[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74699-74700]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30271]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68402; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-137]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity

December 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on December 3, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to file Section I of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity
in Select Symbols'' in order to preserve amendments to the Pricing
Schedule that became effective after the suspension of certain fees on
April 30, 2012.
    The Exchange has designated the proposed amendment to be operative
on December 3, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange filed two immediately effective rule changes, SR-Phlx-
2012-27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54,\3\ to amend certain fees and rebates in
Section I, which filings were temporarily suspended by the Commission
as of April 30, 2012 (``Suspension Order'').\4\ In order to continue
the effectiveness of certain fees and rebates that were contained in
SR-Phlx-2012-27, but not the subject of the Suspension Order, the
Exchange filed a rule change on April 30, 2012.\5\ On November 9, 2012,
the Commission approved SR-Phlx-2012-27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on a one-year pilot basis, with such fees
being operative on December 3, 2012 (``Approval Order'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66551 (March 9,
2012), 77 FR 15400 (March 15, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-27) and 66883
(April 30, 2012), 77 FR 26591 (May 4, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-54).
    \4\ By order dated April 30, 2012, the Commission suspended SR-
Phlx-2012-27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54. See Securities Exchange Release
No. 66884 (April 30, 2012), 77 FR 26595 (May 4, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-
27 and SR-Phlx-2012-54).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66968 (May 11,
2012), 77 FR 29425 (May 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-57).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68202 (November 9,
2012), 77 FR 68856 (November 16, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-27 and SR-Phlx-
2012-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Approval Order reinstated the fees that were proposed by the
Exchange in SR-Phlx-2012-27.\7\ Since the date of the suspension, the
Exchange filed multiple amendments to Section I of the Pricing Schedule
which became effective after the Suspension Order.\8\ The Exchange
proposes to preserve the amendments to Section I of the Pricing
Schedule that became effective after the Suspension Order in order to
continue the effectiveness of the current fees and rebates which were
not the subject of the Approval Order. The fees for executions of
Complex Orders by Directed Participants and Market Makers, which were
the subject of the Approval Order, will be addressed in a separate
filing proposed to be operative on December 3, 2012 and are not
included in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, SR-Phlx-2012-27 proposed to: (1) Increase the
Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity from $0.30 to
$0.32 per contract, (2) create a new Complex Order Rebate for
Removing Liquidity and specifically pay a Customer a $0.06 Complex
Order Rebate for Removing Liquidity, and (3) increase the Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Firms, Broker-Dealers and
Professionals from $0.35 per contract to $0.38 per contract.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66985 (May 14,
2012), 77 FR 29726 (May 18, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-61); 67047 (May 23,
2012), 77 FR 32165 (May 31, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-70); 67189 (June 12,
2012), 77 FR 36310 (June 18, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-77); 67439 (July
13, 2012), 77 FR 42541 (July 19, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-90); 67633
(August 9, 2012), 77 FR 49040 (August 15, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-104);
67830 (September 11, 2012), 77 FR 57169 (September 17, 2012) (SR-
Phlx-2012-112); and SR-Phlx-2012-125) (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it is concerned solely with the administration of
the Exchange. This filing serves to preserve the current pricing that
has been filed with the Commission notwithstanding the Approval Order
that was issued by the Commission. The Exchange believes this proposal
is a technical and non-substantive rule change with the sole purpose of
preserving the current fees and rebates in Section I. The fees that
were the subject of the Approval Order, which related to fees for
executions of Complex Orders by Directed Participants and Market
Makers, will be addressed in a separate filing. This proposal maintains
the status quo, which would be otherwise altered by the Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-137 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-137. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-137 and should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30271 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71485-71487]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0761]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of Mission Bay at the Quivira Basin Entrance near San
Diego, California. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Office of Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR) Sensitive Site Strategy Evaluation
Program (SSSEP) boom deployment exercise. Entry of vessels or persons
into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector San Diego.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on October
25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0761 in the search box and click

``Search.'' Next, in the Document Type column, select ``Supporting &
Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LTJG Shelley Turner, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to the
requirement for a boom deployment exercise on October 25, 2023, and the
safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the boom
deployment exercise. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we
must establish this safety zone by October 25, 2023.
    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 would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the boom
deployment exercise scheduled on October 25, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with a boom deployment exercise on
October 25, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard
of the exercise. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
while the boom is deployed, and the exercise is in progress.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
on October 25, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 100 yards of boom, vessels and equipment being used by personnel
to conduct the boom deployment exercise. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these navigable waters while the exercise is in progress. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the safety zone
being of a limited two-hour duration, limited to a relatively small
geographic area, and the presence of safety hazards in the area
encompassing the Quivira Basin Entrance.

