changes strengthen the governance procedures and
arrangements detailed in the Risk Management Model Description by
memorializing the review and approval of the document by relevant
groups at least annually. As such, in ICC's view, the proposed rule
change continues to ensure that ICC maintains policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to provide for clear and transparent
governance arrangements and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) \10\ requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management
framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity,
operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks
that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which
includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to
identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in
or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review
on a specified periodic basis and approved by the Board annually. ICC
maintains a sound risk management framework that identifies, measures,
monitors, and manages the range of risks that it faces. The Risk
Management Model Description is a key aspect of ICC's risk management
approach, and the proposed amendments would memorialize that the
document is reviewed by the Risk Committee and reviewed and approved by
the Board at least annually. As such, the amendments would satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) \12\ requires each covered clearing agency
to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including
by maintaining additional financial resources at the minimum to enable
it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include,
but are not limited to, the default of the two participant families
that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for
the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
The proposed changes promote the soundness of the model including by
enhancing the index LC methodology, such that the index series LC is
established as the more conservative liquidity requirement associated
with the sum of the bought and sold protection position LCs for the
instruments that belong to the same index series. Such enhancement
represents a unification of the index LC with the single name and Index
Option LC methodologies, which would simplify the LC methodology and
promote ease of understanding. ICC proposes additional clarifications
discussed above related to the maximum loss condition and the Extreme
Price Change Scenarios. In ICC's view, the proposed changes enhance and
provide further clarity and transparency on ICC's risk methodology and,
as such, the proposed amendments would strengthen ICC's ability to
maintain its financial resources and withstand the pressures of
defaults,

consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) \14\ requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market. As described above, the proposed changes amend a formula
with respect to the index series LC, which would unify the index LC
with the single name and Index Option LC methodologies. ICC does not
propose to otherwise change the methodology. The additional
clarifications in respect of the maximum loss condition and the Extreme
Price Change Scenarios further promote clarity and transparency in the
Risk Management Model Description. ICC believes that the proposed
changes enhance the margin methodology, which will continue to consider
and produce margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular
attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market, consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to
ICC's Risk Management Model Description will apply uniformly across all
market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule
change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-ICC-2021-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2021-008. 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 such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2021-008 and should be
submitted on or before May 4, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07492 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54791-54792]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

Proposed Additional Airworthiness Design Standards: Advanced
Avionics Under the Special Class (JAR-VLA) Regulations; Aquila Aviation
by Excellence GmbH, Model AT01-100.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the issuance of the design criteria
for the inclusion of advance avionics with intergrated electronic
displays for the Aquila Aviation by Excellence GmbH AT01-100. These
additional provisions are expansions of the existing JAR-VLA (Joint
Aviation Requirements-Very Light Aircraft) and CS-VLA regulations as
the current regulations do not adequetely address these types of
systems. The current regulations only address traditional federated
gauges. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has not expanded the
VLA regulations for these types of installation on these types of
airplanes through EASA special conditions or new regulations. These
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design criteria are being
proposed to help initiate standards for this type of airplane without
being overburdensome and to encourage EASA to follow suit.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-112), Aircraft
Certification Service, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO
64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
Standards Office (ACE-112), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number
(816) 329-4090, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any person may obtain a copy of this
information by contacting the person named above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Background

    The original certification of the aircraft was done under the
provisions of 14 CFR 21.29, as a Sec.  21.17(b), special class
aircraft, JAR-VLA, using the requirements of JAR-VLA Amendment VLA/92/
01 as developed by the Joint Aviation Authority, and under Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations and two additional design criteria
issued on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 56809).
    The regulation applicable to the Amended Type Certificate (TC)
approval is Sec.  21.17(b). This section describes the regulatory basis
for the approval of JAR-VLA and CS-VLA aircraft as a special class.
Policy on this subject includes AC 23-11B and AC 21.17-3.
    FAA policy expressed in AC 23-11B and AC 21.17-3 limits JAR-VLA and
CS-VLA aircraft approved under Sec.  21.17(b), to Day-VFR operations.
Additionally, the FAA also published design criteria to allow expansion
of the Aquila AT01-100 airplane to include Night-VFR as shown in NPRM
75 FR 32576. In conjunction with the expansion to Night-VFR operations
intergrated avionic displays are to be installed on the Aquila AT01-100
airplane.
    EASA allowed the applicant to comply with CS-23 regulations for the
intergrated avionic displays installed on the Aquila AT01-100 airplane
and made them part of the EASA certification basis, but did not publish
these additional requirements as Special Conditions as they did for the
Night-VFR expansion. The FAA's system does not allow this type of
additional requirements, such as 14 CFR part 23 regulations, to be
added to a special class, Sec.  21.17(b) airplane without being
publically noticed either through design criteria or expansion of the
existing AC 23-11B. This is the reason for this design criteria
noticification.
    The FAA has concluded that it is acceptable to allow advanced
intergrated avionic systems for certification on the Aquila Model AT01-
100 under the special class amended TC project AT00651CE-A, provided
the applicant complies with the below listed design criteria based on
existing part 23 regulations at the described amendment levels.
Revisions to AC 23-11B and AC 21.17-3 will be made to address future
airplanes that wish to allow these installations.
    To satisfy the additional required design criteria for the Special
Class (JAR-VLA) Regulations of Sec.  21.17(b), Aquila Aviation by
Excellence GmbH has agreed with the FAA to use the 14 CFR part 23
regulations for their Model AT01-100, as shown on the FAA G-1 Issue
Paper. The applicable criteria for the installation of advanced avionic
displays on the Aquila AT01-100 are as follows:

