[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8465-8467]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01609]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79830; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE MKT Rule
971.1NY and Make Permanent the Aspects of Customer Best Execution
Auction That Are Subject to a Pilot

January 18, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 16, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend certain eligibility requirements of NYSE
MKT Rule 971.1NY (``Rule 971.1NY'') that govern its Customer Best
Execution Auction (``CUBE'' or ``CUBE Auction'') and to make permanent
the provisions of Rule 971.1NY that currently operate on a pilot basis.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments
regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79599 (December 19,
2016), 81 FR 94437 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    CUBE is an electronic crossing mechanism for single-leg orders that
is designed to provide the opportunity for price improvement for paired
orders of any size.\4\ To commence a CUBE Auction, an ATP Holder
(``Initiating Participant'') may electronically submit for execution a
limit order that it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer,
broker dealer, or any other entity (``CUBE Order''). The Initiating
Participant agrees to guarantee the execution of the CUBE Order by
submitting a contra-side order representing principal interest or
interest that it has solicited to trade with the CUBE Order at a
specified price (``single stop price'') or by utilizing the auto-match
or auto-match limit features set forth in Rule 971.1NY.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 971.1NY. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 72025 (April 25, 2014), 79 FR 24779 (May 1, 2014) (NYSEMKT-2014-
17).
    \5\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(1)(A)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two aspects of the CUBE were approved by the Commission on a pilot
basis (``CUBE Pilot''): (1) Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes
the permissible range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50
contracts; \6\ and (2) Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), which establishes the
minimum size for a CUBE Auction as one contract. In connection with the
CUBE Pilot, the Exchange has provided certain data to the Commission to
provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is
meaningful competition for all size orders within the CUBE Auction and
that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange
outside of the CUBE Auction.\7\ The CUBE Pilot is currently set to
expire on January 18, 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 971.1NY(b)(1) sets forth the permissible range of
executions for a CUBE Order. Generally, a CUBE Order for 50 or more
contracts may be executed at a price equal to or better than the
National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') on the contra side of the
market and equal to or better than the NBBO on its own side of the
market as long as there is no Customer order in the Exchange's
Consolidated Book at that price on that side. See Rule 971.1NY(a)
and (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to the CUBE Pilot, a CUBE Order for fewer
than 50 contracts is subject to a tighter range of permissible
executions. Specifically, if the CUBE Order is for fewer than 50
contracts, the execution price must be at least $0.01 better than
any displayed interest in the Exchange's Consolidated Book. See Rule
971.1NY(a) and (b)(1)(B).
    \7\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78324 (July 14,
2016), 81 FR 47196 (July 20, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described more fully below, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
971.1NY to provide that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts entered
when the NBBO is $0.01 wide will be rejected, unless the Initiating
Participant guarantees the CUBE Order price improvement. With this
proposed modification to CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts, the
Exchange proposes that the CUBE Pilot be made permanent. In support of
its proposal, the Exchange has provided the Commission with data for
CUBE executions for the period from January through June 2015 (``CUBE
Data''),\9\ as analyzed in summary below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Modification of CUBE Eligibility Requirements

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY to require price
improvement for CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO
is $0.01 wide. Currently, Rule 971.1NY(b)(6) provides that CUBE Orders
for fewer than 50 contracts that are submitted when the Exchange best
bid and offer (``BBO'') is $0.01 wide will be rejected. This
requirement will be retained. The Exchange, however, proposes to amend
Rule 971.1NY(b)(6) to add that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts
entered when the NBBO is $0.01 wide also will be rejected (i.e.,
whether or not the Exchange BBO is the same as the NBBO)--unless the
Initiating Participant guarantees the execution of the CUBE Order to
buy (sell) at a price that is equal to the NBO minus $0.01 (NBB plus
$0.01), utilizing a single stop price, auto-match, or auto-match limit
as specified in Rule 971.1NY(c)(1)(A)-(C).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposal would not alter the separate price improvement
requirement set forth in Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which, read in
conjunction with Rule 971.1NY(a), establishes that the range of
permissible execution prices for CUBE Orders of fewer than 50
contracts would be equal to or better than the NBBO and at least
$0.01 better than any displayed interest in the Exchange's
Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange continues to believe that the CUBE Auction
provides opportunities for price improvement of CUBE Orders of fewer
than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01,
the Exchange states that the data have not demonstrated significant
price improvement in this narrow circumstance.\11\ The Exchange notes
that between January and June 2015, a total of 171,822 contracts were
executed in CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO had
a bid/ask differential of $0.01. According to the Exchange, only 1,660
of those contracts received price improvement of $0.01. Thus,
consistent with the Exchange's view that price improvement auctions
should provide price improvement, particularly for small orders, the
Exchange is proposing to require that Initiating Participants guarantee
price improvement for CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts when the
NBBO is $0.01 wide; otherwise, the CUBE Order will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 94439. See also Exhibit 3 to
SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Making the CUBE Pilot Permanent

