[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64238-64239]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22422]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78829; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Deadline
for Implementing Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) Until September 30, 2016

September 13, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 6, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 extend the deadline for implementing Rule
967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) until September 30, 2016 The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to extend the deadline for implementing
Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) until September 30, 2016. The Exchange has
not met the current implementation deadline of July 31, 2016.
    In March 2015, the Commission approved Rule 967.1NY, which provides
a price protection risk mechanism for Market Maker quotes.\4\ Rule
967.1NY provides two layers of price protection to incoming Market
Maker quotes, rejecting those Market Maker quotes that exceed certain
parameters, as a risk mitigation tool.\5\ The Exchange has implemented
the first layer of price protection (the NBBO Reasonability Check) and
had until one year from the date of the Approval Order to implement the
second layer of protection (the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price
Check) pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule 967.1NY, which was March 4,
2016.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74440 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12687 (March 10, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116) (Approval
Order); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74017 (January
8, 2015), 80 FR 1979 (January 14, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-116)
(Notice).
    \5\ The first layer of price protection assesses incoming sell
quotes against the NBB and incoming buy quotes against the NBO (the
``NBBO Price Reasonability Check''). Specifically, Rule
967.1NY(a)(1) provided that when an NBBO is available, a Market
Maker quote would be rejected if it is priced a specified dollar
amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO. The second layer
of price protection assesses the price of call or put bids against a
specified benchmark (the ``Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price
Check''), per Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3). This second layer of
protection applies to bids in call options or put options when (1)
there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or prior
to conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or (2) if the NBBO
is so wide as to not reflect an appropriate price for the respective
options series.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75151 (June 11,
2015), 80 FR 34770 (June 17, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2016, because the Exchange had not yet implemented the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check, the Exchange extended the
deadline to implement Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) until July 31, 2016
(the ``July 31st Deadline'').\7\ Subsequent to this extension, the
Exchange modified Commentary .01 to Rule 967.1NY to exclude from the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check certain securities for which
there was no reliable (or in some cases any) last sale data.\8\
Although the Exchange had finalized the technology related to the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check, because this technology was
packaged in a larger technology release that is currently being rolled
out, the Exchange was not able to implement the technology by the July
31st Deadline. The Exchange is in the process of implementing the
technology release that includes the Underlying Stock Price/Strike
Price Check and plans to complete this implementation no later than the
end of September 2016. The Exchange believes the proposed extension of
the July 31st Deadline until September 30, 2016 would provide the
Exchange with sufficient time to implement the functionality related to
the rule. Moreover, the proposed change would update the rule to
reflect the extended deadline, thus making clear to investors and the
public that the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check is not yet
implemented.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77356 (March 14,
2016), 81 FR 14917 (March 18, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-36).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77749 (April 29,
2016), 81 FR 27184 (May 5, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-47).
    \9\ The Exchange has issued Trader Updates informing its market
participants that the functionality related to the Underlying Stock
Price/Strike Price Check is not yet available but is currently being
implemented (together with the other technology updates with which
it was packaged). See, e.g., Trader Updates regarding Enhancements
to Risk Control Functionality in Enhanced Certification Environment,
dated 6/6/16, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/NYSE%20Amex%20and%20Arca%20-%20Enhanced%20Risk%20Controls%20in%20Enhanced%20Cert.pdf and
regarding Risk Controls/Series Lookup Table Enhancements, dated 8/
25/16, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/NYSE%20Amex%20-%20Risk%20Controls%20Release%20details.pdf.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\11\ in particular, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposal promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to, and perfects
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because an extension of the July 31st Deadline would enable the
Exchange to complete its implementation of the technology related to
the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check, which is currently being
implemented as part of a larger technology release. Moreover, the
proposed extension would update the rule to reflect the extended
deadline for implementation.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather, to extend
the July 31st Deadline for implementing the functionality related to
the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check, which is currently being
implemented as part of a larger technology release.

