[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26601-26605]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74864; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Automated Improvement Mechanism Order
Allocation

May 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 23, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.74A relating to its Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 Exchange proposes to amend its AIM auction Rule 6.74A to
provide that in instances where an Initiating Trading Permit Holder
electronically submits an order that it represents as agent (``Agency
Order'') into an AIM Auction (``Auction''), which the Initiating
Trading Permit Holder is willing to automatically match (``auto-
match'') as principal, the price and size of all Auction responses up
to an optional designated limit price and, at the final Auction price
level, there is only one competing Market-Maker or Trading Permit
Holder acting as agent for an order resting at the top of the
Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order, the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder may be allocated up to fifty percent (50%) of the size of
the order. The Exchange also proposes to add language in Rule 6.74A to
more fully describe the manner in which any remaining contracts will be
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction and make other non-
substantive changes to Rule 6.74A to update terminology in the Rule and
make fix minor typographical errors in the text. This is a competitive
filing that is substantially and materially based on the price
improvement auction rules of BOX Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX''),\5\
Nasdaq PHLX MKT (``PHLX''),\6\ and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Rule 7150(h).
    \6\ See PHLX Rule 1080(n).
    \7\ See NYSE MKT Rule 9.71.1NY(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.74A(b)(3), upon conclusion of an Auction, an
Initiating Trading Permit Holder will retain certain priority and trade
allocation privileges for both Agency Orders that the Initiation
Trading Permit Holder seeks to cross at a single price (``single-price
submissions'') and Agency Orders that the Initiating Trading Permit
Holder is willing to automatically match as principal the price and
size of all Auction responses (``auto-match submissions''). Under
current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), if the best competing Auction response
price equals the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price
submission, the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price
submission shall be allocated the greater of one contract or a certain
percentage of the order, which percentage will be determined by the
Exchange and may not be larger than 40%. However, if only one Market-
Maker matches the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single price
submission then the Initiating Trading Permit Holder may be allocated
up to 50% of the order.
    Similarly, current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that if the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder selected the auto-match option of the
Auction, the Initiating Trading Permit Holder shall be allocated its
full size at each price point until a price point is reached where the
balance of the order can be fully executed. At such price point, the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder shall be allocated the greater of one
contract or a certain percentage of the remainder of the order, which
percentage will be determined by the Exchange and may not be larger
than 40%. Notably, unlike the single-price submission rules in Rule
6.74A(b)(3)(F), current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that an Initiating
Trading Permit Holder would only receive an allocation of up to 40% for
orders that are matched at the final price level by only one competing
Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant option class or
Trading Permit Holder acting as agent for an order resting at the top
of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order when the auto-match
option is selected for the Agency Order. The Exchange believes this
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating
Trading Permit Holders that price orders more aggressively using the
auto-match option and that the Rules should provide that such
Initiating Trading Permit Holders receive allocations at least equal to
those that select a single-price submission option for an Auction.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) to provide that
if only one competing Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant
option class or Trading Permit Holder acting as agent for an order
resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order is
present at the final Auction price, then the Initiating Trading Permit
Holder may be allocated up to 50% of the remainder of the Agency Order
at the final Auction price level. As discussed above, current Rule
6.74A(b)(3)(G) provides that an Initiating Trading Permit Holder will
receive an allocation of up to 40% for orders that are matched at the
final price level by only one competing Market-Maker with an allocation
in the relevant option class or Trading Permit Holder acting as agent
for an order resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the
Agency Order when the auto-match option is selected by the Initiating
Trading Permit Holder for the Auction. The Exchange believes this
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating
Trading Permit Holders that price orders more aggressively using the
auto-match option should receive allocations at least equal to those
that select a single-price submission option. The Exchange also
believes proposed rule change will more closely align the language in
Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) with the language in Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and will
thus, provide additional internal consistency within the Rules by
harmonizing order allocations of single-price submissions and auto-
match Auction orders in instances where there is only one competing
order at the final Auction price level. Furthermore, the proposed rule
change will bring the Exchange's AIM rules in line with the Rules of
other competitor exchanges with which the Exchange competes for order
flow.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not affect
the priority of public customer orders under Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(B).
Public customer orders

