[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26027-26030]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0403; Product Identifier 2019-NM-012-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214 and -271N airplanes and Model A321-
211 and -231 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a test of a
new wall partition for a certain cabin attendant seat model that
revealed the backrest was permanently deformed and did not allow the
seat pan to return to a full-up position; investigation results
identified that a heat treatment had not been applied on certain
backframes. This proposed AD would require modifying the affected cabin
attendant seats, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 22, 2019.

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 the material identified in this NPRM that will be incorporated
by reference, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

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-2019-
0403; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-
647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0403;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-012-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0005, dated January 14, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0005'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214 and -271N airplanes and
Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a test of a new wall partition for cabin attendant seat
model 2428, the backrest was found permanently deformed and did not
allow the seat pan to return to a full-up position. Investigation
results identified that a heat treatment had not been applied on
certain backframes, which could lead to permanent deformation of the
seat backrest.
    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the escape path
through the adjacent exit door in case of evacuation, possibly
resulting in injury to aeroplane occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
applicable SB [service bulletin], which refers to Goodrich SB,
providing instructions to modify affected parts by replacing the
backframe, and to add a placard after modification.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the affected parts.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0005 describes procedures for modifying affected cabin
attendant seats (which includes an inspection to determine the part
number and serial number of the cabin attendant seat) by replacing the
backrest and adding a placard. This material 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 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 the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0005, as incorporated by reference, described
previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD. This proposed AD also would require sending
the inspection results to Airbus SAS.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2019-0005 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0005, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0005 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0005 will be available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0403 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 19 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                      Parts cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 462 work-hours x $85 per hour =  N/A....................  Up to $39,270..........  Up to $746,130.
 $39,270.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of reporting the modification results on U.S. operators to be
$85 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the actions specified in this proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a

result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0403; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
012-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-214 and -271N airplanes
and Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0005, dated January 14, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0005'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a test of a new wall partition for a
certain cabin attendant seat model that revealed the backrest was
permanently deformed and did not allow the seat pan to return to a
full-up position; investigation results identified that a heat
treatment had not been applied on certain backframes. We are issuing
this AD to address this condition, which, if not corrected, could
reduce the escape path through the adjacent exit door in case of
evacuation, possibly resulting in injury to passengers or
flightcrew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0005.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0005

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0005 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0005 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(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 instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0005 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated

from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's
maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an
AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done
and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0005, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0005 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0403.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 28, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11621 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 56941-56943]
[DOCID:fr29se05-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52493; File No. SR-Amex-2005-087]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Revise Its Options Transaction Fees

September 22, 2005.
    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 August 31, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' 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. Amex has
designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by Amex pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Amex proposes to: (i) Increase transaction fees for customer and
firm orders on index options from the current rate of $0.22 per
contract side to $0.45 per contract side; (ii) eliminate the fee
exception for machine delivered index option orders of less than 30
contracts; (iii) adopt transaction fees of $0.15 per contract side in
connection with customer orders for options on trust issued receipts
(``TIRs'') and exchange-traded funds (``ETFs''); and (iv) adopt options
licensing fees for firm, non-member market maker, and broker-dealer
orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site (http://www.amex.com), at Amex's principal office, and from 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
    Amex proposes to amend its Options Fee Schedule to adopt and/or
increase certain transaction fees applicable to index options, ETF
options, and TIR options. The fee changes proposed in this rule filing
will be effective September 1, 2005. The Exchange, for the purpose of
clarity and ease of reference, has also added additional references to
specific option types throughout its Options Fee Schedule. The types of
options set forth in the Options Fee Schedule now will include Equity
Options, Exchange-Traded Fund Share Options (excluding QQQQ Options),
QQQQ Options, Trust Issued Receipt (HOLDR) Options, Index Options (in
some cases, excluding MNX and NDX Options), and MNX and NDX Options.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, the Options Fee Schedule lists equity options,
index options, and options on the S&P 100 iShares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amex currently charges transaction fees for customer and firm
orders in index options executed on the Exchange at the total rate of
$0.22 per contract side. The Exchange proposes to increase total
transaction fees to $0.45 per contract side \6\ for customer and firm
index option orders executed on the Exchange, with the exception of MNX
and NDX options, which will remain at the current total rate of $0.22
per contract side. In addition, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate
the fee exception in which machine-delivered index option orders of
less than 30 contracts are not subject to transaction fees. This change
will provide that all index option orders executed on the Exchange will
be subject to transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The $0.45 per contract side charge would consist of an
options transaction fee of $0.38 per contract side, an options
comparison fee of $0.04 per contract side, and an options floor
brokerage fee of $0.03 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction fees in connection with ETF and TIR options
transactions are currently provided under the category ``Equity
Options,'' set forth in the Options Fee Schedule.\7\ As a result,
customer orders are not charged transaction fees. The one exception is
that customer orders are charged a $0.15 options transaction fee in the
iShares S&P 100 Index Fund option. Amex is proposing to levy a
transaction fee on customer orders of TIR and ETF options (excluding
QQQQ options) at a total rate of $0.15 per contract side.\8\ In order
to remain competitive with the other options exchanges, the Exchange
will continue not to charge a transaction fee on customer QQQQ option
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As set forth above, ETF and TIR options will now be
separately listed in the Options Fee Schedule.
    \8\ The $0.15 per contract side charge would consist of an
options transaction fee of $0.08 per contract side, an options
comparison fee of $0.04 per contract side, and an options floor
brokerage fee of $0.03 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange does not charge firm, non-member market
maker, or broker-dealer orders a fee for transactions in certain
licensed options products. The Exchange proposes to levy an options
licensing fee on these orders consistent with the licensing fee
currently assessed on orders of specialists and registered options
traders. The proposed fee varies from $0.05 per contract side to $0.20
per contract side, depending upon the particular index-based product
that is subject to a license agreement. These fees are set forth in the
Options Licensing Fee section of the Options Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, regarding the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange
members and other persons using Exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange asserts that the proposed increase in transaction fees
for index, ETF, and TIR options is equitable as required by Section
6(b)(4) of the Act.\11\ In connection with the proposed increase in the
index option transaction fee for customer and firm orders, the Exchange
notes that the proposal will better align its index option fees with
its competitors. Customer orders will now also be charged $0.15 per
contract side in connection with ETF and TIR options instead of not
being subject to transaction fees. The Exchange believes that this is
reasonable and equitable given the fact that the orders of other market
participants are subject to transaction charges. The Exchange also
maintains that charging an options licensing fee, where applicable, to
all market participant orders except for customer orders is reasonable
given the competitive pressures in the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 6(b)(4) states that the rules of a national
securities exchange must provide for ``the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' 15 U.S.C.
78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that eliminating the fee exception
for machine-delivered index option orders of less than 30 contracts is
equitable and fair since all index option orders will now be
potentially subject to transaction charges regardless of the size of
the order. In the past, the Exchange and certain market participants
have largely subsidized the cost of providing index options. The
Exchange now seeks to better align these fees with the cost of
providing these products, maintaining the trading floor and systems,
and generating revenue to fund Exchange operations.