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

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

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

    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) \12\ of the Act 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the
Exchange to immediately extend the implementation deadline for the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check without delay and provide the
Exchange additional time to implement the technology associated with
such price protection. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-NYSEMKT-2016-86 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-NYSEMKT-2016-86. 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 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-NYSEMKT-2016-86, and should
be submitted on or before October 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22422 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22209-22212]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0340; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-081-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2,
EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters with a certain external mounted hoist system (hoist) with
boom support assembly (boom) installed. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the boom for a crack and, if a crack exists, replacing the
boom with an airworthy boom. This proposed AD is prompted by cracks
found on the boom during a pre-flight check of a hoist on an MBB-BK 117
C-2 helicopter. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack and
prevent failure of the boom, loss of the boom and attached loads, and
subsequent loss of helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub, and contact the Goodrich
Corporation, 2727 East Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92821; telephone
(714) 984-1461; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at www.goodrich.com. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2010-0154, dated August 13, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition
for Eurocopter Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, EC135, and EC635 series
helicopters. EASA AD No. 2010-0154 supersedes EASA AD No. 2009-0093-E,
dated April 17, 2009. EASA advises that cracks were detected on the
boom, part number (P/N) 44307-500, during a pre-flight check of the
hoist on a Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopter. EASA advises that this
condition, if not detected and corrected, would impair the structural
strength of the boom and could lead to failure of the boom. EASA
advises that this could result in the loss of the boom and attached
loads. According to EASA, boom P/Ns 44301-500 and 44307-500-1 are of
similar design to P/N 44307-500, and therefore are also subject to this
unsafe condition. As a result, EASA issued Emergency AD No. 2009-0093-E
to require repetitive visual checks of the affected boom and removal or
replacement of the boom when cracks are found.
    EASA advises that since AD No. 2009-0093-E was issued, further
technical investigation determined that torque values that were too
high have been applied. EASA advises that Goodrich Corporation,
manufacturer of the affected booms, has developed an inspection that
will determine the need for further action. As a result, EASA
superseded its AD to include a new inspection to detect damage, by
issuing EASA AD No. 2010-0154. The EASA AD states that if no damage is
found during this new inspection, that constitutes terminating action.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No.
EC135-85A-036, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010, and EASB No. MBB BK117
C-2-85A-024, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010, which specify a visual
check of the boom for cracks, and removing or replacing the boom before
the next flight if there is a crack. The EASBs also require compliance
with the visual and dye penetrant inspection procedures specified in
Goodrich Corporation Service Bulletin 44307-500-03, Revision 2, dated
April 30, 2010. EASA classified these EASBs as mandatory, and issued
EASA AD No. 2010-0154, dated August 13, 2010, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:
     Before further flight, and thereafter before the first
flight of each day until the dye penetrant inspection is performed,
visually checking the boom for a crack. A pilot holding at least a
private pilot certificate may perform this check and must record his or
her compliance in the aircraft's maintenance records in accordance with
applicable regulations. A pilot may perform this check because it
involves only looking at the boom and can be performed equally well by
a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard
maintenance regulations.
     Within 30 days, performing a dye penetrant inspection of
the boom for a crack.
     If a crack exists in a boom, replacing the cracked boom
with an airworthy boom.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires you to notify and return parts to the
manufacturer, and this proposed AD does not. The EASA AD also applies
to the Eurocopter EC635 series military helicopters, while this
proposed AD would not because those models are not type certificated in
the United States.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 350 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and a labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:

     We estimate that the cost of the daily visual check would
be minimal.
     We estimate that removing the hoist and boom assembly,
performing the dye penetrant inspection, and reinstalling the equipment
would require 1.5 work hours. No parts would be needed, for a total
cost of about $128 per helicopter and $44,800 for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing the hoist and boom assembly, if needed, would
require about a 0.33 work-hour for a labor cost of about $28. Parts
would cost $10,833 for a total cost of $10,861 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2013-0340;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-081-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter)
Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2 and EC135
T2+ helicopters with a Goodrich Corporation (Goodrich) external
mounted hoist system (hoist) with boom support assembly (boom) Part
Number (P/N) 44301-500, 44307-500, or 44307-500-1 installed, and
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a Goodrich hoist with boom P/N
44307-500 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the boom.
This condition could result in loss of the boom and attached loads,
and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Reserved