in the book would continue to have priority even in cases in which a
public customer order is resting in the book at the final Auction
price. For example, suppose that the national best bid (``NBB'') for a
particular option is $1.00 and the national best offer (``NBO'') for
the option is $1.20 and that the NBB is an order to buy 10 contracts at
CBOE. The minimum increment in the option series is $0.01. An
Initiating Trading Permit Holder at CBOE submits an auto-match Agency
Order to sell 100 options contracts in the series. The Auction begins
and, during the auction, one competing Market-Maker submits an Auction
response to buy 50 contracts at $1.00. The Auction then concludes. In
this case, the public customer order resting in the book would have
priority and be allocated 10 contracts with the remaining 90 contracts
being allocated 50/50 to the responding Market-Maker and the Initiating
Trading Permit Holder, 45 contracts each.
    Similarly, a public customer order resting in the book at a final
Auction price level worse than the best Auction response will also
retain priority in the book. Accordingly, assume again that the
national best bid (``NBB'') for a particular option is $1.00 and the
national best offer (``NBO'') for the option is $1.20 and that the NBB
is an order to buy 10 contracts at CBOE. The minimum increment in the
option series is $0.01. An Initiating Trading Permit Holder at CBOE
submits an auto-match Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts in the
series. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one competing
Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 20 contracts
at $1.02, a second Market-Maker (``MM2'') submits an Action response to
buy 20 contracts at $1.01, and a third Market-Maker (``MM3'') submits
an Auction response to buy 20 contracts at $1.00. The Auction then
concludes. In this case, MM1 and the Initiating Trading Permit Holder
would each be allocated 20 contracts at $1.02 and MM2 and the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would each be allocated 20 contracts
at $1.01 since the Initiating Trading Permit Holder is willing to match
the price and size at each improved price level. The remaining 20
contracts would be allocated 10 to the public customer order resting in
the book at $1.00 because the public customer would retain priority at
that price level with the remaining 10 contracts being allocated 50/50
to MM3 and the Initiating Trading Permit Holder, 5 contracts each.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that an unrelated public customer market
or marketable limit orders on the opposite side of the market from
the Agency Order that are received during an Auction will end the
Auction and trade against the Agency Order at the midpoint of the
best RFR response and the NBBO on the other side of the market from
the RFR responses. See Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(D). For example, assume that
the NBBO is $1.00-$1.20. An Initiating Trading Permit Holder submits
a matched Agency Order to sell 100 options contracts at in the
series at $1.10. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one
competing Market-Maker submits an Auction response to buy 100
contracts at $1.15. Assume that after the first response is
received, an unrelated public customer order to buy 100 contracts at
$1.20 is received. This would conclude the auction early after which
the public customer order would trade 100 contracts with the Agency
Order at $1.17 (i.e. the midpoint between the best RFR response
($1.15) and the NBBO on the other side of the market from the RFR
responses ($1.20)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Initiating Trading Permit
Holder's allocation priority for auto-match submissions that only have
one competing order at the final price level fairly distributes the
order when there are only two counterparties to the Auction involved,
and that doing so is reasonable because of the value that Initiating
Trading Permit Holders provide to the market. Initiating Trading Permit
Holders selecting the auto-match option for Agency Orders guarantee an
execution at the NBBO or at a better price, and are subject to a
greater market risk than single-price submissions while the order is
exposed to other AIM participants. As such, the Exchange believes that
the value added from Initiating Trading Permit Holders guaranteeing
execution of Agency Orders at a price equal to or better than the NBBO
in combination with the additional market risk of initiating auto-match
submissions warrants an allocation priority of at least the same
percentage as Trading Permit Holders who submit single-price orders
into AIM. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change,
like other price improvement allocation programs currently offered by
competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by attracting more order
flow as well as increasing the frequency that Trading Permit Holders
initiate Auctions, which may result in greater opportunities for
customer order price improvement. Moreover, as discussed above, the
proposed rule change is consistent with the rules of other
exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., BOX Rule 7150(h); NYSE MKT Rule
9.71.1NY(c)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rules 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and
(G) to describe the manner in which remaining contracts would be
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction under the scenarios therein.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (F) and (G) to
provide that (subject to public customer priority), after the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder has received an allocation of up to
40% of the Agency Order (or 50% of the Agency Order if there is only
one other RFR response), contracts shall be allocated among remaining
quotes, orders, and auction responses (i.e. interests other than the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder) at the final auction price in
accordance with the matching algorithm in effect for the subject class.
If all RFR Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any
remaining contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit
Holder at the single-price submission price for single-price
submissions or, for auto-match submissions, to the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder at the auction start price as specified under Rule
6.74A(b)(1)(a). The Exchange believes that this additional language
would add clarity in the Rules with respect to how remaining odd-lots
will be allocated at the conclusion of an Auction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that such remaining contracts are
currently allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder in
excess of the up to 40% (50% if there is only one other Market-
Marker or Trading Permit Holder representing an Agency Order) of the
order that the Initiating Trading Permit Holder may receive under
the Exchange's existing Rules pursuant to the provision that the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder will be allocated the greater of
one contract or up to 40% (50% if there is only one other Market-
Marker or Trading Permit Holder representing an Agency Order) at the
final Auction price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is
$1.00-$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the
matching algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An
Initiating Trading Permit Holder submits a matched Agency Order to sell
5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction begins and, during the auction, one
competing Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 5
contracts at $1.10, followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'')
submitting an Auction response to buy 5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction
concludes. In this case, under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would receive an allocation up to 40%,
or, in this case, 2 contracts at $1.10. MM1 and MM2 would then receive
1 contract each at $1.10 according to the pro rata allocation algorithm
in place for the class with MM1, as the first responder, receiving the
final 1 contract at the final auction price of $1.10.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rules 6.45A(a)(ii) and 6.45B(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-
$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching
algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating
Trading Permit Holder

submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at $1.10. The
Auction begins and, during the auction, one competing Market-Maker
(``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 1 contract at $1.10,
followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'') submitting an Auction
response to buy 1 contract at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this
case, under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F), the Initiating Trading Permit
Holder would receive an allocation up to 40%, or, in this case, 2
contracts at $1.10. MM1 and MM2 would then receive 1 contract each at
$1.10 according to the pro rata allocation algorithm in place for the
class. With no other RFR responder interest for the Auction, however,
proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) will simply make clear that if all RFR
Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any remaining
contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at
the single-price submission price. In this case, the final 1 contract
would be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at $1.10.
    Remaining odd-lots for auto-match submissions would be similarly
allocated under proposed Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G), except that if all RFR
Responses are filled (i.e. no other interests remain), any remaining
contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Trading Permit Holder at
the auction start price as specified under Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-
$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching
algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating
Trading Permit Holder submits an auto-matched Agency Order to sell 5
contracts. In this case, because the Auction is for fewer than 50
contracts, the Auction would begin at one price increment better than
the NBBO, or $1.19.\12\ Assume that the Auction begins and, during the
auction, one competing Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction
response to buy 1 contracts at $1.18, followed by another Market-Maker
(``MM2'') submitting an Auction response to buy 1 contract at $1.17.
The Auction concludes. In this case, MM2 and the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder would each receive 1 contract at $1.17 and MM1 and the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder would each receive 1 contract at
$1.18. Because all RFR Responses would then be filled (i.e. no other
interests remain), any remaining contracts will be allocated to the
Initiating Trading Permit Holder at the Auction start price or, in this
case, 1 contract at $1.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that these proposed amendments are based on, and
consistent with, the rules of other competitor exchanges.\13\ The
Exchange believes that the value added from Initiating Trading Permit
Holders guaranteeing execution of Agency Orders at a price equal to or
better than the NBBO warrants (to the extent that the Initiating
Trading Permit Holder is on the final Auction price), an Auction
allocation priority of at least the same percentage of the order as any
competing Auction responses. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change, like other price improvement allocation programs
currently offered by competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by
attracting more order flow as well as increasing the frequency that
Trading Permit Holders initiate Auctions, which may result in greater
opportunities for customer order price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., NYSE MKT Rule 9.71.1NY(c)(5); PHLX Rule
1080(n)(ii)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add additional
clarifying language to Rule 6.74A and correct minor typographical
errors in the Rule. Specifically, the Exchange is seeking to amend Rule
6.74A(b)(1)(E) to replace the word ``Members'' with ``Trading Permit
Holders.'' The Exchange no longer has ``members,'' but rather Trading
Permit Holders. Since its demutualization, the Exchange has attempted
(and continues to seek to) replace the word ``members'' with Trading
Permit Holders throughout the Rules for consistency purposes.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) to make
clear the parties that may be entitled to receive a 50% portion of the
remainder of the Agency Order at the final price level of an Auction.
Current Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) provides that if the best Auction response
price equals the Initiating Trading Permit Holder's single-price
submission and only one Market-Maker matches the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder's single price submission, then the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder may be allocated up to 50% of the order. The Exchange
proposes to add the word ``competing'' before ``Market-Maker'' in the
second sentence of Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(F) and add the language ``with an
appointment in the relevant option class or Trading Permit Holder
acting as agent for an order resting at the top of the Exchange's book
opposite the Agency Order'' after ``Market-Maker'' to make clear that
both Market-Makers with an appointment in the relevant option class and
Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for an order resting at the top
of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order may respond to
Auctions and thus, may be present at the final Auction price. The
Exchange notes that the proposed language is consistent with the
current Rule and would also be consistent with the proposed changes to
the auto-match rules in Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G). The Exchange believes that
these changes are non-controversial as they simply clarify the
Exchange's already existing AIM rules. The Exchange strives for
transparency in its Rules and believes these non-substantive changes
will provide greater clarity for market participants. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to add the word ``of'' to Rule 6.74A(b)(3)(G) to fix
a minor typographical error in the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\14\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
protects investors and is in the public interest because it fairly
distributes the allocation of the AIM order between the Initiating
Trading Permit Holder and the Trading Permit Holder who responded when
those Trading Permit Holders are the only two counterparties to the
Auction and/or the number of contracts remaining at the final Auction
price cannot be evenly distributed at the end of an Auction. The
Exchange believes

that the proposed rule changes, like other price improvement programs
currently offered by competing exchanges, will benefit investors by
attracting more order flow as well as increasing the frequency that
Trading Permit Holders submit orders to Auction, which may result in
greater opportunity for price improvement for customers. Moreover, the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Rules of other exchanges.
With respect to the proposed clarifying additions and typographical
corrections to Rule 6.74A, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes will benefit market participants by adding additional
transparency and clarity to the Rules.