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
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
call or email 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.

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 a
safety zone lasting two hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards
of boom, vessels and equipment being used by personnel to conduct a
boom deployment exercise. 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. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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 is
proposing to amend 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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-132 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-132  Safety Zone; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters from
surface to bottom encompassing a 100-yard radius surrounding the
Sensitive Site Strategy Evaluation Program (SSSEP) boom deployment
exercise, located at the entrance to Quivira Basin inlet in Mission
Bay, CA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and dates for
the safety zone.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on October 25, 2023.

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2023-22883 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23827-23829]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10918]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1081; Product Identifier 2017-SW-090-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
AgustaWestland S.p.A. (AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. This
proposed AD would require replacing the tail plane lower fitting with
an improved tail plane lower fitting. This proposed AD is prompted by
reports of cracks on the tail plane fittings of Model AW189
helicopters. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1081; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and

other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0161, dated August 8, 2016,
to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo Helicopters (previously
Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestand) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA
advises that some cracks have been reported in-service on the tail
plane fitting of AW189 helicopters following an onset of abnormal play.
According to EASA, this condition, if not detected and corrected, could
jeopardize structural integrity of the helicopter. EASA further advises
that Leonardo Helicopters developed a tail plane lower fitting with an
improved design (part number 8G0000P00511). Accordingly, EASA AD No.
2016-0161 requires repetitive inspections of the tail plane lower
fitting assembly until the improved tail plane lower fitting is
installed.
    Because the FAA is in the process of updating AgustaWestland's name
changes to Finmeccanica S.p.A. and then to Leonardo Helicopters on its
FAA type certificate, this proposed AD specifies AgustaWestland as the
type certificate holder.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 189-
038, Revision B, dated October 13, 2016, which specifies repetitively
inspecting the tail plane assembly for a crack.
    We also reviewed BT No. 189-070, Revision A, dated October 13,
2016, which provides instructions for replacing the tail plane lower
fitting with the improved tail plane lower fitting, retromodification
part number (P/N) 8G0000P00511.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours time-in-service
(TIS), replacing the tail plane fitting with tail plane
retromodification kit P/N 8G0000P00511.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires inspecting the tail plane lower fitting for
play within 50 flight hours and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
25 flight hours. If a crack or other damage exists, the EASA AD
requires the improved tail plane lower fitting be installed within 10
flight hours. If no crack exists, the EASA AD requires that the
improved tail plane lower fitting be installed within 200 flight hours
or 2 months, whichever occurs first. This proposed AD would not require
inspections and would require installing the improved tail plane lower
fitting within 50 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on
these estimates, we expect that replacing the tail plane lower fitting
with an improved tail plane lower fitting would require 64 work-hours
and parts would cost $15,424 for a total cost of $20,864 per helicopter
and $41,728 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

AgustaWestland S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2017-1081; Product Identifier
2017-SW-090-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AW189
helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail plane lower
fitting P/N 8G5350A07051 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on a tail plane
fitting, which could result in failure of the tail plane fitting and
loss of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 23, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service, install tail plane
retromodification kit part number 8G0000P00511.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 189-038,
Revision B, and BT No. 189-070, Revision A, both dated October 13,
2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo
Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di
Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046;
or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0161, dated August 8, 2016. You may
view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5510, Horizontal
Stabilizer Structure.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 15, 2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10918 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69371-69375]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24162]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90274; File No. SR-EMERALD-2020-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule To Establish Market Data Fees