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, and thereafter before the first
flight of each day until you have performed the inspection required
by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, clean the hoist and visually check
for a crack, paying particular attention to the areas that are
circled as depicted in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD. The
actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/
operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate, and
must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with
this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417
(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP13.000

    (2) Within 30 days, perform a dye penetrant inspection of the
boom in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Section
2.D, of the Goodrich Service Bulletin 44307-500-03, Revision 2,
dated April 30, 2010 (SB).
    Note to paragraph (e)(2): A copy of the SB is included with
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. EC135-85A-
036, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010, and EASB No. MBB BK117 C-2-
85A-024, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010.
    (3) If a crack exists in the boom, replace the cracked boom with
an airworthy boom before further flight.

 (f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits would be allowed provided the hoist is
disabled during the ferry flight.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0154, dated August 13, 2010, which
supersedes EASA AD No. 2009-0093-E, dated April 17, 2009.

 (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5345, Fuselage,
Equipment Attach Fittings.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 8, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08760 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27772]
[DOCID:fr18my10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-30-002]

Corning Natural Gas Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 3, 2010, Corning Natural Gas Corporation,
(Corning) filed its Statement of section 311 Operating Conditions in
compliance with the March 23, 2010 Letter Order approving a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement and pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the
Commission's regulations.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday May 18, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11792 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30402]
[DOCID:fr31my07-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 15Bc3-1 and Form MSDW SEC File No. 270-93; OMB Control No.
3235-0087

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for
extension and approval.
    Rule 15Bc3-1 (17 CFR 240.15Bc3-1) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) provides that a notice of withdrawal
from registration with the Commission as a bank municipal securities
dealer must be filed on Form MSDW.
    The Commission uses the information submitted on Form MSDW in
determining whether it is in the public interest to permit a bank
municipal securities dealer to withdraw its registration. This
information is also important to the municipal securities dealer's
customers and to the public, because it provides, among other things,
the name and address of a person to contact regarding any of the
municipal securities dealer's unfinished business.
    Based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that approximately
20 respondents in total will utilize this notice procedure annually,
with a total burden of 10 hours for all respondents. The staff
estimates that the average number of hours necessary for each
respondent to comply with the requirements of Rule 15Bc3-1 is 0.5
hours. The average cost per hour is approximately $101. Therefore, the
total cost of compliance for all respondents is $1010 ($101 x 0.5 x 20
= $1010).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
60 days of this notice.

     Dated: May 16, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10374 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 2885]
[FR Doc No: 2010-872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1863-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1863-DR), dated December 10, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of December 10, 2009.

Catahoula and Franklin Parishes for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-872 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5530-5532]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68698; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