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 changes are
meant to more fairly distribute the order allocation when there are
only two counterparties to an Auction auto-match order. The Exchange
does not believe that this change will discourage any market
participants from entering into the AIM, as the auto-match option of
the AIM is more aggressive in terms of risk and therefore, increasing
the allocation to up to 50% of the remainder for the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder when there is only one competing order at the final price
level is a more fair and reasonable allocation mechanism and would
likely only increase the number of Trading Permit Holders that select
the auto-match option to initiate Auctions.
    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is a
competitive response to similar provisions in the price improvement
auction rules of BOX, PHLX and NYSE MKT.\17\ The Exchange believes this
proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the
options exchanges and to establish more uniform price improvement
auction rules on the various exchanges. The Exchange is also seeking
the proposed rule change to align the allocation priorities for AIM
single-price and auto-match submissions for Initiating Trading Permit
Holders when there is only one competing order at the final price level
within its rules. As mentioned earlier, auto-match submissions carry
more risk than single-price submissions and as a result, should be
given at least the same allocation priority as single-price
submissions. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is
necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to
establish more uniform price improvement auction rules on the various
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BOX Rule 7150; NYSE MKT Rule 971.1NY; PHLX Rule 1080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on 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:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-043 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-CBOE-2015-043. 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-CBOE-2015-043 and should be
submitted on or before May 29, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11058 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50522-50523]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 281 and 282

[EPA-R04-UST-2020-0614; FRL-8816-01-R4]

Tennessee: Final Approval of State Petroleum Underground Storage
Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Tennessee (Tennessee or State) has applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final approval of revisions
to its Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Program (Petroleum UST
Program) under subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Pursuant to RCRA, the EPA is proposing to approve revisions to
the Tennessee Petroleum UST Program. This action is based on the EPA's
determination that the State's revisions satisfy all requirements for
UST program approval. This action also proposes to codify Tennessee's
revised Petroleum UST Program and to incorporate by reference the State
statutes and regulations that we have determined meet the requirements
for approval.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
October 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
UST-2020-0614, by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-UST-2020-0614 in the subject line of the message.
    Instructions: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-UST-2020-0614, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the public's access to the EPA Region 4 Offices is by
appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov
or via email. The EPA encourages electronic comment submittals, but if
you are unable to submit electronically or need other assistance,
please contact Winston Smith, the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT provision below. The index of the docket and all
publicly available docket materials for this action are available for
review on the https://www.regulations.gov website. The EPA encourages
electronic reviewing of these documents, but if you are unable to
review these documents electronically, please contact Winston Smith to
schedule an appointment to view the documents at the Region 4 Offices.
Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment at least two weeks in advance. EPA Region 4

requires all visitors to adhere to the COVID-19 protocol. Please
contact Winston Smith for the COVID-19 protocol requirements for your
appointment.
    Please also contact Winston Smith if you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Winston Smith, RCRA Programs and
Cleanup Branch, Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; Phone number: (404)
562-9467, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please contact Winston Smith
by phone or email for further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 281 and 282

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Indian country,
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State program
approval, Underground storage tanks.

    Authority: This document is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

     Dated: August 30, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-19340 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8784-8785]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0054]

Renewal of Information Collection (OMB No. 2105-0551); Agency
Request for Renewal of Previously Approved Information Collections:
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Reporting
Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(Department or DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Department of Transportation's Office of the Secretary is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. The ICR describes the
nature of the information and the expected burden. OST published a
Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information on December 20,
2018 (83 FR 65393). The purpose of this notice is to allow the public
an additional 30 days from the date of this notice to submit comments
to the recently published application to renew ICR 2105-0551,
``Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints.''

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2010-0054 and should be submitted through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer
for U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maegan Johnson, Office of the General
Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Arrangements to receive this document in an
alternative format may be made by contacting the above-named
individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal
agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information
collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44
U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On December 20,
2018, OST published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting
comment on ICRs for which the agency was seeking OMB approval. See 83
FR 65393. OST received no comments after issuing this notice.
Accordingly, the Department has not made any changes to its anticipated
burden hours for the respondents to comply with these requirements. The
Department announces that these information collection activities have
been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR. 1320.5(a) and is
forwarding to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure their full consideration. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). The summaries below describe the nature of
the ICR and the expected burden.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0551.
    Title: Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints.
    Type of Request: Renewal of Information Collection.
    Background: On July 8, 2003, the Office of the Secretary published
a final rule that requires certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers
operating to, from and within the U.S. that conduct passenger-carrying
service utilizing at least one large aircraft to record complaints that
they receive alleging inadequate accessibility or discrimination on the
basis of disability. The carriers must also categorize these complaints
according to the type of disability and nature of complaint, prepare a
summary report annually of the complaints received during the preceding
calendar year, submit the report to the Department's Aviation Consumer
Protection Division, and retain copies of correspondence and records of
action taken on the reported complaints for three years. The rule
requires carriers to submit their annual report via the World Wide Web
except if the carrier can demonstrate an undue burden by doing so and
receives permission from the Department to submit it in an alternative
manner. The first required report covered disability-related complaints
received by carriers during calendar year 2004, which was due to the
Department on January 31, 2005. Carriers have been required to submit
all subsequent reports on the last Monday in January for the prior
calendar year. On March 7, 2016, OMB approved information collection of
disability-related complaints, ``Reporting Requirements for Disability-
related Complaints'' through March 31, 2019. The application to renew
this information collection request was published in the Federal
Register on Thursday, December 20, 2018, 83 FR 65393.
    Respondents: Certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers operating
to, from, and within the United States that