October 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 14, 2020, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or
``Exchange'') 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to establish market data fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to establish market
data fees. MIAX Emerald commenced operations as a national securities
exchange registered under Section 6 of the Act \3\ on March 1, 2019.\4\
The Exchange adopted its transaction fees and certain of its non-
transaction fees in its filing SR-EMERALD-2019-15.\5\ In that filing,
the Exchange expressly waived, among others, market data fees to
provide an incentive to prospective market participants to become
Members \6\ of the Exchange. At that time, the Exchange waived market
data fees for the Waiver Period \7\ and stated that it would provide
notice to market participants when the Exchange intended to terminate
the Waiver Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84891 (December 20,
2018), 83 FR 67421 (December 28, 2018) (File No. 10-233) (order
approving application of MIAX Emerald, LLC for registration as a
national securities exchange).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85393 (March 21,
2019), 84 FR 11599 (March 27, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-15) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule).
    \6\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization approved to
exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit.
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange
Rule 100 and the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \7\ ``Waiver Period'' means, for each applicable fee, the period
of time from the initial effective date of the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule until such time that the Exchange has an effective fee
filing establishing the applicable fee. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular announcing the establishment of an applicable
fee that was subject to a Waiver Period at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the termination of the Waiver Period and effective date of
any such applicable fee. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 15, 2020, the Exchange issued a Regulatory Circular
which announced, among other things, that the Exchange would be ending
the Waiver Period for market data fees, beginning October 1, 2020.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MIAX Emerald Regulatory Circular 2020-41 available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2020_41.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2020, the Exchange filed its proposal to assess fees
for its

market data products, MIAX Emerald Top of Market (``ToM''),
Administrative Information Subscriber (``AIS'') feed, and MIAX Order
Feed (``MOR'').\9\ On October 14, 2020, the Exchange withdrew the First
Proposed Rule Change and refiled its proposal in order to provide more
description regarding the difference in pricing for internal
distributors and external distributors. A more detailed description of
the ToM, AIS and MOR products can be found in the Exchange's previously
filed Market Data Product filings.\10\ The Exchange notes that it will
not be assessing fees for Complex Top of Market (``cToM'') \11\ data at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See SR-EMERALD-2020-10 (the ``First Proposed Rule Change'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85207 (February 27,
2019), 84 FR 7963 (March 5, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-09) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Establish MIAX Emerald Top of Market (``ToM'') Data Feed, MIAX
Emerald Complex Top of Market (``cToM'') Data Feed, MIAX Emerald
Administrative Information Subscriber (``AIS'') Data Feed, and MIAX
Emerald Order Feed (``MOR'')).
    \11\ cToM provides subscribers with the same information as the
ToM market data product as it relates to the strategy book, i.e.,
the Exchange's best bid and offer for a complex strategy, with
aggregate size, based on displayable order and quoting interest in
the complex strategy on the Exchange. cToM also provides subscribers
with the identification of the complex strategies currently trading
on MIAX Emerald; complex strategy last sale information; and the
status of securities underlying the complex strategy (e.g., halted,
open, or resumed). cToM is distinct from ToM, and anyone wishing to
receive cToM data must subscribe to cToM regardless of whether they
are a current ToM subscriber. ToM subscribers are not required to
subscribe to cToM, and cToM subscribers are not required to
subscribe to ToM. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize, ToM provides market participants with a direct data
feed that includes the Exchange's best bid and offer, with aggregate
size, and last sale information, based on displayable order and quoting
interest on the Exchange. The ToM data feed includes data that is
identical to the data sent to the processor for the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA''). ToM also contains a feature that
provides the number of Priority Customer \12\ contracts that are
included in the size associated with the Exchange's best bid and offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). The
number of orders shall be counted in accordance with Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 100. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIS provides market participants with a direct data feed that
allows subscribers to receive real-time updates of products traded on
MIAX Emerald, trading status for MIAX Emerald and products traded on
MIAX Emerald, and liquidity seeking event notifications. The AIS market
data feed includes opening imbalance condition information, opening
routing information, expanded quote range information, post-halt
notifications, and liquidity refresh condition information. AIS real-
time messages are disseminated over multicast to achieve a fair
delivery mechanism. AIS notifications provide current electronic system
status allowing subscribers to take necessary actions immediately.
    MOR provides market participants with a direct data feed that
allows subscribers to receive real-time updates of options orders,
products traded on MIAX Emerald, MIAX Emerald Options System status,
and MIAX Emerald Options Underlying trading status. Subscribers to the
data feed will get a list of all options symbols and strategies that
will be traded and sourced on that feed at the start of every session.
    The Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees to Distributors
(defined below) of the ToM, AIS, and MOR market data products. MIAX
Emerald will assess market data fees applicable to the market data
products on Internal and External Distributors in each month the
Distributor is credentialed to use the applicable market data product
in the production environment. A ``Distributor'' of MIAX Emerald data
is any entity that receives a feed or file of data either directly from
MIAX Emerald or indirectly through another entity and then distributes
it either internally (within that entity) or externally (outside that
entity). All Distributors are required to execute a MIAX Emerald
Distributor Agreement. Market data fees for ToM, AIS, and MOR will be
reduced for new Distributors for the first month during which they
subscribe to the applicable market data product, based on the number of
trading days that have been held during the month prior to the date on
which they have been credentialed to use the applicable market data
product in the production environment. Such new Distributors will be
assessed a pro-rata percentage of the fees described above, which is
the percentage of the number of trading days remaining in the affected
calendar month as of the date on which they have been credentialed to
use the applicable market data product in the production environment,
divided by the total number of trading days in the affected calendar
month.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess Internal Distributors
$1,250 per month and External Distributors $1,750 per month for the ToM
market data feed. The Exchange proposes to assess Internal Distributors
$1,250 per month and External Distributors $1,750 per month for the AIS
market data feed. The Exchange proposes to assess Internal Distributors
$3,000 per month and External Distributors $3,500 per month for the MOR
market data feed. The Exchange notes that its data feed prices are
generally lower than other options exchanges' data feed prices for
their comparable data feed products.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section
10, Proprietary Data Feed Fees; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. Fee
Schedule, Market Data Fees; Cboe Data Services, LLC, Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt market data fees
is reasonable in several respects. First, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options transaction
and non-transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations
in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is one of several options
venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small

