[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26595-26598]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10755]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66884; File Nos. SR-Phlx-2012-27; SR-Phlx-2012-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Complex Order Fees and
Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols

April 30, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On March 1, 2012 and April 23, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ two proposed rule changes relating to the transaction
fees for certain Complex Order transactions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4.
    \3\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. A Complex Order may also be a stock-option order, which is
an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying
stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with the purchase or
sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary
.08(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-Phlx-2012-27 (filed on March 1, 2012), Phlx proposed to amend
the Exchange's Fee Schedule to increase the transaction fees and
rebates for certain Complex Order transactions and create a new rebate
for certain Complex Orders. The proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ Notice of filing of the proposed rule change
was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66551 (March 9,
2012) 77 FR 15400 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-Phlx-2012-54 (filed on April 23, 2012), Phlx proposed to
replace a portion of SR-Phlx-2012-27 to provide additional information
concerning the Directed Participant and Market Maker fees for removing
liquidity in Complex orders (``Second Proposal,'' and, together with
SR-Phlx-2012-27, the ``Phlx Proposals'').\6\ The proposed rule change
was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66883 (April 30,
2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-54) (notice of filing of the proposed rule
change).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Commission has not received any comment letters on the
Exchange's proposed rule changes.
    Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission is: (1) Hereby
temporarily suspending the Phlx Proposals; and (2) instituting
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Phlx
Proposals.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Changes

SR-Phlx-2012-27

    The Exchange's proposal amended Complex Order fees and rebates for
adding and removing liquidity in its Select Symbols.\8\ Specifically,
Phlx's proposal: (1) Increased the Customer Rebate for Adding Liquidity
from $0.30 per contract to $0.32 per contract; (2) created a new Rebate
for Removing Liquidity of $0.06 per contract for each contract of
liquidity removed by an order designated as a Customer Complex Order;
(3) amended the Fee for Removing Liquidity for all participants who are
assessed such a fee; and (4) created a volume incentive for certain
market participants that transact significant volumes of Complex Orders
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Phlx Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx's proposal to amend the Fee for Removing Liquidity increased
the Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for the Directed
Participant,\9\ Market Maker,\10\ Firm, Broker-Dealer, and Professional
\11\ categories of market participants. The fee for Directed
Participant transactions increased from $0.30 to $0.32 per contract;
the fee for Market Makers increased from $0.32 to $0.37 per contract;
and the fee for Firms, Broker-Dealers, or Professionals

increased from $0.35 to $0.38 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Directed Participant'' applies to transactions
for the account of a Specialist, Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') or
Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') resulting from a Customer
order that is (1) directed to it by an order flow provider, and (2)
executed by it electronically on Phlx XL II. See Phlx Fee Schedule
at 3.
    \10\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Specialists (see Exchange Rule
1020) and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') (see Exchange Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii), which includes SQTs (see Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and RSQTs (see Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \11\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also provided a new volume incentive to Market Makers.
The Exchange has four categories of market makers--Specialists,\12\
ROTs,\13\ SQTs \14\ and RSQTs \15\--that would all be eligible to
receive the volume incentive. If the Market Maker executes more than
25,000 contracts of Complex Orders each day in a given month, all of
that Market Maker's transactions in Complex Orders that remove
liquidity, both as a Directed Participant and as a Market Maker, shall
be reduced by $0.01 per contract for that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Exchange Rule 1020(a).
    \13\ A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT ROT, which by
definition is neither a SQT nor a RSQT. A Registered Option Trader
is defined in Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the Exchange
located on the trading floor who has received permission from the
Exchange to trade in options for his own account. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii).
    \14\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned.
    \15\ An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an
ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to
generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to
which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR-Phlx-2012-54

    The Exchange's proposal replaced a portion of SR-Phlx-2012-27 to
provide additional information concerning the current Complex Order
Directed Participant and Market Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols. The Exchange did not propose to amend any of the fees
for the Complex Order Directed Participant and Market Maker Fees for
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols, but rather included additional
justification for the differential between the fees paid by Directed
Participants and Market Makers.