14 CFR 23.867 at amendment 23-49, ``Electrical bonding and protection
against lightning and static electricity''
14 CFR 23.1307 at amendment 23-49, ``Miscellaneous Equipment''
14 CFR 23.1311 at amendment 23-62, ``Electronic Display Instrument
Systems''
14 CFR 23.1321 at amendment 23-49, ``Arrangement and visibility''
14 CFR 23.1359 at amendment 23-49, ``Electrical System Fire
Protection''.

In addition to the above five regulations that will be used for design
criteria, the FAA has also developed a methods of compliance (MOC)
issue paper for VLA-1309 for this type of installation.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested parties to submit comments on the proposed
airworthiness standards to the address specified above. Commenters must
identify the Aquila Model AT01-100 and submit comments to the address
specified above. The FAA will consider all communications received on
or before the closing date before issuing the final acceptance. The
proposed airworthiness design standards and comments received may be
inspected at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, Standards Office (ACE-110), 901 Locust Street,
Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. weekdays, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 5, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20150 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 52436-52438]
[DOCID:fr09se08-146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58443; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change to Reduce the Monthly Fee for NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices

August 29, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 28, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the fixed monthly fee that applies
to its ``NYSE Realtime Reference Prices'' service, a service that the
Exchange is currently providing on a pilot test basis. There is no new
rule text.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item III 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
    In File No. SR-NYSE-2007-04 (the ``NYSE Realtime Reference Prices