conduct passenger-carrying service with large aircraft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Number of
                                         respondents (an
                                          average of the
             Requirements                total number of              Frequency                Estimated annual burden     Estimated total annual burden
                                         respondents that
                                        reported over the
                                        past three years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record and Categorize Complaints                      177  0-6,444 Complaints (a range of  8,148 hours (488,880 minutes)   8,148 hours (488,880 minutes)
 Received.                                                  the lowest number of            (time for all respondents to    (time for all respondents to
                                                            complaints and an average of    record and categorize each      record and categorize each
                                                            the highest number of           complaint [15 minutes]          complaint [15 minutes]
                                                            complaints received over the    multiplied by the average       multiplied by the average
                                                            past three years).              total number of complaints      total number of complaints
                                                                                received over the past three    received over the past three
                                                                                years [32,591] for all          years [32,591] for all
                                                                                respondents).                   respondents).
Prepare and Submit Annual Report......                177  1 report to DOT/year (for each  30 minutes a year (per each     88.5 hours (5,310 minutes)
                                                            respondent).                    respondent).                    (estimated annual burden for
                                                                                all respondents [30 minutes]
                                                                                multiplied by the total
                                                                                number of respondents).
Retain Correspondences and Record of                  177  0-6,444 Complaints/year (A      0-537 hours (0-to 32,220        2,716 hours (162,955 minutes)
 Action Taken.                                              range of the lowest number of   minutes) (the estimated time    (the estimated time it will
                                                            complaints and an average of    it will take for each           take for all respondents to
                                                            the highest number of           respondent to retain or save    retain or save the
                                                            complaints received over the    the correspondences and         correspondences and records
                                                            past three years for each       records of action taken on      of action taken on
                                                            respondent).                    disability-related complaints   disability-related
                                                                                [5 minutes] multiplied by the   complaints [5 minutes]
                                                                                lowest number of complaints     multiplied by the average
                                                                                and the average highest         total number of complaints
                                                                                number of complaints received   received over the past three
                                                                                per respondent over the past    years [32,591] for all
                                                                                three years [0-6,444]).         respondents).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (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 the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2019.
Habib Azarsina,
OST PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-04384 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4852-4853]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1986]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66234; File No. SR-ISE-2011-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Legging Orders

January 25, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On November 29, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend ISE Rule 715, ``Types of
Orders,'' to add a new order type, the legging order. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
12, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65900 (December 6,
2011), 76 FR 77275 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    A complex order resting on ISE's complex order book may be executed
either by: (i) Trading against an incoming complex order that is
marketable against the resting complex order, or (ii) legging into the
market when the net price of the complex order can be satisfied by
executing all of the legs of the complex order against the best bids or
offers on ISE for the individual options series. ISE's new order type,
the legging order, is designed to increase the opportunities for a
complex order resting on ISE's complex order book to leg into the
market.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Legging orders will not be generated for market maker quotes
on the complex order book because market maker quotes cannot leg
into the market. See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, a legging order may be generated automatically
on behalf of one leg of a complex order resting on ISE's complex order
book at a price: (i) That matches or improves the best displayed bid or
offer on ISE's regular limit order book; and (ii) at which the net
price of the complex order can be achieved when the other leg of the
complex order executes against the best displayed bid or offer on ISE's
regular limit order book.\5\ When a legging order representing one leg
of the complex order is executed, the other leg of the complex order
will execute automatically against ISE's displayed best bid or
offer.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(1).
    \6\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A legging order will be removed automatically from ISE's regular
limit order book if: (i) The price of the legging order is no longer at
the displayed best bid or offer on the Exchange's regular limit order
book; (ii) execution of the legging order would no longer achieve the
net price of the complex order when the other leg is executed against
the best displayed bid or offer on the regular limit order book; (iii)
the complex order is executed in full or in part against another
complex order on the complex order book; or (iv) the complex order is
cancelled or modified.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legging orders are firm orders that will be included in ISE's
displayed best bid or offer.\8\ A legging order will be executed only
after all other executable orders (including any non-displayed size)
and quotes at the same price are executed in full.\9\ Accordingly, ISE
notes that the generation of a legging order will not affect the
existing priority, or execution opportunities, currently provided to
participants in the regular market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ISE Rule 715(k).
    \9\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(2).
    \10\ See Notice, 76 FR at 77276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal limits the circumstances under which a legging order
may be generated. A legging order may be generated only on behalf of a
two-legged complex that has an equal number of contracts on both legs,
and a legging order will not be created at a price that would lock or
cross the best bid or offer of another exchange.\11\ There can be only
one legging order to buy in a series.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 715(k) and (k)(1).
    \12\ See Notice, 76 FR at 77276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these limitations, ISE states that it will carefully
manage and curtail the number of legging orders being generated so that
they do not negatively impact system capacity and performance.\13\
Accordingly, legging orders may not be generated for all eligible
complex orders resting on the complex order book.\14\ ISE represents
that it will curtail the number of legging orders on an objective
basis, such as by limiting the number of orders generated in a
particular class.\15\ ISE represents, further, that it will not limit
the generation of legging orders on the basis of the entering
participant or the participant category of the order (i.e.,
professional, professional customer, or public customer).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See Notice, 76 FR at 77276, footnote 6.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the operation of legging orders:

    A complex order to buy 10 series 1 (S1) and 10 series 2 (S2) at
a net price of $2.25 (buy S1/S2 10 @ $2.25) is entered into the
complex order book and there is no off-setting complex order to
sell.
    The complex order cannot leg into the regular market because the
BBO net price available for the complex order on ISE's regular order
book is $2.40, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ISE Bid                             ISE Offer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S1 10 @ $1.00                        20 @ $1.20
S2 10 @ $1.00                        20 @ $1.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (buy S1 @ $1.20 + buy S2 @ $1.20 = $2.40 net)
    Legging orders to buy 10 S1 @ $1.05 and 10 S2 @ $1.05 may be
generated automatically, improving ISE's best bid for both S1 and S2
to $1.05:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ISE Bid                             ISE Offer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S1 10 @ $1.05                        20 @ $1.20
 (legging order)
S2 10 @ $1.05                        20 @ $1.20
 (legging order)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If ISE receives a marketable order to sell 10 S1, it would
execute against the legging order to buy S1 at $1.05, the other leg
of the complex order would execute automatically against the
displayed offer of $1.20 for S2, and the legging order to buy S2 at
$1.05 would be cancelled automatically. This would achieve the net
price of $2.25 for the complex order (buy S1 @ $1.05 + buy S2 @
$1.20 = $2.25 net).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If ISE received a marketable order to sell 10 S2, it would
execute against the legging order to buy S2 at $1.05, the other leg
of the complex order would execute automatically against the
displayed offer of $1.20 for S1, and the legging order to buy S1 at
$1.05 would be cancelled automatically. This would achieve the net
price of $2.25 for the complex order (buy S1 @ $1.20 + buy S2 @
$1.05 = $2.25 net). For additional examples regarding the operation
of legging orders, see Notice, 76 FR at 77275-77276.

    ISE notes that, in this example, the legging order enabled the
execution of the complex order at a net price of $2.25 and enhanced the
execution of the interest in the leg market because (i) the incoming
marketable order to sell S1 received a better price ($1.05 instead of
$1.00), and (ii) the complex order provided liquidity to execute the
resting leg market interest to sell S2 at $1.20.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, 76 FR at 77276.