III. Suspension of the Phlx Proposals

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\16\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\17\ the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-regulatory
organization 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to further evaluate the
potential effect of the proposed rule changes on competition among
different types of market participants and on market quality,
particularly with respect to the fee differential between Directed
Participants and Market Makers, and the basis for such differential put
forth by the Exchange. Under the proposed rule changes, the Exchange
increased the differential between the fee charged to Directed
Participants and Market Makers from $0.02 to $0.05. As a result, if a
Market Maker that is a Directed Participant executes against a Customer
order directed to that Market Maker for execution by an Order Flow
Provider (``OFP''),\18\ it will be charged $0.05 less per contract than
another Market Maker to whom the order is not directed would have been
charged for executing against that same order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Order Flow Provider'' (``OFP'') means any member
or member organization that submits, as agent, orders to the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 1080(l)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice for SR-Phlx-2012-27, the Exchange stated that the
changes to the Complex Order taker fees in the Select Symbols for
Market Makers and Directed Participants are reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory.\19\ The Exchange did not specifically
analyze the impact, if any, of the changes to the Complex Order taker
fees on competition.\20\ The Exchange argued that the proposed fee
change is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 15403.
    \20\ See Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of [the Exchange Act].''

    (i) Market Makers are not entitled to guaranteed allocations for
directed Complex Orders; (ii) all Market Makers have an equal
opportunity to incentivize an OFP to direct an order to it for
execution on the Exchange; (iii) only Customer orders that are
directed by an OFP and executed by the intended Market Maker receive
the Complex Order Directed Participant fee; (iv) the proposed
Directed Participant and Market Maker Complex Order fees are less
than the fees assessed to Firms, Professionals and Broker-Dealers
because of obligations carried by those Market Makers which do not
burden other participants; (v) Market Makers are unaware of the
identity of the contra-party at the time of the trade and are also
required to execute at the best price, pursuant to Exchange Rules,
against an order intended for them by an OFP in order to be assessed
the Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity
(the only benefit) which does not happen more than 80% of the time;
(vi) order flow arrangements benefit all market participants equally
through added liquidity * * * \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 15404.

    In support of this argument, the Exchange noted that ``an average
of 14.5% of Customer Complex Orders trade with the Market Maker to
which they are directed.'' \22\ It also provided an analysis for the
week of October 10, 2011 of the level of price improvement received by
Customer Complex Order trading in an auction process on the Exchange.
Phlx noted that, based on its analysis, ``Customer Complex Orders
received price improvement 29% of the time and the average level of
price improvement was $0.059 per option or $5.90 per contract for
options receiving price improvement.'' \23\ The Exchange stated that
difference between the proposed fee differential and the price
improvement levels ``supports the Exchange's belief that the proposed
fee is reasonable and will have a negligible impact on Directed and
non-Directed Market Makers,'' \24\ given that the fee differential
between Directed Participants and Market Makers rose by $0.03 per
contract, while the average level of price improvement, for options
receiving price improvement, is $5.90 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. at 15403.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted the justification for the existing $0.02
differential between Directed Participants and Market Makers is that
Market Makers that receive Directed Orders have higher quoting
obligations than Market Makers who do not.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 15402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further stated that increasing this differential is
intended ``to also reflect the increased costs that are incurred by
such Market Makers that enter into order flow arrangements at a cost
and without the benefit of a guaranteed allocation.'' \26\ Phlx stated
that it wants to encourage Market Makers to enter into order flow
arrangements and that ``[t]he benefit that a Market Maker brings to the
Exchange when it pays for order flow is not an insignificant one and
this benefit should not go unrewarded.'' \27\ The competition for order
flow, according to the Exchange, provides better execution quality on
the Exchange, which benefits all participants.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id. at 15404.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Proposal, Phlx replaced a portion of SR-Phlx-2012-27
to provide additional justification for the