Filing''),\3\ the Exchange established a pilot program to provide a new
NYSE-only market data service that allows a vendor to redistribute on a
real-time basis last sale prices of transactions that take place on the
Exchange. The Exchange intends for the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices
service to provide a low-cost service that will make real-time prices
widely available to many millions of casual investors, to provide
vendors with a real-time substitute for delayed prices, and to relieve
vendors of all administrative burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57966 (June 16,
2008), 73 FR 35182 (June 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pilot program, which is currently scheduled to terminate on
November 1, 2008, allows internet service providers, traditional market
data vendors, and others (``NYSE-Only Vendors'') to make available NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices on a real-time basis.\4\ NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices information includes last sale prices for all
securities that are traded on the Exchange. It includes only prices. It
does not include the size of each trade and does not include bid/asked
quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that it will make the NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices available to vendors no earlier than it makes those
prices available to the processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the pilot program, the Exchange will not permit NYSE-Only
Vendors to provide NYSE Realtime Reference Prices in a context in which
a trading or order-routing decision can be implemented unless the NYSE-
Only Vendor also provides consolidated displays of Network A last sale
prices available in an equivalent manner, as Rule 603(c)(1) of
Regulation NMS requires.
    The NYSE Realtime Reference Price pilot program features a flat,
fixed monthly vendor fee, no user-based fees, no vendor reporting
requirements, and no professional or non-professional subscriber
agreements. For the duration of the pilot program, the Exchange
established a monthly flat fee that entitles a vendor to receive access
to the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices datafeed. The vendor may use that
access to provide unlimited NYSE Realtime Reference Prices to an
unlimited number of the vendor's subscribers and customers.
    The Exchange set the flat fee at $100,000 per month. The purpose of
this proposed rule change is to reduce the flat monthly fee from
$100,000 to $70,000. This fee enables vendors to make NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices available without having to differentiate between
professional subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without
having to account for the extent of access to the data, and without
having to report the number of users.
    The Exchange believes that the existing fee enables internet
service providers and traditional vendors that have large numbers of
casual investors as subscribers and customers to contribute to the
Exchange's operating costs in a manner that is appropriate for their
means of distribution. After consultation with some of the entities
that have shown the most interest in the service, and after a few
months of experience with the product, the Exchange believes that the
proposed reduction in NYSE Realtime Reference Prices pilot program fees
will make the product more attractive to vendors. An increase in the
number of vendors that determine to provide free access to NYSE
Realtime Reference prices to their internet users would benefit the
investment community. The fee reduction will also respond to the price
competition provided by alternative exchanges, ECNs and the market for
delayed data. In addition, it will better reflect the perceived value
of the NYSE product and provide a more equitable allocation of the
Exchange's overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In modifying the level of the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices pilot
program fee, the Exchange also took into consideration such other
factors as:
    (1) The fees that Nasdaq and other markets are charging for similar
services;
    (2) The contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that provide market data to large
numbers of investors, which are the entities most likely to take
advantage of the proposed fees;
    (3) The contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fees
will make to meeting the overall costs of the Exchange's operations;
    (4) Projected losses to the Exchange's other sources of market data
revenues (e.g., from its share of revenues derived from Network A
nonprofessional subscriber fees) as a result of the NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices service competing with those services;
    (5) The savings in administrative and reporting costs that the NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices service will provide to NYSE-Only Vendors;
and
    (6) The fact that the proposed fees provide an alternative to
existing Network A fees under the CTA Plan, an alternative that vendors
will purchase only if they determine that the perceived benefits
outweigh the cost.
    Prior to the end of the pilot program period, the Exchange will
assess its experience with the product. It either will submit a
proposed rule change that seeks to extend or modify the pilot program
or to make it permanent, or will announce publicly that it does not
seek to extend the pilot program beyond the pilot program's termination
date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have rules that
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. In
light of the Exchange's experience with the NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices pilot program and after consultation with entities participating
in the pilot program, the Exchange believes that the proposed reduction
of the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices fee is equitable.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this 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

    The Exchange has discussed the proposed rules change with entities
that are participating in the pilot program. While those entities have
not submitted formal, written comments on the proposal, the Exchange
has consulted with them regarding the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices
fee and the proposed rule change reflects their input. The Exchange has
not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other
interested parties.

III. 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-NYSE-2008-79 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-2008-79. 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, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2008-79 and should be submitted on or before September 30, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, to be
implemented for the remainder of the pilot period, is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In particular, it is
consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other parties using its facilities, and section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, 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 not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\9\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \10\ NYSE is an exclusive processor of its last sale data under
Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes data on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal reduces the flat monthly fee
for NYSE Realtime Reference Prices from $100,000 per month to $70,000
per month without reducing the amount of data received through NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices. In addition, the Commission notes that the
reduced fee will apply for the remainder of the pilot period. The
Commission approved the fee for NYSE Realtime Reference Prices for a
pilot period which runs until October 31, 2008. On June 4, 2008, the
Commission approved for public comment a draft approval order that sets
forth a market-based approach for analyzing proposals by self-
regulatory organizations to impose fees for ``non-core'' market data
products that would encompass the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices.\11\
The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
for the reasons noted preliminarily in the Draft Approval Order.
Pending review by the Commission of comments received on the Draft
Approval Order, and final Commission action thereon, the Commission
believes that approving NYSE's proposal to reduce the monthly fee for
the remainder of the pilot period would be beneficial to investors and
in the public interest, in that it should result in increased broad
public dissemination of real-time pricing information. The broader
approach ultimately taken by the Commission with respect to non-core
market data fees will necessarily guide Commission action regarding
fees for the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices beyond the pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57917 (June 4,
2008), 73 FR 32751 (June 10, 2008) (Notice of Proposed Order
Approving Proposal by NYSE Arca, Inc. to Establish Fees for Certain
Market Data and Request for Comment) (``Draft Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange reconsidered the original
factors it used to establish the fee for NYSE Realtime Reference Prices
in determining the proposed reduced flat monthly fee. In addition, the
Commission notes that the Exchange's experience with NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices, consultation with entities that have shown the most
interest in NYSE Realtime Reference Prices, and price competition
provided by other market data products were considered by NYSE in
determining to reduce the flat monthly fee.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change before the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice
of filing thereof in the Federal Register. Accelerating approval of
this proposal should benefit investors by facilitating their access to
widespread, free, real-time pricing information contained in the NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices. In addition, the Commission notes that the
proposal should benefit vendors that make real-time pricing information
available by reducing their monthly fees. Therefore, the Commission
finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ to
approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis only for a
pilot period to expire on October 31, 2008, while the Commission
analyzes comments on the Draft Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2008-79) is hereby approved on
an accelerated basis until October 31, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20807 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 57440]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-438]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Public Information Session