    The Exchange has analyzed the CUBE Data and believes that it
indicates that there is meaningful competition in CUBE Auctions for all
size orders, regardless of the size of the order or the bid/ask
differential of the NBBO.\12\ Specifically, between January and June
2015, a total of 4,493,429 contracts were executed in CUBE Auctions.
According to the Exchange, Market Makers and other participants
submitted competitive bids and offers during the CUBE Auction's
Response Time Interval, and thereby indicated interest in participating
in CUBE Auction trades. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
allocation of orders executed in CUBE Auctions (either at a single
price

or multiple prices) supports competitive bidding and offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 94439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the CUBE Data reveals that there is
an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the
CUBE Auction.\13\ The Exchange points out that competitive bidding and
offering occurs outside of the CUBE Auction and participants can submit
bids/offers at improved prices or join a bid or offer (thus improving
liquidity at that price) regardless of the bid/ask differential of the
NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ From January through June 2015, the Exchange executed a
total of 152,193,516 contracts outside of CUBE Auctions, which the
Exchange believes is indicative of an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of CUBE Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange continues to believe that the CUBE
Auction provides opportunities for price improvement of CUBE Orders of
fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of
$0.01 (for one reason, because the market conditions may change during
the CUBE Auction). However, because the data have not demonstrated
significant price improvement in this circumstance,\14\ the Exchange
has proposed to require that Initiating Participants guarantee price
improvement for CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO
has a bid/ask differential of $0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 94439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes, however, that CUBE Auctions for fewer than
50 contracts have served as a valuable tool in providing price
improvement when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of greater than
$0.01. The Exchange notes that, for CUBE Auctions of fewer than 50
contracts, the CUBE Data indicates that when the NBBO has a bid/ask
differential between $0.02 and $0.05, contracts executed in CUBE
Auctions received, on average, price improvement of $0.0114, and, in
wider markets (i.e., bid/ask differentials greater than $0.05),
contracts executed in CUBE Auctions received, on average, price
improvement of more than $0.0759.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. See also Exhibit 3 to SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its analysis of the CUBE Data, including the data
regarding CUBE Auctions where the NBBO spread is $0.01, the Exchange
believes that the CUBE Auction, as modified by the proposed revision to
Rule 971.1NY(b)(6), would allow the Exchange to continue to provide
meaningful competition for all size orders--including small orders--as
well as to continue to offer an active and liquid market outside of the
CUBE Auction.\16\ Thus, the Exchange believes that it would be
beneficial to customers and to the options market to make permanent the
CUBE Pilot, with the modification for CUBE Auctions of fewer than 50
contracts where the NBBO spread is $0.01. Once permanent, the CUBE
Auction would continue to accept orders of fewer than 50 contracts,
provided such orders comply with amended Rule 971.1NY(b)(6), which
should continue to attract small orders and promote competition and
price improvement opportunities for such CUBE Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 94439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ 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 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 customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 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).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on
Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which
the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective
Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the
level of price improvement in the auction, in particular for orders of
fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in
such auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the auctions with
liquidity on the Exchange generally.\19\ Based on the data provided by
the Exchange, the Commission believes that the Exchange's price
improvement auction generally delivers a meaningful opportunity for
price improvement to orders, including orders for fewer than 50
contracts, when the spread in the option is $0.02 or more. At the same
time, as the Exchange has recognized, the data do not demonstrate that
such orders have realized significant price improvement when the NBBO
has a bid/ask differential of $0.01.\20\ Recognizing this, the Exchange
has proposed to amend the auction eligibility requirements to reject
any CUBE Order where the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01,
whether or not the Exchange BBO is the same as the NBBO, unless the
Initiating Participant guarantees at least $0.01 of price
improvement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 94439.
    \21\ The Exchange will continue to reject CUBE Orders for fewer
than 50 contracts when the BBO is $0.01 wide. See Rule
971.1NY(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to modify the auction eligibility
requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent
approval of the CUBE Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in
the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for
such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide
opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
    The Commission believes that, particularly for auctions for fewer
than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01,
the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the CUBE
Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the auction generally
provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of
retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is
wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on
the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction.\22\ The Commission
further believes that the proposed revision to the eligibility
requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts with respect to
circumstances when the NBBO is no more than $0.01 wide should help to
enhance the operation of the auction by providing meaningful
opportunities for price improvement in such circumstances, and should
benefit investors and others in a manner that is consistent with the
Act. Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's
proposed revisions to Rule 971.1NY(b)(6) and Commentary .01 to Rule
971.1NY and to approve the