January 18, 2013.
    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 January 8, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Routing Fees at Section V of the
Pricing Schedule. While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to
this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated
the proposed amendment to be operative on February 1, 2013. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Routing Fees in Section V of
the Pricing Schedule in order to recoup costs that the Exchange incurs
for routing and executing orders in equity options to various away
markets.
    Today, the Exchange calculates Routing Fees by assessing certain
Exchange costs related to routing orders to away markets plus the away
market's transaction fee. The Exchange assesses a $0.04 per contract
fixed Routing Fee when routing orders to the NASDAQ Options Market LLC
(``NOM'') and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options) and a $0.10 per
contract fixed Routing Fee to all other options exchanges in addition
to the actual transaction fee or rebate paid by the away market.
    The fixed Routing Fee is based on costs that are incurred by the
Exchange when routing to an away market in addition to the away
market's transaction fee. For example, the Exchange incurs a fee when
it utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router,\3\ to route orders
in options listed and open for trading on the PHLX XL system to
destination markets. Each time NOS routes to away markets NOS incurs a
clearing-related cost \4\ and, in the case of certain exchanges, a
transaction fee is also charged in certain symbols, which fees are
passed through to the Exchange. The Exchange also incurs administrative
and technical costs associated with operating NOS, membership fees at
away markets, Options Regulatory Fees (``ORFs'') and technical costs
associated with routing options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to
establish Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange, as the Exchange's exclusive order router. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). NOS is utilized by the Exchange's fully
automated options trading system, PHLX XL.[supreg] ``PHLX XL'' is
the Exchange's automated options trading system.
    \4\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') assesses a
clearing fee of $0.01 per contract side. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68025 (October 10, 2012), 77 FR 63398 (October 16, 2012)
(SR-OCC-2012-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Routing Fees to increase the
current fixed Routing Fee to BX Options and NOM from $0.04 to $0.05 \5\
per contract and the fixed Routing Fee to all other options exchanges
from $0.10 to $0.11 \6\ per contract to capture the increased costs
that the Exchange incurs when routing to away markets in addition to
the transaction fee that is being assessed by the away market.
Specifically, several exchanges have increased ORFs or adopted ORFs and
the Exchange proposes to increase its Routing Fees to recoup those
increased fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In a previous rule filing, the Exchange discussed the manner
in which it analyzed costs related to routing to BX Options and NOM
and determined the costs are lower as compared to other away markets
because NOS is utilized by all three exchanges to route orders. In
that filing the Exchange noted that because Phlx, BX Options and NOM
all utilize NOS, the cost to the Exchange is less as compared to
routing to other away markets. In addition the fixed costs are
reduced because NOS is owned and operated by NASDAQ OMX and the
three exchanges and NOS share common technology and related
operational functions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68213
(November 13, 2012), 77 FR 69530 (November 19, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-
129).
    \6\ The $0.11 per contract fixed fee would apply to all options
exchanges other than BX Options and NOM, which are discussed
separately in this proposal. The Exchange anticipates that if other
options exchanges are approved by the Commission after the filing of
this proposal, those exchanges would be assessed the $0.11 per
contract fee applicable to ``all other options exchanges.''
    \7\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
recently increased its ORF from $.0065 to $.0085 per contract. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68480 (December 19, 2012), 77 FR
76119 (December 26, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-118). C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``C2'') recently increased its ORF from $.0015 to
$.002 per contract. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68479
(December 19, 2012), 77 FR 76131 (December 26, 2012) (SR-C2-2012-
040). NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') recently increased its ORF from
$0.004 to $0.005 per contract. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 68183 (November 8, 2012), 77 FR 68186 (November 15, 2012) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2012-54). NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') recently increased
its ORF from $0.004 to $0.005 per contract. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 68174 (November 7, 2012), 77 FR 67845 (November 14,
2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-118). Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') recently adopted an ORF of $0.0040 per
contract side. See SR-MIAX-2012-06 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the transaction fee assessed by the Exchange is based on the
away market's actual transaction fee or rebate for a particular market
participant at the time that the order was entered into the Exchange's
trading system. This transaction fee is calculated on an order-by-order
basis, since different away markets charge different amounts.\8\ In the
event that there is no transaction fee