differential between the Complex Order Directed Participant and Market
Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols (as modified by SR-
Phlx-2012-27). The Exchange argued that the $0.05 per contract
differential is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because: (i) It is consistent with the fee structures at other options
exchanges; (ii) Market Makers do not receive guaranteed allocations for
directed Complex Orders; (iii) the only executions that receive the
reduced Complex Order Directed Participant fee are Market Maker
executions against Customer orders that are directed by an OFP to the
executing Market Maker; (iv) Market Makers do not know the identity of
the contra-party at the time of a trade and must execute at the best
price; (v) Market Makers compete to offer price improvement in
auctions; and (vi) the fees for removing liquidity in Complex Orders
allow the Exchange to offer increased Customer rebates, which attracts
additional Customer order flow to the Exchange and benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange also provided data for the time period from September
1, 2011 through April 19, 2012, showing the percentage of Customer
Complex directed orders that traded with the Market Maker to which the
order was directed, as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 October      November     December     January      February                April 1-19,
                       September  2011                             2011         2011         2011         2012         2012     March  2012      2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.02%.......................................................       16.16%       17.94%       14.01%        6.19%       11.47%       14.19%       17.13%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange maintained that ``in a given month the effective
Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity for a Market Maker that also
has executions subject to the Directed Participant rate is
approximately $0.02 below the Market Maker Complex Order Fee for
Removing Liquidity.'' The Exchange also updated the price improvement
statistics described above to note that the average level of price
improvement during the week of April 9, 2012 was $5.60 per contract for
options receiving price improvement.
    The Commission intends to further assess whether the resulting fee
disparity between Directed Participants and Market Makers ($0.05 per
contract) is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a
national securities exchange under the Act, as described below. In
particular, the Commission will assess whether the Phlx Proposals
satisfy the standards under the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder
requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules: provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and
other persons using its facilities; not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Phlx
Proposals

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(C) \29\ and 19(b)(2) of the Act \30\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\31\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. As
discussed above, under the proposal, a Market Maker that is a Directed
Participant pays a lower fee than a Market Maker that is not a Directed
Participant when executing against a Complex Order in a Select Symbol
that was directed to the Directed Participant. The Exchange Act and the
rules thereunder require that an exchange's rules: Provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and
other persons using its facilities; not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Commission intends
to further assess whether the Phlx Proposals are consistent with these
Exchange Act standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
Id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for
up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension
and publishes its reasons for so finding. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate and in the public
interest to institute disapproval proceedings at this time in view of
the significant legal and policy issues raised by the Phlx
Proposals.\32\ Institution of disapproval proceedings does not
indicate, however, that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to the issues involved. The sections of the Act and the rules
thereunder that are applicable to the proposed rule changes include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61547
(February 19, 2010) 75 FR 8762 (February 25, 2010) (Order of Summary
Abrogration, in which the Commission abrogated several Phlx fee
filings, including a fee that would have instituted a $0.16
differential between certain classes of market makers depending on
whether they had orders directed to them).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 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 persons using its facilities;'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers;'' \34\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Exchange Act].'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by May 25, 2012. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by June 8, 2012. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and

arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany
S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposals, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule changes. The Commission is focusing its request for
comment on the fee for removing liquidity assessed on Directed
Participants as compared to the fee for removing liquidity assessed on
Market Makers, not the other fee changes that were included in Phlx-
2012-27. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
     As noted above, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether
discrimination on the basis of whether a market maker has an off-
exchange arrangement to pay an OFP to direct its orders to that market
maker is a ``fair'' basis for discrimination among its members with
respect to the fees charged by the exchange. Do commenters' views
change depending on whether the payment for order flow is pursuant to
exchange rules or an off-exchange payment for order flow arrangement?;
     The Commission seeks comment on whether the filing for SR-
Phlx-2012-27 or for SR-Phlx-2012-54 was sufficient under Section 19(b)
of the Act in addressing issues regarding the basis for discrimination
between Market Makers and Directed Participants in Complex Order
transaction fees, and whether the basis for such discrimination is
fair, and why or why not;
     As noted above, Section 6(b)(4) 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 persons using its facilities.'' The Commission seeks
comment on whether the filing for SR-Phlx-2012-27 or for SR-Phlx-2012-
54 was sufficient under Section 19(b) of the Act in addressing issues
regarding the reasonableness of the proposed fees (and thus the
proposed fee differential), and whether the amount of the proposed fees
(and thus the amount of the proposed fee differential), are reasonable,
and why or why not. Does a flat $0.05 fee differential appropriately
reflect potential differences that may exist in payment for order flow
arrangements between market makers and OFPs?;
     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of [the
Exchange Act]. The Commission seeks comment on whether the filing for
SR-Phlx-2012-27 or for SR-Phlx-2012-54 was sufficient under Section
19(b) of the Act in addressing issues regarding the effects of the
proposed fee change on competition, and what, if any, impact the
proposed fee change has or will have on competition, especially as
between Directed Participants and Market Makers; and
     Whether the proposed fee changes will affect the quality
of execution of Customer Complex Orders or broader market quality; and
if so, how and what type of impact will they have.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, including whether the
proposed rule changes are 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-2012-27 and/or SR-Phlx-2012-54 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-2012-27 and/or SR-
Phlx-2012-54. The 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 changes that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2012-27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54 and should be submitted on or before
May 25, 2012. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 8, 2012.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\37\ that File Nos. SR-Phlx-2012-27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54, be and
hereby are, temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is
instituting proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10755 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53424-53429]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0672; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01606-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-04-20, which applies to
certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by including an additional
retained requirement and revising the terminating action to apply to
additional airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an
additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
changes.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by October 17, 2022.