CUBE Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after
publication of the notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Exchange
stated that accelerated approval of its proposal would allow the
applicable rules to remain in effect following the expiration of the
CUBE Pilot on January 18, 2017, which would avoid any potential
investor confusion that could result from a suspension or temporary
interruption in the CUBE Pilot. For this reason, the Commission
believes that good cause exists for accelerated approval of the
proposed rule change. The Commission further notes that the original
proposal was subject to a 21 day comment period and no comments were
received on the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\23\ to approve the proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120), be and
hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01609 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28155-28157]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0529]
RIN 1625-0529

Safety Zone; Lake Pontchartrain, Mandeville, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of a fireworks barge near the
lakefront in Mandeville, LA. The safety zone is necessary to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
New Orleans.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on June
30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0529 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are

``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable
because we must establish this safety zone by June 30, 2018, and we
lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate action
is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with
this fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on June 30,
2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of a
fireworks barge on Lake Pontchartrain. This rule is necessary to
protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waterway before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within 100 yards of a fireworks barge on Lake
Pontchartrain near Mandeville, LA. The barge will be at the approximate
position 30[deg]21'12.03'' N 90[deg]04'28.95'' W. The duration of the
zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the fireworks display is
being set up and launched.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry
into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16
or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted
to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and
comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated
representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the
public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs),
and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone is
for only one hour on a small area of Lake Ponchartrain on one evening.
Vessels may navigate around the safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM)s via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for

federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
establishing a safety zone that will only last one hour and cover a
small portion of a lake. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0529 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0529   Safety Zone; Lake Pontchartrain, Mandeville, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Lake Pontchartrain in a 100-yard radius around the
approximate position 30[deg]21'12.03'' N, 90[deg]04'28.95'' W, near
Mandeville, LA.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices
to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Wayne R. Arguin,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2018-13044 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 48940-48941] [FR Doc No: 2011-20294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of  Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

TIME AND DATE: August 11, 2011, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight  Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested  person may call<PHONE_NUMBER>, passcode, 908048 to participate in this  meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board  of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and  implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to  that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified  Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: August 4, 2011. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. 2011-20294 Filed 8-5-11; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49569-49572]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70147; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