or rebate assessed by the away market, the only fee assessed is the
fixed Routing Fee. With respect to the rebate, the Exchange pays a
market participant the rebate offered by an away market where there is
such a rebate. Any rebate available is netted against a fee assessed by
the Exchange.\9\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend its calculation
of the away market's transaction fee as described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is similar to the methodology utilized by ISE in
assessing Routing Fees. See ISE's Fee Schedule.
    \9\ For example, if a Customer order is routed to BOX, and BOX
offers a customer rebate of $0.20 per contract, the Exchange would
assess a $0.10 per contract fixed fee which would net against the
rebate ($0.20 per contract in this example). The market participant
for whom the Customer contract was routed would receive a $0.10 per
contract rebate. Today the market participant does not receive a
rebate and only pays the current $0.11 per contract Routing Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in
response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule
change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fees are reasonable
because they seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange
when routing Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Specialist
and Market Maker orders to away markets on behalf of members. Each
destination market's transaction charge varies and there is a cost
incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets. The costs
to the Exchange include clearing costs, administrative and technical
costs associated with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets,
ORFs and technical costs associated with routing options. The Exchange
believes that the proposed Routing Fees would enable the Exchange to
recover the costs it incurs to route orders to away markets in addition
to transaction fees assessed to market participants for the execution
of Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Specialist and Market
Maker orders by the away market. Specifically, other options exchanges
have increased ORFs that are assessed per transaction.\12\ The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to recoup these costs borne by the
Exchange on each transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CBOE recently increased its ORF from $.0065 to $.0085 per
contract. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68480 (December
19, 2012), 77 FR 76119 (December 26, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-118). C2
recently increased its ORF from $.0015 to $.002 per contract. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68479 (December 19, 2012), 77 FR
76131 (December 26, 2012) (SR-C2-2012-040). NYSE Amex recently
increased its ORF from $0.004 to $0.005 per contract. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68183 (November 8, 2012), 77 FR 68186
(November 15, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54). NYSE Arca recently
increased its ORF from $0.004 to $0.005 per contract. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68174 (November 7, 2012), 77 FR 67845
(November 14, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-118). MIAX recently adopted an
ORF of $0.0040 per contract side. See SR-MIAX-2012-06 (not yet
published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to increase the fixed Routing Fees from $0.04
to $0.05 per contract and from $0.10 to $0.11 per contract, depending
on the away market, because the Exchange would uniformly assess these
fees depending on the away market. Further, the Exchange believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a fixed cost
of $0.05 per contract to route orders to NASDAQ OMX away markets (BX
Options and NOM) because the cost, in terms of actual cash outlays, to
the Exchange to route to those markets is lower. For example, costs
related to routing to BX Options and NOM are lower as compared to other
away markets because NOS is utilized by all three exchanges to route
orders.\13\ NOS and the three NASDAQ OMX options markets have a common
data center and staff that are responsible for the day-to-day
operations of NOS. Because the three exchanges are in a common data
center, Routing Fees are reduced because costly expenses related to,
for example, telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity are avoided
when routing orders in this instance. The costs related to connectivity
to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are de minimis. When
routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange incurs costly
connectivity charges related to telecommunication lines and other
related costs when routing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Chapter VI, Section 11 of the BX Options and NOM Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposal increases the fixed fee for routing orders to
all markets by $0.01 per contract, the Exchange is not proposing to
amend the fee differential of $0.06 per contract that exists today when
routing to a NASDAQ OMX exchange ($0.04 per contract) as compared to a
non-NASDAQ OMX exchange ($0.10 per contract). The Exchange believes it
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pass along
savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to
market participants when those orders are routed to BX Options and
NOM.\14\ It is important to note with respect to routing to an away
market that orders are routed based on price first. PHLX XL will route
orders to away markets where the Exchange's disseminated bid or offer
is inferior to the national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO'') price.\15\
Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for
routing or ``DNR'' to avoid incurring the Routing Fees proposed
herein.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Today, the Exchange assesses a $0.11 per contract fixed fee
for routing orders to BX Options and NOM. That fee is proposed to be
reduced to a $0.04 per contract fixed fee, which would be in
addition to the actual transaction fee assessed by the away market.
    \15\ See Rule 1080(m). The Phlx XL II system will
contemporaneously route an order marked as an Intermarket Sweep
Order (``ISO'') to each away market disseminating prices better than
the Exchange's price, for the lesser of: (a) The disseminated size
of such away markets, or (b) the order size and, if order size
remains after such routing, trade at the Exchange's disseminated bid
or offer up to its disseminated size. If contracts still remain
unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
market center, the Phlx XL II system will not route the order to the
locking or crossing market center, with some exceptions noted in
Rule 1080(m).
    \16\ See Rule 1066(h) (Certain Types of Orders Defined) and
1080(b)(i)(A) (PHLX XL and PHLX XL II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
rule change would allow the Exchange to recoup its costs when routing
orders designated as available for routing by the market participant.
Members and member organizations may choose to mark the order as
ineligible for routing to avoid incurring these fees.\17\ Today, other
options exchanges also assess similar fees to recoup costs incurred by
the Exchange to route orders to away markets. With respect to routing
to BX Options and NOM at a lower cost as compared to other away
markets, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to
increase those fees, while maintaining the same fee differential,
imposes a burden because all market participants would be assessed the
same fees depending on the away market and the fee increase is the same
for all market participants. Also, the Exchange is proposing to recoup
costs incurred only when members request the Exchange route their
orders