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 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 SNPRM, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer Response
Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9, Canada;
telephone North America (toll-free):<PHONE_NUMBER>, Direct: 647-277-582;
email dehavilland.com">[email protected]dehavilland.com; internet dehavilland.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., 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 at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2022-0672; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains, the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0672; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01606-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Joseph Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and
Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-04-20, Amendment 39-19857 (85 FR 17473,
March 30, 2020) (AD 2020-04-20) for certain De Havilland Aircraft of
Canada Limited Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2020-04-20 requires

repetitive inspections of certain parts for discrepancies that meet
specified criteria, and replacement as necessary; repetitive
inspections of certain parts for damage and wear, and rework of parts;
and electrical bonding checks of certain couplings. AD 2020-04-20 also
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. For certain airplanes, AD 2020-04-20 allows a modification
that terminates the repetitive inspections. The FAA issued AD 2020-04-
20 to address wear on fuel couplings, bonding springs, and sleeves as
well as fuel tube end ferrules and fuel component end ferrules, which
could reduce the integrity of the electrical bonding paths through the
fuel line and components, and ultimately lead to fuel tank ignition in
the event of a lightning strike.
    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to
supersede AD 2020-04-20 that would apply to certain De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2022 (87 FR 35128) (the
NPRM). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada. TCCA
issued AD CF-2017-04R3 to correct an unsafe condition identified as
wear on fuel couplings, bonding springs, and sleeves as well as fuel
tube end ferrules and fuel component end ferrules. The NPRM proposed to
continue to require the actions in AD 2020-04-20, revise the
applicability by adding airplanes, and require, for certain airplanes,
the previously optional rework and retrofit of certain parts of the
fuel system.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA determined that the NPRM
inadvertently limited the proposed new terminating rework and retrofit
to airplanes that had accomplished certain service information. In
addition, the FAA determined that the optional terminating action
specified in AD 2020-04-20, and corresponding credit, should be carried
over to this proposed AD. These changes match the intent of TCCA AD CF-
2017-04R3.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0672.

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Additional Changes Made to This Proposed AD

    The FAA has replaced the content of paragraph (n)(3) of the
proposed AD (in the NPRM) (which is paragraph (o)(3) of this proposed
AD). Since this NPRM now includes the optional terminating action
specified in AD 2020-04-02, the credit for that optional terminating
action is now specified in paragraph (o)(3) of this proposed AD. In
addition, the FAA has determined that the credit specified in paragraph
(n)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) is a new provision and has
moved the credit to paragraph (q) of this proposed AD and updated the
wording for clarity and accuracy.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    This proposed AD would require the following service information,
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of May 4, 2020 (85 FR 17473, March 30, 2020).
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision D, dated
November 23, 2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision C, dated
July 13, 2018.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-26, Revision A, dated
November 29, 2018.
     Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0192,
dated April 24, 2018.
     Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0193,
dated April 24, 2018.
    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

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM
after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2020-
04-20. This proposed AD would require reworking and retrofitting
certain parts of the fuel system. Doing the rework and retrofit would
terminate the inspections in this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                         Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost             Cost per product                 Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2020-04-20...  268 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $22,780...........................  $1,230,120.
                                         hour = $22,780.
New proposed actions..................  Up to 1,747 work-hours x           87,385  Up to $235,880....................  Up to $12,737,520.
                                         $85 per hour = Up to
                                         $148,495.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for revising the existing maintenance or inspection program.