August 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 5, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c)
(``Fee Schedule'') to: (i) Amend the rates for flags BY and RY and (ii)
amend the rates for flags RA and RR. All of the changes described
herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Amend the
rates for flags BY and RY and (ii) amend the rates for flags RA and RR.
Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags BY and RY
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently does
not charge a fee or provide a rebate (free) for Members' orders that
yield Flag BY, which routes to BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') using
routing strategies ROUC, ROUE or ROBY. The Exchange proposes to amend
its Fee Schedule to provide a rebate of $0.0001 per share for Members'
orders that yield Flag BY. The proposed change represents a pass
through of the rate that Direct Edge ECN LLC (d/b/a DE Route) (``DE
Route''), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is rebated
for routing orders to BYX and do not qualify for a volume tiered
discount. When DE Route routes to BYX, it is rebated a standard rate of
$0.0001 per share.\4\ DE Route will pass through this rate on BYX to
the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to
its Members. The Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response
to BYX's August 2013 fee change where BYX updated the default rebate
with no volume requirement it provides its customers, such as DE Route,
from free to $0.0001 per share for orders that are routed to BYX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered discount on BYX, its rate for Flag BY
will not change.
    \5\ See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
assesses a fee of $0.0007 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag
RY, which routes to BYX and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule to decrease this fee to $0.0003 per share for
Members' orders that yield Flag RY. The proposed change represents a
pass through of the rate that DE Route, the Exchange's affiliated
routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to BYX that do not
qualify for a volume tiered discount. When DE Route routes to BYX, it
is charged a standard rate of $0.0003 per share.\6\ DE Route will pass
through this rate on BYX to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn,
will pass through this rate to its Members. The Exchange notes that the
proposed change is in response to BYX's August 2013 fee change where
BYX decreased the fee it charges its customers, such as DE Route, from
a fee of $0.0007 per share to a fee of $0.0003 per share for orders
that are routed to BYX.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered discount on BYX, its rate for Flag RY
will not change.
    \7\ See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags RA and RR
    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
charges a fee of $0.0006 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag
RA, which routes to EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EGDA'') and adds liquidity.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease this fee to
$0.0005 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RA. The proposed
change represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route, the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is rebated for routing
orders to EDGA and do not qualify for a volume tiered discount. When DE
Route routes to EDGA, it is charged a standard rate of $0.0005 per
share.\8\ DE Route will pass through this rate on EDGA to the Exchange
and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through this rate to its Members.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to EDGA's
August 2013 fee change where EDGA decreased the fee it charges its
customers, such as DE Route, from a fee of $0.0006 per share to a fee
of $0.0005 per share for orders that are routed to EDGA and add
liquidity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered discount on RA, its rate for Flag RA
will not change.
    \9\ See SR-EDGA-2013-21 (August 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently
provides a rebate of $0.0004 per share for Members' orders that yield
Flag RR, which routes to EDGA using routing strategies IOCX or IOCT.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease this rebate
to $0.0002 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RR. The
proposed change represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route is
rebated for routing orders to EDGA and do not qualify for a volume
tiered discount. When DE Route routes to EDGA, it is rebated a standard
rate of $0.0002 per share.\10\ DE Route will pass through this rate on
EDGA to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn, will pass through this
rate to its Members. The Exchange notes that the proposed change is in
response to EDGA's August 2013 fee change where EDGA decreased the
rebate it provides its customers, such as DE Route, from a rebate of
$0.0003 per share to a rebate of $0.0002 per share for orders that are
routed to EDGA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that to the extent DE Route does or does
not achieve any volume tiered discount on RR, its rate for Flag RR
will not change.
    \11\ See SR-EDGA-2013-21 (August 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule on August 5, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags BY and RY
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to provide a pass through
rebate for Members' orders that yield Flag BY of $0.0001 per share
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because
the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates
for orders that it routes to BYX through DE Route. Prior to BYX's
August 2013 fee change, BYX did not charge DE Route for orders yielding
Flag BY, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange
passed through to its Members in the form of no fee or rebate (free).
In August 2013, BYX updated the default rebate it provides its
customers, such as DE Route, from free to a rebate of $0.0001 per share
for orders that are routed to BYX.\14\ Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change in Flag BY to provide a rebate of $0.0001 per
share is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing
changes on BYX. In addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to
continue to charge its Members a pass-through rate for orders that are
routed to BYX using routing strategies ROUC, ROUE or ROBY using DE
Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the pass
through rate for Members' orders that yield Flag RY from $0.0007 to
$0.0003 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to BYX through DE Route.
Prior to BYX's August 2013 fee change, BYX charged DE Route a fee of
$0.0007 per share for orders yielding Flag RY, which DE Route passed
through to the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members.
In August 2013, BYX decreased the fee it charges its customers, such as
DE Route, from a fee of $0.0007 per share to a fee of $0.0003 per share
for orders that are routed to BYX.\15\ Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change in Flag RY from a fee of $0.0007 per share to
a fee of $0.0003 per share is equitable and reasonable because it
accounts for the pricing changes on BYX. In addition, the proposal
allows the Exchange to continue to charge its Members a pass-through
rate for orders that are routed to BYX and add liquidity using DE
Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BATS BYX Exchange Fee Schedule, http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags RA and RR
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the pass
through rate for Members' orders that yield Flag RA from $0.0006 to
$0.0005 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to EDGA through DE Route.
Prior to EDGA's August 2013 fee change, EDGA charged DE Route a fee of
$0.0006 per share for orders yielding Flag RA, which DE Route passed
through to the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members.
In August 2013, EDGA decreased the fee it charges its customers, such
as DE Route, from a fee of $0.0006 per share to a fee of $0.0005 per
share for orders that are routed to EDGA.\16\ Therefore, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change in Flag RA from a fee of $0.0006 per
share to a fee of $0.0005 per share is equitable and reasonable because
it accounts for the pricing changes on EDGA. In addition, the proposal
allows the Exchange to continue to charge its Members a pass-through
rate for orders that are routed to EDGA and add liquidity using DE
Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SR-EDGA-2013-21 (August 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the rebate for
Members' orders that yield Flag RR from $0.0004 to $0.0002 per share
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because
the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates
for orders that it routes to EDGA through DE Route. In August 2013,
EDGA decreased the rebate it provides its customers, such as DE Route,
from a rebate of $0.0003 per share to a rebate of $0.0002 per share for
orders that are routed to EDGA.\17\ Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change in Flag RR from a rebate of $0.0004 per share
to a rebate of $0.0002 per share is equitable and reasonable because it
accounts for the pricing changes on EDGA. In addition, the proposal
allows the Exchange to continue to charge its Members a pass-through
rate for orders that are routed to EDGA using routing strategies IOCX
or IOCT using DE Route. The Exchange notes that routing through DE
Route is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SR-EDGA-2013-21 (August 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor EDGX's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, EDGX
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets.
Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags BY and RY
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a rebate of
$0.0001 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag BY would increase
intermarket competition because it