    On December 13, 2017, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff will host a public information session regarding the
procedure for relicensing Grand River Dam Authority's (GRDA) Pensacola
Hydroelectric Project No. 1494 (Pensacola Project). The project is
located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and
Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
    a. Date, Time, and Location of Meeting: Wednesday, December 13,
2017, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Coleman Theatre Ballroom, 103 N.
Main St., Miami, OK 74354;<PHONE_NUMBER>
    b. FERC Contact: Rachel McNamara,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    c. Purpose of Meeting: In January 2018, the Commission will
commence relicensing of the project under the Integrated Licensing
Process (ILP). To assist local, state, and federal agencies, Indian
tribes, and other interested entities and individuals in participating
during the relicensing process, Commission staff invite the public to
attend information sessions about the ILP and how stakeholders can best
participate in the process.
    d. Proposed Agenda: The meeting will include an overview of the ILP
and discussion of the specific process plan (schedule) for the
Pensacola Project, opportunities for public comment, and how the
Commission assesses information needs during the study planning
process. There will also be time for stakeholders to ask any additional
questions related to the relicensing process.

    Dated: November 29, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26138 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Approach B: All commercial laboratories currently using the old Pensky-Martens test method (1010A) would continue to use that method.  All commercial laboratories currently using the old Setaflash test method (1020B) would adopt the new Setaflash method (1020C).  This approach represents the upper-bound estimate of cost impacts, because it assumes that commercial laboratories that continue to use the old Pensky-Martens test method would not realize cost savings from reduced labor time associated with the use of an automated apparatus.
These two alternative approaches only affect EPA's estimates of costs associated with proposed changes to ignitability test methods.  This appendix therefore does not provide updated estimates of the costs of proposed changes to mercury thermometer test methods.
EXHIBIT A-1 SUMMARIZES TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS BY LABORATORY TYPE FOR EACH OF THESE TWO ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.  Net cost impacts of the proposed changes to ignitability test methods under these two alternative approaches are presented in Exhibits A-2 and A-3.  As the exhibits show, both Approach A and Approach B result in sizable net cost savings, though Approach A produces an estimate of cost savings that is greater than the savings reported in Chapter 3, while Approach B produces an estimate of cost savings smaller than the savings reported in Chapter 3.
Exhibit A-1.	Final Rule Ignitability Cost Results under alternative approaches a and b (year 2016$)
Laboratory type
Total One-Time Costs
Total Annual Costs

                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
Commercial (Approach A)
                                                                       $614,000
                                                                       $161,000
                                                                     $1,040,000
Commercial (Approach B)
                                                                        $53,800
                                                                       $261,000
                                                                     $1,690,000
EPA
                                                                        $67,100
                                                                         $3,420
                                                                        $18,000
State
                                                                       $149,000
                                                                         $5,210
                                                                        $36,900
Total (Approach A)
                                                                       $830,000
                                                                       $170,000
                                                                     $1,100,000
Total (Approach B)
                                                                       $270,000
                                                                       $269,000
                                                                     $1,740,000

Exhibit a-2.	Net Present Value Cost Impacts of the Proposed changes to ignitability test methods over 20 years under alternative approaches a and b (year 2016$)
Laboratory type
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Commercial (Approach A)
                         ($11,000,000) -  ($2,100,000)
                         ($7,650,000)  -  ($1,320,000)
Commercial (Approach B)
                           ($934,000)  -  ($180,000)
                           ($650,000)  -  ($112,000)
EPA
                            ($116,000)  -  ($4,460)
                              ($63,200) - $16,100
State
                              ($235,000) - $8,410
                             ($124,000) - $48,900
Total (Approach A)
                        ($11,300,000)  -  ($2,100,000)
                         ($7,840,000)  -  ($1,260,000)
Total (Approach B)
                          ($1,280,000)  -  ($176,000)
                            ($837,000) - ($47,400)