    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to
operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1
work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-04-20, Amendment 39-19857
(85 FR 17473, March 30, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate previously
held by Bombardier, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0672; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-01606-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-04-20, Amendment 39-19857 (85 FR 17473,
March 30, 2020) (AD 2020-04-20).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model
DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category,
manufacturer serial numbers 4001 and 4003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wear on fuel couplings,
bonding springs, and sleeves as well as fuel tube end ferrules and
fuel component end ferrules, and by a determination that a more
robust lightning ignition protection design is necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address such wear, which could reduce the
integrity of the electrical bonding paths through the fuel line and
components, and ultimately lead to fuel tank ignition in the event
of a lightning strike.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Initial Inspection Compliance Times, With New Terminating
Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2020-04-20, with new terminating action. For airplanes having serial
numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4575 inclusive that, as of May 4, 2020
(the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), have not done the actions
specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21: At the applicable
times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD.
Accomplishing the terminating action required by paragraph (p) of
this AD terminates the initial inspection required by this
paragraph.
    (1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever
occurs first after May 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-
20).
    (2) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after May
4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20): Within 6,000 flight
hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after the date of
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions, With New
Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2020-04-20, with new terminating action. For airplanes having serial
numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4575 inclusive that, as of May 4, 2020
(the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), have not done the actions
specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21: At the applicable
times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD. Repeat
the actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours
or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Accomplishing the terminating
action required by paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the
repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the clamshell coupling bonding
wires, fuel couplings, and associated sleeves for discrepancies that
meet specified criteria, as identified in, and in accordance with,
paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision D, dated November 23,
2018. If any conditions are found meeting the criteria specified in
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision D, dated November 23,
2018, before further flight, replace affected parts with new
couplings and sleeves of the same part number, in accordance with
paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision D, dated November 23, 2018.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel
component end ferrules, and ferrule O-ring flanges for damage and
wear, and rework (repair, replace, or blend, as applicable) the
parts, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20,
Revision D, dated November 23, 2018.

(i) Retained Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections
With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. For airplanes having serial numbers
4001 and 4003 through 4575 inclusive: Doing a detailed inspection of
the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules, and ferrule
O-ring flanges for damage and wear, and reworking (repair, replace,
or blend, as applicable) the parts; and doing a retrofit (structural
rework) of the fuel couplings, isolators, and structural provisions,
in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21,
Revision C, dated July 13, 2018, terminates the inspections
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(j) Retained Electrical Bonding Checks/Detailed Inspection, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. For airplanes having serial numbers
4001, 4003 through 4489 inclusive, and 4491 through 4575 inclusive
that, as of May 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), have
done the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21,
Revision A, dated September 29, 2017; and airplanes having serial
numbers 4576 through 4581 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36
months after May 4, 2020, whichever occurs first, do the actions
specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this AD.
    (1) Accomplish electrical bonding checks of all threaded
couplings on the inboard vent lines in the left and right wings, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-26, Revision A,
dated November 29, 2018.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel
component end ferrules, and ferrule O-ring flanges for damage and
wear, and rework (repair, replace, or blend, as applicable) the
parts; and a retrofit (structural rework) of the fuel couplings,
isolators, and structural provisions; in accordance with paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision C, dated July 13,
2018.

(k) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. Within 30 days after May 4, 2020 (the
effective date of AD 2020-04-20), revise the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information
specified in Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0192,
dated April 24, 2018; and Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary
Revision ALI-0193, dated April 24, 2018. Except as specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD, the initial compliance time for doing the
tasks in Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0192, dated
April 24, 2018, is at the time specified in Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier)
Temporary Revision ALI-0192, dated April 24, 2018, or within 30 days
after May 4, 2020, whichever occurs later.