offers customers an alternative means to route to BYX for the same
price as entering orders on BYX directly. The Exchange believes that
its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the
proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of
$0.0003 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RY would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to BYX for the same price as entering orders on BYX
directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden
intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly
to all Members.
Fee/Rebate Changes for Flags RA and RR
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of
$0.0005 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RA would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to EDGA for the same price as entering orders on EDGA
directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden
intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly
to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a rebate of
$0.0002 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RR would increase
intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative
means to route to EDGA for the same price as entering orders on EDGA
directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden
intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly
to all Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGX-2013-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-30. 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-EDGX-2013-30 and should be
submitted on or before September 4, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19741 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29440-29445]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13406]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 124 / Thursday, June 29, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0624; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-135-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model 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. This proposed AD was prompted by a
runway excursion due to an unexpected thrust increase leading to an
unstable approach performed using the current flight management and
guidance computer (FMGC) standard. This proposed AD would require
identification of potentially affected FMGCs, replacement of any
affected FMGC, and applicable concurrent actions. We are proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0624; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0624;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-135-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0122, dated June 21, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus 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 MCAI states:

    Following an instrument landing system (ILS) approach, during
night, in rainy condition, an A321 aeroplane experienced a
longitudinal runway excursion. Investigation revealed that the
approach was not stabilized with an overspeed of 19 knots (kts) over
the runway threshold, followed by a long flare (18 seconds) with
touchdown far behind the touchdown zone. The aeroplane exited the
runway at 75 kts and came to rest around 300 meters beyond the end
of the runway. During the final approach, at 150 feet Radio
Altimeter (RA) altitude, the corrected airspeed of the aeroplane was
165 kts (24 kts overspeed). Auto thrust (ATHR) commanded a transient
N1 increase up to 70% due to the ATHR speed Mach control law.
    The ATHR system on A320 family aeroplane was designed to
maintain accurately the aircraft speed/Mach to speed/Mach target by
commanding the thrust, featuring also a trade-off at low altitude
between thrust corrections to maintain speed equal to speed target
and too large thrust corrections destabilizing the aircraft
trajectory near the ground. The conclusions of the investigations
were that the main contributor to this runway excursion was a non-
stabilized approach not followed by a go-around. ATHR misbehaviour
in case of large overspeed led to an unexpected thrust increase,
which is considered as a contributor to the long flare.
    This ATHR characteristic, reported as ``Spurious thrust increase
during approach,'' was initially found in 1996 and a modification
was developed and introduced in Flight Guidance (FG) 2G standard
``C8 or I8'' (C for CFM engines and I for IAE engines) in 2001.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus introduced a programme to
encourage operators to replace the FMGC Legacy with the FMGC
equipped with Flight Management System type 2 (FMS2) and FG
standard, which introduces additional operational capabilities,
including Runway Overrun Protection System/Runway Overrun Warning