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

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\19\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change could
facilitate the execution of complex orders resting on ISE's complex
order book by increasing the opportunities for these orders to execute
against interest in the leg market, thereby benefitting investors
seeking to execute complex orders. In addition, the Commission believes
that the proposal could benefit participants in the leg market by
providing additional liquidity, and potentially more favorable
executions, for orders and quotes in the leg market.
    A legging order is a firm order that will be included in ISE's
displayed best bid or offer.\21\ In addition, a legging order will not
be created at a price that would lock or cross the best bid or offer of
another exchange.\22\ The Commission notes that a legging order will be
executed only after all other executable orders (including any non-
displayed size) and quotes at the same price are executed in full.\23\
Accordingly, ISE states that legging orders will not affect the
existing priority, or execution opportunities, of participants in the
leg market.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See ISE Rule 715(k).
    \22\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(1).
    \23\ See ISE Rule 715(k)(2).
    \24\ See Notice, 76 FR at 77276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, ISE represents that it will carefully manage and
curtail the number of legging orders being generated so that they do
not negatively impact system capacity and performance.\25\ ISE
represents, further, that it will curtail the number of legging orders
on an objective basis, such as by limiting the number of orders
generated in a particular class, and that it will not limit the
generation of legging orders on the basis of the entering participant
or the participant category of the order (i.e., professional,
professional customer, or public customer).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2011-82) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1986 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67049-67053]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0641; Product Identifier 2018-NM-032-AD; Amendment
39-19519; AD 2018-25-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-22-07,
which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model
A320-211,-212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-
22-07 required repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and
corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017-22-07 also included optional
modifications that constituted terminating action. This AD requires
modifying certain forward and aft cargo compartment doors, and related
investigative and corrective actions. This AD was prompted by an
evaluation done by the design approval holder indicating that certain
areas of certain cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread
fatigue damage, and a determination was made that a modification of the
frame forks must be done. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 1,
2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January
2, 2018 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 2 Rond Point Emile
Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0641.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0641; or in person at Docket Operations 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 Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158,
November 28, 2017) (``AD 2017-22-07''). AD 2017-22-07 applied to
certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -
214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on August 3, 2018 (83 FR 38091). The NPRM was prompted
by an evaluation done by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating
that the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo
compartment doors are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and a
determination was made that a modification of the frame forks must be
accomplished. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive
inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary,
and to include optional modifications that constitute terminating
action. The NPRM also proposed to require modifying certain forward and
aft cargo compartment doors, and related investigative and corrective
actions. We are issuing this AD to address cracks on the frame forks
and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which
could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo
compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to
occupants.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2018-0024, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS
Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -
232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full scale fatigue test, cracks were found on frame forks
and outer skin on forward and aft cargo doors. To improve the
fatigue behaviour of the frame forks, Airbus introduced modification
(mod) 22948 in production, and issued inspection Service Bulletin
(SB) A320-52-1032 and mod SB A320-52-1042, both recommended. Since
those actions were taken, further improved cargo compartment doors
were introduced in production through Airbus mod 26213, on
aeroplanes having [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0759 and up.
    In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) study, it
was determined that repetitive inspection are necessary for aft and
forward cargo compartment doors on aeroplanes that are in pre-mod
26213 configuration. Failure to detect cracks would reduce the cargo
door structural integrity.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the
aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-52-1171
to provide instructions for repetitive special detailed inspections
(SDI). This SB was later revised to correct the list of affected
cargo doors. Airbus also issued SB A320-52-1170, introducing a door
modification which would allow terminating the repetitive SDI[s].
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0187 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2017-22-07] to require repetitive SDI[s] of the affected cargo
doors and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable
repairs. That [EASA] AD also included reference to SB A320-52-1170
as optional terminating action.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further investigations linked
to the WFD analysis highlighted that, to meet the WFD requirements,
it is necessary to require

embodiment of the terminating action modification.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0187, which is superseded, and requires
modification of all affected cargo doors, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive SDI[s] required by this [EASA]
AD.

    The related investigative action is a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracks. Corrective actions
include, among other things, oversizing and cold-expanding any affected
holes and repair.
    The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was U.S. type certificated on
December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA ADs that affected Model
A320-216 airplanes were included on the Required Airworthiness Actions
List (RAAL). One or more Model A320-216 airplanes have subsequently
been placed on the U.S. Register, and will now be included in FAA AD
actions. For Model A320-216 airplanes, the requirements that correspond
to AD 2017-22-07 were mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that
RAAL requirement is still in effect, for continuity and clarity we have
identified Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this AD.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0641.

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.

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines (UA) stated its agreement with the intent of the
NPRM.

Request To Refer to Revised Service Information

    UA asked that the NPRM reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-
1170, Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018. UA stated that this latest
revision only includes various updates and clarifications. Further, UA
pointed out that an existing alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
already allows this revision. UA also asked that we include credit for
doing previous actions using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170,
dated September 5, 2016.
    We agree with the commenter's request. For the reasons provided by
the commenter, and because the revised service information does not
include any additional actions, we have updated the preamble and
paragraphs (j) and (k)(2) of this AD to refer to the revised service
information. We have also added paragraph (o)(1) to this AD to provide
credit for actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD
using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016. We
have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Reference Later Revisions of Service Information

    UA asked that we change paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow
use of later EASA-approved service bulletins. UA stated that EASA AD
2018-0024, dated January 29, 2018, allows the use of later-approved
revisions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5,
2016. UA added that it has an approved AMOC that allows for the use of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018,
as well as ``all corresponding later EASA-approved service
information'' for accomplishing the requirements in the proposed AD.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We may not refer to
any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required
by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to either publish
the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or
submit the service document to the OFR for approval as referenced
material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text
of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR
approved it for incorporation by reference. See 1 CFR part 51. To allow
operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued
after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference
specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use
later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the provisions of
paragraph (q)(1) of this AD. Therefore, we made no change to this AD in
this regard.

Request for Correction to Service Information

    UA asked for approval for a correction to Appendix 02, page 1, of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018.
UA asked that the following sentence ``For the alternate fasteners for
ASNA2657K3 series, refer to the next page'' be changed to ``For the
alternate fasteners for ASNA2657K3 series, refer to table in page 1.''
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, page 2 of Appendix
02, does contain a table referencing alternative fasteners; there is no
table on page 1 of Appendix 02. Therefore, the service information is
correct regarding this issue. Further, only the manufacturer may revise
its service information. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD
in this regard.