percentage of the overall market. Within this environment, market
participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the
Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their
respective pricing schedules. There are currently 16 registered options
exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available
information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has
more than approximately 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options.\17\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power. More
specifically, for the month of August 2020, the Exchange had a market
share of approximately 3.24% of executed multiply-listed equity
options.\18\ Additionally, the Exchange notes that it does not
currently list any proprietary or singly-list products. Accordingly,
there are no products listed on the Exchange for which the Exchange is
the sole source of market data. Thus, it is a business decision whether
firms decide to purchase the Exchange's market data feeds, as the
Exchange only offers trading in multiply-listed options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') publishes
options and futures volume in a variety of formats, including daily
and monthly volume by exchange, available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the ever-shifting market share
among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market
participants can discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, or shift order flow, in response to non-transaction and
transaction fee changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') filed with the
Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for
options transactions in certain Penny classes for Priority Customers
and decrease Maker rebates in certain Tiers for options transactions in
Penny classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective
March 1, 2019).\19\ MIAX PEARL experienced a decrease in total market
share for the month of March 2019, after the proposal went into effect.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the MIAX PEARL March 1, 2019
fee change, to increase certain transaction fees and decrease certain
transaction rebates, may have contributed to the decrease in MIAX
PEARL's market share and, as such, the Exchange believes competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's, and other options exchanges, ability
to set transaction fees and market participants can shift order flow
based on fee changes instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange no longer believes it is necessary to waive
its market data fees to attract market participants to the MIAX Emerald
market since this market is now established and MIAX Emerald no longer
needs to rely on such waivers to attract market participants. The
Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the elimination of the fee waiver for
market data fees will uniformly apply to all market participants and
market participants are not required to purchase any market data feed
from the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange does not offer
trading in any proprietary or singly-list options products.
Accordingly, the Exchange is not the sole source of market data for any
products listed on the Exchange. Therefore, it is a business decision
as to whether a firm purchases the Exchange's market data feeds.
Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal to establish market
data fees is reasonable and well within the range of fees assessed
among other exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess internal distributors fees that are
less than the fees assessed for external distributors for subscriptions
to the Exchange's ToM, AIS and MOR data feeds because internal
distributors have limited, restricted usage rights to the market data,
as compared to external distributors which have more expansive usage
rights. All Members and non-Members that determine to receive any
market data feed of the Exchange (or its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX
PEARL), must first execute, among other things, the MIAX Exchange Group
Exchange Data Agreement (the ``Exchange Data Agreement'').\21\ Pursuant
to the Exchange Data Agreement, internal distributors are restricted to
the ``internal use'' of any market data they receive. This means that
internal distributors may only distribute the Exchange's market data to
the recipient's officers and employees and its affiliates.\22\ External
distributors may distribute the Exchange's market data to persons who
are not officers, employees or affiliates of the external
distributor,\23\ and may charge their own fees for the distribution of
such market data. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is fair,
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess external
distributors a higher fee for the Exchange's market data products as
external distributors have greater usage rights to commercialize such
market data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are a reasonable
allocation of its costs and expenses among its Members and other
persons using its facilities since it is recovering the costs
associated with distributing such data. Access to the Exchange is
provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange believes
the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the fee level results in a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees
amongst users for similar services. Moreover, the decision as to
whether or not to purchase market data is entirely optional to all
users. Potential purchasers are not required to purchase the market
data, and the Exchange is not required to make the market data
available. Purchasers may request the data at any time or may decline
to purchase such data. The allocation of fees among users is fair and
reasonable because, if the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair
or inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue their use of this
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Exchange Data Agreement, available at https://miaxweb2.pairsite.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Exchange_Group_Data_Agreement_09032020.pdf.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data:

[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data when broker-dealers may choose to
receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own
internal analysis of the need for such data.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should

determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at all, it
follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the
market as well.
    In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),
which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other things, Section 916 of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act
by inserting the phrase ``on any person, whether or not the person is a
member of the self-regulatory organization'' after ``due, fee or other
charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization.'' As a result, all
SRO rule proposals establishing or changing dues, fees or other charges
are immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues,
fees or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members,
or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3)
of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day
period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)],
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the
rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    The Exchange believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the
Act reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. The
Exchange believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned, not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit, investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    Selling proprietary market data is a means by which exchanges
compete to attract business. To the extent that exchanges are
successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also
enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of
data they provide. The need to compete for business places substantial
pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both executions and data
reasonable.\25\ The Exchange therefore believes that the fees for
market data are properly assessed on Members and Non-Member users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass'n (SIFMA), Initial Decision
Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding
the existence of vigorous competition with respect to non-core
market data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data:

In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' '' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees for services
and products, in addition to order flow, to remain competitive with
other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes
reflect this competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. Unilateral action by
the Exchange in the assessment of certain non-transaction fees for
services provided to its Members and others using its facilities will
not have an impact on competition. As a more recent entrant in the
already highly competitive environment for equity options trading, the
Exchange does not have the market power necessary to set prices for
services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation
of the Act. The Exchange's proposed market data

fee levels, as described herein, are comparable to fee levels charged
by other options exchanges for the same or similar services, including
those fees assessed by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed market data fees do not
place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other
market participants because the fees do not apply unequally to
different size market participants, but instead would allow the
Exchange charge for the time and resource necessary for providing
market data to the market participants that request such data.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed market data fees
do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed market data fees do not place an
undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or
appropriate. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily favor one of the 16 competing
options venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% market
share.\28\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
For the month of August 2020, the Exchange had a market share of
approximately 3.24% of executed multiply-listed equity options,\29\ and
the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, or shift
order flow, in response to fee changes. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and fee waivers to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 17.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \31\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \31\ 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-EMERALD-2020-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2020-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2020-13, and should be submitted
on or before November 23, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24162 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65198-65200]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0594; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-019-AD;
Amendment 39-17641; AD 2013-22-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of movement of the rudder pedals being impeded due
to corrosion of the trunnion shaft of the rudder feel trim unit (RFTU).
This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain RFTUs are
installed, an operational check for signs of seizure of affected parts,
repetitive lubrication of certain RFTUs, and replacement of the RFTU if
necessary. Installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings
terminates the repetitive lubrication requirements. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct any sign of rough movement or seizure of the
trunnion shaft and its bushing, which could cause a rudder control jam
or a large and rapid alternating rudder input leading to a structural
failure of the vertical fin.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2012-0594 or in person at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified
products. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 12,
2013 (78 FR 15655). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), which published in the Federal Register on June 12,
2012 (77 FR 34874). The NPRM and the SNPRM both proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2012-02R1, dated October 12, 2012 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There have been several reported incidents on DHC-8 Series 400
aeroplanes where the movement of the rudder pedals has been impeded.
An investigation showed that the Rudder Feel Trim Unit (RFTU)
trunnion shaft was corroded. The root cause of the corrosion was a
quality escape where cadmium plating on the trunnion bushing within
the RFTU assembly was not removed. Corrosion on the shaft and in the
trunnion bushing seized the trunnion and caused difficulties in
controlling the rudder movement.
    This condition, if not corrected, could cause a rudder control
jam or a large and rapid alternating rudder input leading to a
structural failure of the vertical fin.
    This [TCCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued [inspect to
determine serial number, an operational check for seizure,
repetitive lubrication and] to replace the affected RFTUs to limit
the possibility of binding and replace the affected RFTUs with units
that have been reworked with conformal bushings to terminate the
lubrication requirements.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0594-0006.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Operational Check