(ROPS/ROW) and Autopilot/Traffic Collision Avoidance System (AP/
TCAS). It was determined that the ROPS, in a scenario similar to the
one described above, would have triggered a ``RUNWAY TOO SHORT''
aural alert before touchdown. Information was made available through
Airbus Service Information Letter (SIL) 22-039 (later superseded by
Word In Service Experience (WISE) In Service Information
22.83.00003), and EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB)
2013-19, recommending the FMGC upgrade.
    Since EASA SIB was published, it was determined that many
operators have chosen not to implement the optional upgrade that
improves the ATHR behaviour.
    More recently, prompted by a recommendation from the BEA (Bureau
d'Enqu[ecirc]tes et d'Analyses pour la s[eacute]curit[eacute] de
l'aviation civile) of France, to reduce the risk of further runway
excursions due to uninterrupted unstable approaches performed with
the legacy FMGC standard, EASA decided to require installation of at
least the first version of the FMS2 and associated FG for legacy
aeroplanes.
    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France issued AD 1999-411-140(B)R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD
2000-12-13, Amendment 39-11791 (65 FR 37845, June 19, 2000) (``AD
2000-12-13'')] and AD 1998-226-119(B)R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD
98-19-08, Amendment 39-10750 (63 FR 50503, September 22, 1998)] to
address different unsafe conditions, requiring to install a certain
previous FMGC standard that may be susceptible to the ``Spurious
thrust increase during approach''.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD * * * requires
replacement of the affected FMGC units with upgraded units [and
applicable concurrent actions].
    Concurrent actions include the installation of certain FMGCs,
wiring, display management computers, wiring associated with pin
programming, and applicable operational program configuration disks.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0624.

Other Related Rulemaking

    On September 2, 1998, we issued AD 98-19-08, Amendment 39-10750 (63
FR 50503, September 22, 1998) (``AD 98-19-08''), for certain Airbus
Model A321 series airplanes. AD 98-19-08 was prompted by issuance of
mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil
airworthiness authority. AD 98-19-08 requires revising the airplane
flight manual to prohibit automatic landings and Category III
operations on runways with a magnetic orientation of 170 through 190
degrees inclusive. We issued AD 98-19-08 to prevent the use of
erroneous automatic roll-out guidance generated by the FMGC, which
could result in the airplane departing the runway upon landing.
    On June 9, 2000, we issued AD 2000-12-13, Amendment 39-11791 (65 FR
37845, June 19, 2000) (``AD 2000-12-13''), for certain Airbus Model
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2000-12-13 was prompted by
issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign
civil airworthiness authority. AD 2000-12-13 requires modification or
replacement of all existing FMGC's, as applicable. We issued AD 2000-
12-13 to prevent erroneous navigational calculations, which could
result in an increased risk of collision with terrain or other
airplanes.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information, which
describes procedures for replacement of any affected FMGC with a
serviceable FMGC. These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane configurations.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated
July 20, 2004.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated
March 12, 2004.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated
March 29, 2004.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated
February 18, 2005.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated
May 31, 2010.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated
December 21, 2015.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI supersedes two DGAC ADs, which correspond to FAA AD 98-19-
08 and AD 2000-12-13. The MCAI does not retain the requirements of the
DGAC ADs. This proposed AD is a stand-alone AD that specifies
accomplishing the actions required by this proposed AD would terminate
all requirements of AD 2000-12-13. We have determined that the actions
specified in AD 2000-12-13 must continue to be required until the
actions of the proposed AD are accomplished.
    This proposed AD does not terminate the actions specified in AD 98-
19-08 because it addresses a different unsafe condition relative to
installing a certain previous FMGC standard, as stated in EASA AD 2016-
0122.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
            Action                         Labor cost               Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection....................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85              $0             $85         $87,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                                 Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...........................  9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765......         $30,000         $30,765
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0624; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
135-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 14, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2000-12-13, Amendment 39-11791 (65 FR 37845,
June 19, 2000) (``AD 2000-12-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD,
all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a runway excursion due to an
unexpected thrust increase leading to an unstable approach performed
using the current flight management and guidance computer (FMGC)
standard. We are issuing this AD to prevent unstable approaches due
to an unexpected thrust increase, which could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane and runway excursions.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement of Affected FMGC