Additional Change Made to This AD

    We have added paragraph (o)(2) to this AD to provide credit for
actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14,
1997. As explained previously, we have redesignated subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

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:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing 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

    Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01,
dated June 14, 2018, which describes procedures for modifying all
affected forward and aft cargo compartment doors, including oversizing
and cold working of riveting for all frame forks.
    Airbus SAS has also issued Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision
02, dated April 10, 2017, which the Director of the Federal Register
approved for incorporation by reference as of January 2, 2018 (82 FR
56158, November 28, 2017).
    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 88 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification...................  24 work-hours x $85     Up to $240.......  Up to $2,280.....  Up to $200,640.
                                  per hour = $2,040.
Inspection.....................  25 work-hours x $85     $0...............  $2,125 per         $187,000 per
                                  per hour = $2,125 per                      inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  inspection cycle.                                             cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repairs and replacements specified
in this AD.

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 transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-25-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19519; Docket No. FAA-2018-0641;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-032-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 1, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158,
November 28, 2017) (``AD 2017-22-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114,
-115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -
216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any
category; manufacturer serial numbers through 0758 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the frame forks and outer skin on the
forward and aft cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD), and a determination that a modification of the
frame forks must be accomplished. We are issuing this AD to address
cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft
cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural
integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible
decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Definition of Affected Door, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definition in paragraph (g) of AD
2017-22-07, with no changes. For the purpose of this AD, an
``affected door'' is a forward or aft cargo compartment door, having
any part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD,
except a cargo compartment door on which Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-52-1042 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170 is embodied.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE18.008

(h) Retained Repetitive Special Detailed Inspection of Frame Forks,
With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2017-22-07, with no changes. At the latest of the compliance times
listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD: Do a special
detailed inspection of all frame forks in the beam 4 area of any
affected door as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified
in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. A review
of the airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable to
identify any affected door installed on the airplane, provided that
the cargo compartment door part number can be conclusively
determined from that review.
    (1) Before exceeding 37,500 flight cycles since first
installation of the door on an airplane.
    (2) Within 900 flight cycles after January 2, 2018 (the
effective date of AD 2017-22-07), without exceeding 41,950 flight
cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane.
    (3) Within 50 flight cycles after January 2, 2018 (the effective
date of AD 2017-22-07), for a door having reached or exceeded 41,900
flight cycles since first installation on an airplane.
    (4) Within 3,000 flight cycles since the last inspection of the
door as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032.

(i) Retained Corrective Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2017-22-07, with no changes. If any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further
flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171,
Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified in paragraphs
(l) and (m) of this AD. Accomplishment of applicable corrective
actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections.

(j) Terminating Modification for Repetitive Inspections

    Before the accumulation of 56,300 flight cycles, but not before
the accumulation of 21,700 flight cycles since first installation of
the affected door on an airplane: Modify all affected doors of an
airplane, including accomplishment of all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170,
Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018. Accomplishing this modification
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided
that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that
airplane.

(k) Retained Optional Terminating Action, With Changes Related to
Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2017-22-07, with changes related to compliance.
    (1) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane before the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2,
dated January 14, 1997 (which is incorporated by reference in AD
2017-22-07 and is not incorporated in this AD), constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD and a method of compliance for the
modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD, for that
airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-
installed on that airplane. For airplanes not previously modified
before the effective date of this AD, the modification required by
paragraph (j) of this AD must be done.
    (2) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane including
accomplishment of all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, if done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018, except as
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD and a method of compliance for the modification required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, for that airplane, provided that, after
modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane. For
airplanes not previously modified before the effective date of this
AD, the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be
done.
    (3) Modification of all affected doors on an airplane, in case
of finding damaged frame forks, as specified in an Airbus Repair
Design Approval Sheet (RDAS), if done before the effective date of
this AD and done in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA
Design Organization Approval

(DOA); constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD and a method of compliance for
the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD, for that
airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-
installed on that airplane. For airplanes not previously modified
before the effective date of this AD, the modification required by
paragraph (j) of this AD must be done.

(l) Retained Exception to Service Information, With Updated Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2017-22-07, with updated service information. Where Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016; Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01, dated June 14, 2018; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017;
specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies
that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance): Before further
flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this AD.

(m) Retained Provision: No Reporting Requirement

    This paragraph restates the provision provided in paragraph (l)
of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. Although Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, specifies to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action
as ``RC,'' this AD does not include that requirement.

(n) Retained Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the provisions specified in paragraph
(m) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes.
    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), using
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, dated October 29, 2015,
provided that it can be conclusively determined that any part number
D52371000018 was also inspected as specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), using
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 01, dated September
5, 2016.

(o) New Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (j) and (k)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the optional terminating
modification specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14,
1997.

(p) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an affected door specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, unless less than 56,300 flight cycles have accumulated since
first installation of the door on an airplane, and unless the door
has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(h) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions have been done
in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified in
paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD: If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0024, dated January 29,
2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0641.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (s)(5) and (s)(6) of this AD.

(s) 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
February 1, 2019.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, Revision 01, dated
June 14, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 2, 2018 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated
April 10, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 2 Rond Point Emile Dewoitine,
31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 23, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-26533 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P