Exhibit a-3.	Annualized Cost Impacts of the Proposed changes to ignitability test methods under alternative approaches a and b (year 2016$)
Laboratory type
3% Discount Rate
7% Discount Rate
Commercial (Approach A)
                           ($739,000) -  ($141,000)
                           ($723,000)  -  ($125,000)
Commercial (Approach B)
                            ($62,800)  -  ($12,100)
                            ($61,300)  -  ($10,600)
EPA
                              ($7,790)  -  ($300)
                               ($5,970) - $1,520
State
                               ($15,800) - $565
                              ($11,700) - $4,620
Total (Approach A)
                           ($763,000)  -  ($141,000)
                           ($740,000)  -  ($118,000)
Total (Approach B)
                            ($86,400)  -  ($11,800)
                             ($79,000) - ($4,470)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18485-18488]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0300; Product Identifier 2017-NM-134-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
certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -
271N airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a revision of an
airworthiness limitations document that specifies more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed
AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations. We
are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 11, 2018.

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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

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-2018-
0300; 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 NPRM, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0300;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-134-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2017-0169, dated September 7, 2017 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    The Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus A320 family
aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and
published in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5 document. These instructions have
been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in a fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    * * * the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA) published interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.
In response to these regulations, Airbus conducted a design review
to develop FAL for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes.
    The FAL were specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 FAL
document ref. 95A.1931/05 at issue 04 for A318/A319/A320/A321
aeroplanes. This document was approved by EASA and is now referenced
in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 to comply with EASA policy
statement (EASA D2005/CPRO).
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2014-0260 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2016-20-12, Amendment 39-18678 (81 FR 72507, October 20, 2016)
(``AD 2016-20-12'')] to require accomplishment of all FAL-related
actions as described in ALS Part 5 at Revision 01. ALS Part 5
Revision 02 and 03 were not mandated because no significant changes
were introduced with these Revisions. The new ALS Part 5 Revision 04
(hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD) includes new
and/or more restrictive requirements and extends the applicability
to model A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-251N, A321-253N and A321-271N
aeroplanes.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2014-0260, which is superseded, and requires
implementation of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2018-
0300.

Relationship of This Proposed AD to AD 2016-20-12

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2016-20-12. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2016-20-
12.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL),
Revision 04, dated April 6, 2017. This service information describes
fuel system airworthiness limitations. 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 designs.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with
these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation,
to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for
an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of
this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes
to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational
safety of the airplane.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS
inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance
with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does
not include that requirement.

Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general
airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using
methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be
adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings
of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the
applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into
an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation
authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered
under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD
typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in
this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or
inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as
specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been
approved by the FAA.
    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific
ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified
in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is
an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design
referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation
may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS
revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part
of their type design.
    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most
recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu
of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict
and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type
design.
    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we
recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-
mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection
programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS
revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure
that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly
delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in
an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS
revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of
the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier
AD.
    This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus Model A318, A319,
and A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212,
-213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the
ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes
with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with
the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type
design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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-2018-0300; Product Identifier 2017-NM-134-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 11, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2016-20-12, Amendment 39-18678 (81 FR 72507,
October 20, 2016) (``AD 2016-20-12'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with
an original certificate of airworthiness or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued on or before April 6, 2017.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N,
and -271N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness
limitations document that specifies more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 5 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), Revision 04, dated
April 6, 2017. The initial compliance times for new or revised tasks
are the minimum intervals or times specified in Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5 Fuel
Airworthiness Limitations (FAL), Revision 04, dated April 6, 2017,
or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions,
intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2016-20-12

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2016-20-12.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0169, dated September 7,
2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0300.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 11, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-08649 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