(l) Retained Initial Compliance Time for Task 284000-419, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. The initial compliance time for task
284000-419 is at the time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (2) of
this AD, as applicable, or within 30 days after May 4, 2020 (the
effective date of AD 2020-04-20), whichever occurs later.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through
4575 inclusive: Within 18,000 flight hours or 108 months, whichever
occurs first, after the earliest date of embodiment of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-21 on the airplane.
    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 4576 and subsequent:
Within 18,000 flight hours or 108 months, whichever occurs first,
from the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness.

(m) Retained No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. After the existing maintenance or
inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (k) 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 (r)(1) of this AD.

(n) Retained No Reporting Provisions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (n) of AD
2020-04-20, with no changes. Although Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-28-20, Revision D, dated November 23, 2018, specifies to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include
that requirement.

(o) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With No Changes

    (1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (o) of
AD 2020-04-20, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for
the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD, if
those actions were performed before May 4, 2020 (the effective date
of AD 2020-04-20), using the service information specified in
paragraph (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision A, dated
December 14, 2016.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision B, dated
February 13, 2017.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated
April 28, 2017.
    (2) For the airplane having serial number 4164, this paragraph
provides credit for the initial inspections required by paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
May 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-20, dated September 30, 2016.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD if those actions were performed before May
4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), using the service
information specified in paragraph (o)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, dated August 31, 2017.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision A, dated
September 29, 2017.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision B, dated
June 8, 2018.
    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before
May 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-26, dated August 14, 2018.
    (5) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before
May 4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision B, dated June 8, 2018.
    (6) For airplanes having serial numbers 4001, 4003 through 4489
inclusive, and 4491 through 4575 inclusive, and that are post
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision A, dated September
29, 2017: This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j) of this AD if those actions were performed before May
4, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-04-20), using the service
information specified in paragraph (o)(6)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Modification Summary Package (ModSum)
IS4Q2800032, dated February 1, 2018.
    (ii) Any airworthiness limitation change request (ACR) specified
in figure 1 to paragraph (o)(6)(ii) of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU22.004

(p) New Rework and Retrofit

    For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4575
inclusive: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (p)(1) or
(2) of this AD, rework (repair, replace, or blend, as applicable)
the parts (fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules, and
ferrule O-ring flanges); and do a retrofit (structural rework) of
the fuel couplings, isolators, and structural provisions; in
accordance with Part B of paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21,
Revision C, dated July 13, 2018. Accomplishing these actions
terminates the initial and repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes with greater than 20,000 total flight hours as
of the effective date of this AD: Do the actions within 6,000 flight
hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes with less than or equal to 20,000 total flight
hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the actions within
8,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.

(q) New Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (p) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information specified in
paragraph (q)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, dated August 31, 2017.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision A, dated
September 29, 2017.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision B, dated June
8, 2018.

(r) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the New York ACO
Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, at the address identified in paragraph (s)(2) of this AD or
email to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also
submit information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(s) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to TCCA AD CF-2017-04R3, dated April 1, 2020, for
related information. This TCCA AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0672.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph
Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (t)(4) and (5) of this AD.

(t) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 4, 2020 (85 FR 17473, March 30, 2020).
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision D, dated
November 23, 2018.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-21, Revision C, dated
July 13, 2018.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-26, Revision A, dated
November 29, 2018.
    (iv) Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-
0192, dated April 24, 2018.
    (v) Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-0193, dated
April 24, 2018.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer
Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9,
Canada; telephone North America (toll-free):<PHONE_NUMBER>, Direct:
647-277-5820; email dehavilland.com">[email protected]dehavilland.com; internet dehavilland.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the

availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) 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, email [email protected], or go to: archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 25, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18749 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller,

I wish to comment as an end user of electronic cigarettes, to ask for a longer comment period for the FDA's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I have not smoked a cigarette for two years thanks to the electronic cigarette alternative. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation: Nobel Energy and National Environmental Strategies 9/8/10

Date	Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #)	Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 	Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)	Written Comments Provided?

Did they also submit to Docket?	Date sent to EPA- CCD

9/8/10

Roger Fernandez (EPA)

Suzie Waltzer (EPA)

	Brian Lockard, Curtis Reuter –

Noble Energy

Marc Himmelstein –

National Environmental  Strategies	To provide an overview of comments submitted on the Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W.

	Written comments were submitted to the docket during the public comment period