    (1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD:
Inspect the FMGC to determine if any FMGC with an affected part
number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (j) of this AD is installed. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of inspecting the FMGC,
provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the
part number of the FMGC can be conclusively identified from that
review.
    (2) If any affected FMGC with an affected part number identified
in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of
this AD is found during any inspection or review required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the FMGC with a serviceable FMGC having a
part number that is not identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions and paragraph 1.B. (concurrent actions)
of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(vi) of this AD, or using a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Refer to Figure 2
to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and Figure 3 to paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD for the lists of approved eligible FMGCs certified as of the
effective date of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated
July 20, 2004 (installation of FMGC part number (P/N) C13042BA01).
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated
March 12, 2004 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043AA01).
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated
March 29, 2004 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043BA01).
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated
February 18, 2005 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043AA02).
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated May
31, 2010 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043BA04).
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated
December 21, 2015 (installation of FMGC P/N C13207CA00).

                                Figure 1 to Paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of This AD--Affected FMGCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplanes                                                                                FMGC No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A319-111.........................  B398AAM0303                   B398AAM0304                   B398AAM0405                   B398AAM0406

A319-112.........................  B398AAM0407                   B398AAM0408                   B398AAM0409                   B398AAM0410
A319-113.........................  B398AAM0411                   B398AAM0412                   B398BAM0101                   B398BAM0202
A319-114.........................  B398BAM0203                   B398BAM0204                   B398BAM0205                   B398BAM0206
A319-115.........................  B398BAM0207                   B398BAM0208                   B398BAM0209                   B546BAM0101
A320-211.........................  B546BAM0202                   B546BAM0203                   B546BAM0204                   B546BAM0205
A320-212.........................  B546BAM0206                   B546CAM0101                   B546CAM0102                   B546CAM0103
A320-214.........................  B546CAM0104
A321-111.........................
A321-112.........................
A321-211.........................
A321-212 and A321-213 (all CFM56)
A319-131.........................  B398BCM0101                   B398BCM0102                   B398BCM0103                   B398BCM0104
A319-132.........................  B398BCM0105                   B398BCM0106                   B398BCM0107                   B398BCM0108
A319-133.........................  B398BCM0109                   B546BCM0101                   B546BCM0102                   B546BCM0203
A320-231.........................  B546BCM0204                   B546BCM0205                   B546CCM0101                   B546CCM0102
A320-232.........................  B546CCM0103                   B546CCM0104                   B546CCM0105                   B546CCM0106
A320-233.........................
A321-131.........................
A321-231 and A321-232 (all V2500)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Figure 2 to Paragraph (g)(2) of This AD--List of Approved Eligible FMGCs Certified as of the Effective Date of
                                                     This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplanes                                                              FMGC part No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A319-111................................                                C13042AA01
A319-112................................                                C13042AA02
A319-113................................                                C13042AA03
A319-114................................                                C13042AA04
A319-115................................                                C13042AA05
A320-211................................                                C13042AA06
A320-212................................                                C13042AA07
A320-214................................                                C13043AA01
A321-111................................                                C13043AA02
A321-112................................                                C13043AA03
A321-211................................                                C13043AA04
A321-212 and............................                                C13043AA05
A321-213 (all CFM56)....................                                C13043AA06
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FMGC hardware                      Flight Guidance
                                                                              (FG) software
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          C13207AA00                          G2858AAA01
                                          C13207CA00                          G2858AAA02
                                          C13207CA00                          G2858AAA03
                                          C13208AA00                          G2858AAA01
                                          C13208AA00                          G2858AAA02
                                          C13208AA00                          G2858AAA03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Figure 3 to Paragraph (g)(2) of This AD--List of Approved Eligible FMGCs Certified as of the Effective Date of
                                                     This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplanes                                                              FMGC part No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A319-131................................                                C13042BA01
A319-132................................                                C13042BA02
A319-133................................                                C13042BA03
A320-231................................                                C13042BA04
A320-232................................                                C13042BA05
A320-233................................                                C13042BA06
A321-131................................                                C13042BA07
A321-231 and............................                                C13042BA08
A321-232 (all V2500)....................                                C13043BA01
                                                                        C13043BA02
                                                                        C13043BA03
                                                                        C13043BA04
                                                                        C13043BA05
                                                                        C13043BA06
                                                                        C13043BA07