to an away market. The Exchange is passing along savings realized by
leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants
when those orders are routed to BX Options and NOM and is providing
those savings to all market participants. Finally, PHLX XL routes
orders to away markets where the Exchange's disseminated bid or offer
is inferior to the national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO'') price and
based on price first.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See Rule 1080(m). The Phlx XL II system will
contemporaneously route an order marked as an Intermarket Sweep
Order (``ISO'') to each away market disseminating prices better than
the Exchange's price, for the lesser of: (a) The disseminated size
of such away markets, or (b) the order size and, if order size
remains after such routing, trade at the Exchange's disseminated bid
or offer up to its disseminated size. If contracts still remain
unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
market center, the Phlx XL II system will not route the order to the
locking or crossing market center, with some exceptions noted in
Rule 1080(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2013-04 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-Phlx-2013-04. 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 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-Phlx-2013-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01492 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 51812-51813]
[DOCID:fr31au06-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8215-6; EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0634]

Amendment to a Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to a Privacy Act System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Administration and Resources Management
gives notice that it proposes to amend the EPA Identification Card
system of records (EPA-19). The changes reflect the inclusion of
photographs and fingerprints of identification card holders in the
identification card system, as well as the information captured by
automatic card reader machines used to gain access to EPA facilities.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this amended system of records may
do so by October 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2006-0634, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2006-0634. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room B102, and 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Jackson, Chief Security
Operations Branch, Security Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan Building, MS 3206R, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    This action amends the existing system of records notice for the
EPA Identification Card system of records. Details regarding the system
of records are contained in this Federal Register Notice. The EPA
Identification Card system is the basis for issuing official U.S.
Government identification cards to EPA employees and certain non-EPA
employees who require access to EPA-controlled facilities; maintaining
a record of all holders of identification cards, for renewal and
recovery of expired cards; managing and confirming requests for and
access to EPA-controlled facilities; and identifying lost and stolen
identification cards. These actions effect no changes in the privacy
protections of the affected category of records. Access to the system
is restricted to authorized users and will be maintained in a secure,
password protected computer system, in secure areas and buildings with
physical access controls and environmental controls. The system is
maintained by the Office of Administration and Resources Management.

    Dated: August 22, 2006.
Linda A. Travers,
Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer.
EPA-19

System Name:
    EPA Identification Card Record.

System Location:
    1. Security Operations Branch, Security Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
    2. Regional EPA offices. See the appendix for regional office
addresses.

Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:
    EPA employees and certain non-EPA employees, including contractors
and grantees, who require identification cards to access EPA controlled
facilities.

Categories of Records in the System:
    1. EPA Form 5110-1 EPA Identification Card Acknowledgment which
contains the following information: Name, identification card
credential number, height, weight, color of eyes/hair, date of birth,
Social Security Number, position/title, grade, EPA office location,
signature, date of issuance.
    2. EPA Form 1480-39 Official U.S. Government Identification which
contains the following information: Name, Social Security Number, EPA
office location, date of birth, height, weight, color of eyes/hair,
signature, identification card credential number, date of issuance, and
photograph of person issued the identification card.
    3. Photographs of individuals.
    4. Information captured by automatic card reader machines used to
gain access to certain EPA facilities, including the individual's name,
card credential number, date and time of access request, and location
of access requested.
    5. Fingerprint information for individuals.

Authority for Maintenance of the System (includes any revisions or
amendments):
    Executive Order 12072 (Aug. 16, 1978), Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 121, and Executive Order
9397 (Nov. 22, 1943).

Purpose(s):
    To issue official U.S. Government identification cards to EPA
employees and certain non-EPA employees requiring access to EPA-
controlled facilities; to maintain a record of all holders of
identification cards for renewal and recovery of expired cards; to
manage and confirm requests for and access to EPA-controlled
facilities; and to identify lost or stolen identification cards.

Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories
of Users, and the Purposes of Such Uses:
    General routine uses A, E, F, G, H, and K applies to this system.

Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining,
and Disposing of Records in the System:
Storage:
    The completed forms are kept in locked file cabinets in the Crystal
City and Ronald Reagan badging offices. This system maintains records
in two central command centers. These central command centers retain a
record of each instance of request for access to an EPA-controlled
facility. Each record indicates the time, location of card reader, and
card credential number requesting access. This information can be
linked to personally identifiable information using the central command
center databases.

Retrievability:
    Records are retrieved by subject name and identification card
credential number.

Safeguards:
    Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected
computer system. Paper records are maintained in locked file cabinets.
All records are maintained in secure, access-controlled areas or
buildings.

Retention and Disposal:
    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with EPA Records
Control Schedule 627, approved by the National Archives and Records
Administration.

System Manager(s) and Address:
    Headquarters: Chief, Security Operations Branch, Security
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan
Building, MS3206R, and 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Other locations: General Services Administration Manager at
offices listed in the Appendix.

Notification Procedures:
    Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records
contains a record about him or her, who wants access to his or her
record, or who wants to contest the contents of a record, should make a
written request to EPA FOIA Office, Attn: Privacy Act Officer, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, MC2822T, NW., and Washington, DC 20460.

Access Procedure:
    Requesters will be required to provide adequate identification,
such as a driver's license, EPA identification card, or other
identifying document. Additional identification procedures may be
required in some instances.

Contesting Procedure:
    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be
changed and the corrective action sought. Requests for name changes
must be accompanied by a copy of a current redacted SF-50, ``Request
for Personnel Action''. The information contained in the fields
identified by the following item numbers must be provided on the
redacted form:
    1. Name (Last, First, Middle).
    2. Social Security Number.
    4. Effective Date.
    5. First Action (all fields, A-F).
    6. Second Action (all fields, A-F).
    7. FROM: Position Title and Number.
    14. Name and Location of Position's Organization.
    15. TO: Position Title and Number.
    22. Name and Location of Position's Organization.
    38. Duty Station Code.
    39. Duty Station.
    46. Employing Department or Agency.
    47. Agency Code.
    48. Personnel Office ID.
    49. Approval Date.
    50. Signature/Authentication and Title of Approving Official.
    Complete EPA Privacy Act procedures are set out in 40 CFR part 16.

Record Source Categories:
    Information from EPA Form 5110-1 and EPA Form 1480-39 provided by
applicant is entered manually into the central command center database.

System exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act:
    None.

Appendix

Region 1: 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023.
Region 2: 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
Region 3: 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
Region 4: 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-3104.
Region 5: 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Region 6: Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Region 7: 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
Region 8: 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466
Region 9: 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Region 10: 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

[FR Doc. 06-7318 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 24467]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-152-000]

Louisiana Public Service Commission v. System Energy Resources,
Inc.; Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 18, 2018, pursuant to sections 206, 306,
and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h and
Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Louisiana Public
Service Commission (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against
System Energy Resources, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc. (Respondents)
alleging that the costs of Sale-Leaseback renewal agreements for the
Grand Gulf nuclear unit are imprudent, constitute a double collection
in violation of the Commission ratemaking requirements and the filed
rate, and are unjust and unreasonable, as more fully explained in the
complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on contacts for Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents'
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 7, 2018.

    Dated: May 22, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11384 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60106-60108]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0660; Product Identifier 2017-NE-21-AD; Amendment
39-19132; AD 2017-26-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/
75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by a report of the failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT)
stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine.
This AD requires inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 23, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 23,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0660.