"21FLGW_21460"	"STREAM"	"11/18/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3547"	"STREAM"	"11/18/2008 0:00:00"	1.2	0.01	20	0.3	1.5
"21FLGW_3543"	"STREAM"	"11/18/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3543"	"STREAM"	"11/18/2008 0:00:00"	0.34	0.023	20	0.41	0.75
"21FLGW_21460"	"STREAM"	"11/18/2008 0:00:00"	0.19	0.01	15	0.17	0.36
"21FLGW_3546"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3546"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	0.072	0.008	20	0.22	0.292
"21FLGW_3545"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3545"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	0.25	0.002	20	0.17	0.42
"21FLGW_3551"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3533"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	0.1	0.002	20	0.26	0.36
"21FLGW_3533"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3536"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3536"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	0.088	0.002	20	0.14	0.228
"21FLGW_3551"	"STREAM"	"11/19/2008 0:00:00"	0.13	0.005	20	0.23	0.36
"21FLGW_21461"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	1.2	0.002	10	0.18	1.38
"21FLGW_3550"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3550"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	1.3	0.18	20	0.35	1.65
"21FLGW_3542"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3549"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3549"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	0.25	0.035	40	0.56	0.81
"21FLGW_3542"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	0.26	0.01	20	0.29	0.55
"21FLGW_3541"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_21461"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3541"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	0.35	0.022	40	0.41	0.76
"21FLGW_3565"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3565"	"STREAM"	"11/20/2008 0:00:00"	1.6	0.28	150	2.4	4
"21FLGW_3502"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3502"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.081	0.19	40	0.9	0.981
"21FLGW_3499"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.004	0.33	100	1.6	1.604
"21FLGW_21202"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_21202"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.64	0.034	100	0.67	1.31
"21FLGW_3556"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.79	1.1	80	0.8	1.59
"21FLGW_3556"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_21201"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_21201"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.017	0.054	200	1.2	1.217
"21FLGW_21200"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.002	0.04	80	0.49	0.492
"21FLGW_21200"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3499"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3561"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	0.29	0.53	150	1.2	1.49
"21FLGW_3561"	"STREAM"	"12/1/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3516"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3509"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.11	0.08	20	0.47	0.58
"21FLGW_3509"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3513"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.4	0.027	30	0.49	0.89
"21FLGW_3513"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3515"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.16	0.096	200	1.6	1.76
"21FLGW_3506"	"CANAL"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3516"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.26	0.027	200	1.4	1.66
"21FLGW_3506"	"CANAL"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.002	0.034	60	1.4	1.402
"21FLGW_3517"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.8	0.041	20	0.24	1.04
"21FLGW_3517"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_21179"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.03	0.069	100	0.98	1.01
"21FLGW_21179"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3515"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3560"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.007	0.038	200	2.2	2.207
"21FLGW_3560"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3566"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	0.83	0.009	2.5	0.04	0.87
"21FLGW_3566"	"STREAM"	"12/2/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3557"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.18	0.069	300	2.2	2.38
"21FLGW_24139"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.55	0.11	40	0.41	0.96
"21FLGW_3554"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3557"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3555"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3554"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	1.2	0.95	60	0.76	1.96
"21FLGW_3505"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.095	0.34	80	0.77	0.865
"21FLGW_3505"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3508"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3508"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.25	0.094	60	0.76	1.01
"21FLGW_3507"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3507"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	1	0.081	15	0.43	1.43
"21FLGW_24139"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3555"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.92	0.19	50	0.64	1.56
"21FLGW_3569"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3569"	"STREAM"	"12/3/2008 0:00:00"	0.21	0.1	40	0.77	0.98
"21FLGW_3537"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	0.067	0.13	200	1.8	1.867
"21FLGW_3537"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_19010001"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_19010001"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	0.019	0.034	300	1.3	1.319
"21FLGW_3553"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3553"	"STREAM"	"12/4/2008 0:00:00"	0.36	0.13	250	1.6	1.96
"21FLGW_3559"	"CANAL"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	0.09	0.068	60	1.6	1.69
"21FLGW_3559"	"CANAL"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3504"	"CANAL"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3500"	"STREAM"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	0.32	0.19	80	1.3	1.62
"21FLGW_3504"	"CANAL"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	0.062	0.067	60	1.3	1.362
"21FLGW_3500"	"STREAM"	"12/10/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3558"	"STREAM"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3558"	"STREAM"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	0.11	0.012	100	1.9	2.01
"21FLGW_3572"	"STREAM"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	0.14	0.008	60	1.5	1.64
"21FLGW_3572"	"STREAM"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3571"	"CANAL"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	0.42	0.005	40	1.2	1.62
"21FLGW_3571"	"CANAL"	"12/11/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3497"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	0.11	0.25	150	1.8	1.91
"21FLGW_3497"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3501"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	0.24	0.061	80	1.2	1.44
"21FLGW_3501"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3568"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3568"	"STREAM"	"12/15/2008 0:00:00"	0.55	0.12	100	1.4	1.95
"21FLGW_3495"	"CANAL"	"12/16/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3494"	"STREAM"	"12/16/2008 0:00:00"	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
"21FLGW_3494"	"STREAM"	"12/16/2008 0:00:00"	0.017	0.021	50	0.89	0.907
"21FLGW_3495"	"CANAL"	"12/16/2008 0:00:00"	0.17	0.034	100	1.4	1.57