                                                                        C13043BA08
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FMGC hardware                       (FG) software
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          C13207BA00                          G2859AAA01
                                          C13207DA00                          G2859AAA02
                                          C13207DA00                          G2859AAA03
                                          C13207DA00                          G2859AAA04
                                          C13208BA00                          G2859AAA01
                                          C13208BA00                          G2859AAA02
                                          C13208BA00                          G2859AAA03
                                          C13208BA00                          G2859AAA04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Unaffected Airplanes

    (1) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 31896 or Airbus
Modification 31897 has been embodied in production is not affected
by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is
conclusively determined that no FMGC with an affected part number
identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (j) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since the
date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the
original export certificate of airworthiness. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination
provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the
part number of the FMGC can be conclusively identified from that
review.
    (2) An airplane on which the actions specified in paragraph
(g)(2) have been done before the effective date of this AD is not
affected by the requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD, provided
it is conclusively determined that no FMGC with an affected part
number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (j) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this
determination provided those records can be relied upon for that
purpose and the part number of the FMGC can be conclusively
identified from that review.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    Installation of an FMGC standard approved after the effective
date of this AD on any airplane, is acceptable for compliance with
the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided the
conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD are
accomplished.
    (1) The software and hardware standard, as applicable, must be
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (2) The installation must be accomplished using airplane
modification instructions approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane an FMGC with an affected part number identified in
Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of
this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
identified in Figure 4 to paragraph (k) of this AD.

 Figure 4 to Paragraph (k) of this AD--Service Information Acceptable for Credit for Actions in Paragraph (g)(2)
                                                   of This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         FMGC/FG install           Airbus service bulletin     Revision                     Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C13042BA01......................  A320-22-1090............              00  March 5, 2002.
                                                                        01  April 15, 2002.
                                                                        02  June 14, 2002.
                                                                        03  October 1, 2002.
                                                                        04  November 26, 2002.
                                                                        05  January 13, 2003.
                                                                        06  March 3, 2003.
                                                                        07  June 26, 2003.
                                                                        08  October 15, 2003.
                                                                        09  November 7, 2003.
                                                                        10  January 22, 2004.
C13043AA01......................  A320-22-1103............              00  October 8, 2002.
                                                                        01  April 1, 2003.
                                                                        02  August 28, 2003.
                                                                        03  October 15, 2003.
C13043BA01......................  A320-22-1116............              00  January 31, 2003.
                                                                        01  August 4, 2003.
                                                                        02  October 17, 2003.
                                                                        03  February 25, 2004.
C13043AA02......................  A320-22-1152............              00  May 5, 2004.
                                                                        01  July 6, 2004.
                                                                        02  October 15, 2004.
C13043BA04......................  A320-22-1243............              00  October 16, 2007.
                                                                        01  April 1, 2008.
                                                                        02  September 10, 2008.
                                                                        03  February 17, 2009.
                                                                        04  March 3, 2010.

C13207CA00......................  A320-22-1519............              00  June 26, 2015.
                                                                        01  August 26, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(l) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD, and, as applicable, paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, terminates all
requirements of AD 2000-12-13.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0122, dated June 21, 2016,
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-2017-0624.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 16, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13406 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P