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-
0660; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McGuire, Aerospace
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE GEnx-1B64/P2, -
1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 1,
2017 (82 FR 41577). The NPRM was prompted by a report of the failure of
the HPT stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the
engine. The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the HPT stage 1
blade retainer. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition
on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    American Airlines (AA) requested that we change the compliance time
in this AD to align with the compliance schedule in GE GEnx-1B Service
Bulletin (SB) 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. AA indicated the SB
identifies two populations of HPT stage 1 blade retainers, one that
requires inspection at the next shop visit and a second that requires
inspection when the part is removed from the engine. The proposed AD,
however, proposed inspection of all affected retainers at next shop
visit. Due to this discrepancy between the proposed AD and the SB, AA
requested this AD require inspections of the HPT stage 1 blade
retainers at next shop visit and at part removal, as required by GEnx-
1B SB 72-0326 R02.
    GE commented that, based on its analysis, conducting the required
inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer at its next piece-part
exposure is sufficient. GE requested that this final rule AD be changed
to require inspection of all affected parts at piece-part exposure
rather than at the next shop visit.
    We partially agree. We disagree with AA that requiring inspections
of HPT stage 1 blade retainers at next shop visit and at part removal,
per GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, is necessary.
We agree with GE that the risk assessment justifies waiting until
exposure of the part to perform the inspection and the change clarifies
the compliance action. We revised the compliance section of this AD to
require that the HPT stage 1 blade retainer be inspected at its next
piece-part exposure.

Request To Align Compliance by Part Population

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that the compliance be changed to
two populations of parts with two different compliance intervals. JAL
indicated this change would align this AD with the two populations of
affected parts identified in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August
16, 2017.
    We disagree. Although the SB specifies certain part numbers be
inspected sooner than at piece-part exposure, our risk assessment
determined that performing the inspection for all affected parts at
piece-part exposure addresses the safety concern represented by failure
of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. We did not change this AD.

Request To Incorporate Required for Compliance (RC) Label Into SB

    AA requested that we incorporate the RC label into GEnx-1B SB 72-
0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. AA indicated this change would
clarify which sections of the SB are required to accomplish this AD.
Using the RC label in the SB would also be consistent with FAA Advisory
Circular (AC) 20-176A, ``Service Bulletins Related to Airworthiness
Directives and Indicating FAA Approval on Service Documents,'' dated
June 16, 2014, and FAA Order 8110.117A, ``Service Bulletins Related to
Airworthiness Directives,'' dated June 18, 2014.
    We disagree. FAA Order 8110.117A and AC 20-176A provide guidance,
respectively, to FAA aviation safety engineers in the review of SBs and
to design approval holders (DAHs) in the development and drafting of
these SBs. These documents do not require use of the RC label by DAHs
in drafting in SBs, and GE is not required to use this label. The
paragraph from GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017,

that is incorporated by reference by this AD, clearly identifies the
steps that operators must follow to perform the inspection. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Add Reference to Related SB

    An individual commenter requested that GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 R02,
revised August 16, 2017, be mentioned in this AD since this SB is
related to GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. The
commenter indicated GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 also relates to inspection of
the stage one HPT blade retainer, but references an alternate part
number. The commenter requested that the relationship between GEnx-1B
SB 72-0327 R02 and GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02 be stated clearly.
    We partially agree. Although GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 R02, revised
August 16, 2017, has a part number in common with the parts identified
in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, the serial
numbers for the parts identified in GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 differ from
those in GEnx-1B SB 72-0326. The serial numbered parts identified in
GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 pose a lower risk to flight safety and are not
affected by this AD. We did not change this AD.

Support for the AD

    The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as
written.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. The
SB describes procedures for piece-part inspection of the HPT stage 1
blade retainer. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade     1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85            $935
 retainer.                               hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-26-01 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-19132; Docket No.
FAA-2017-0660; Product Identifier 2017-NE-21-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -
1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan
engines, with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer,
part number (P/N) 2445M91P01 or 2383M99P02, with a serial number
listed in Planning Information, Paragraph 1.A., of GE GEnx-1B
Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the HPT stage
1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 blade
retainer. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in
failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage
to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) At the next piece-part exposure of the HPT stage 1 blade
retainer after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time
inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1), in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-
0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
    (2) If any cracks are found in the HPT stage 1 blade retainer,
or the retainer does not meet the dimensional criteria found in the
Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 3.A.(1), in GEnx-1B SB 72-
0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, replace the HPT stage 1 blade
retainer with a part eligible for installation.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' is defined
as when the part is completely disassembled.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-
0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 11, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-27248 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P