    Horizon Air (Horizon) requested that paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM
(78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013) be revised to allow operators that
perform a review of airplane maintenance records, in lieu of visually
inspecting the serial number of the RFTU, time to schedule the
operational check specified by paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM. Horizon
stated that the compliance time ``before further flight'' specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM would immediately ground aircraft.
    We agree with Horizon's request. We have revised the compliance
time in paragraph (g)(2) of this final rule to ``200 flight hours or 2
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD''
for performing the operational check specified in that paragraph.

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised paragraph (h) of this final rule to specify that
installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings terminates the
repetitive lubrication requirements of paragraph

(g)(2)(ii) of this final rule for the affected RTFU.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 83 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, Replacement,          5 work-hours x $85               $0   $425 per             $35,275 inspection,
 Lubrication.                      per hour = $425                       inspection,          replacement, and
                                   per inspection,                       replacement, and     lubrication cycle.
                                   replacement, and                      lubrication cycle.
                                   lubrication cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the 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..........................  17 work-hours x $85 per               $0           $1,445
                                        hour = $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2012-0594; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
MCAI, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-22-09 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17641. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0594; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-019-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N)
4001, 4003 and subsequent, equipped with rudder feel trim unit
(RFTU) part number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of movement of the rudder pedals
being impeded due to corrosion of the trunnion shaft of the RFTU. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct any sign of rough movement
or seizure of the trunnion shaft and its bushing, which could cause
a rudder control jam or a large and rapid alternating rudder input
leading to a structural failure of the vertical fin.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection, Replacement, and Lubrication

    Within 200 flight hours or two months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the RTFU to determine
whether the serial number is in the range from S/N 0008 through 0509
inclusive without a suffix `B,' in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-60,
dated July 12, 2012. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the
RFTU can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) If the RFTU's serial number is not in the range from S/N
0008 through 0509 inclusive, or if the serial number has a suffix
`B,' no further action is required for this paragraph.
    (2) If the RFTU's serial number is in the range from S/N 0008
through 0509 inclusive, including those with a suffix `A,' but not
including those with suffix `B': Within 200 flight hours or 2
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
perform an operational check of the RFTU for any sign of rough
movement or seizure of the trunnion or center shaft, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-27-60, dated July 12, 2012.
    (i) If rough movement or seizure of the RFTU trunnion or center
shaft is found: Before further flight, replace the RFTU with a new
or serviceable RFTU, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-60, dated July 12,
2012.
    (ii) If no rough movement or seizure of the RFTU trunnion or
center shaft is found: Before further flight, lubricate the RFTU, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-27-60, dated July 12, 2012. Repeat the
lubrication of the RFTU at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours
or 3 months, whichever occurs first, until the RFTU is replaced with
a unit that has a serial number outside the affected range or a
serial number with a suffix `B.'

(h) Replacement

    For airplanes having an RFTU identified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD: Except as required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD,
within 5,000 flight hours or 3 years after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all affected RFTUs with
units that have a serial number outside the range from S/Ns 0008
through 0509 inclusive, or that have a serial number with a suffix
`B,' in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-60, dated July 12, 2012.
Installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings terminates
the repetitive lubrication requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of
this AD for the affected RTFU.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
RFTU P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> with a serial number from S/N 0008 through 0509
inclusive, including serial numbers with suffix `A,' on any
airplane, except that RFTUs having a serial number with suffix `B'
may be installed.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-02R1,
dated October 12, 2012, for related information, which can be found
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0594-0006.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-60, dated July 12, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 18, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25629 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P