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-087 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-087. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-Amex-2005-087 and should be submitted on or before
October 20, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19495 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Index Listing of Pesticide Chemicals Contained on Special Docket DVD

Acephate (OP)

Atrazine (triazine)

Azinphos-methyl (OP)

BendiocarbBensulide

1,4-bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene

Butylate

Cadusafos (OP)

Carbon and Carbon Dioxide

Chlorethoxyphos (OP)

Chlorpropham

Chlorpyrifos (OP)

Chlorpyrifos-methyl (OP)

Coumaphos (OP)

DDVP or dichlorvos (OP)

Diazinon (OP)

Diclofop-methyl

Dicrotophos (OP)

Dimethoate (OP)

Dimethyldithiocarbamate salts (ziram)

Disulfoton (OP)

Endosulfan

Ethion (OP)

Ethoprop (OP)

Ethyl parathion (OP)

Fenamiphos (OP)

Fenitrothion (OP)

Fenthion (OP)

Ferbam [see Dimethyldithiocarbamate salts (ziram)]

Imazalil

Isofenphos (OP)

Lactofen

Lindane

Malathion (OP)

Metam sodium (methyldithiocarbamate salts)

Methamidophos (OP)

Methidathion (OP)

Methyl parathion (OP)

Methyldithiocarbamate salts (metam sodium)

Mevinphos (OP)

Molinate

Naled (OP)

Nitrapyrin

Nitrogen

Oxamyl (N-methyl carbamate)

Oxydemeton-methyl (OP)

Oxyfluorfen

Phorate (OP)

Phosalone (OP)

Phosmet (OP)

Phostebupirim (OP)

Pirimiphos-methyl (OP)

Primisulfuron-methyl

Profenofos (OP)

Propanil

Propargite

Propetamphos (OP)

Sodium acifluorfen

Sulfotepp

Temephos (OP)

Terbufos (OP)

Terrazole

Tetrachlorvinphos (OP)

Thiabendazole and salts

Thiophanate-methyl

TPTH

Triallate

Tribufos (DEF) (OP)

Trichlorfon (OP)

Urea

Vinclozolin

Ziram [see Dimethyldithiocarbamate salts]

Use Closure Memos only are available for the following chemicals:

Acetochlor

Bitertanol

Carbofuran

Chlorimuron-ethyl

Cypermethrin

Ethalfluralin

Fluazifop-butyl isomers

Flumiclorac-pentyl

Fluridone

Inorganic chlorates (sodium chlorate)

MGK-264

Nicosulfuron

Permethrin

Phenmedipham

Phenylphenol and salts

Piperonyl butoxide

Propazine

Propiconazole

Pyrethrins

Resmethrin

Sethoxydim

Simazine

Sodium chlorate (inorganic chlorates)

Tau-fluvalinate

Thifensulfuron-methyl

Tridemorph

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35475-35476]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15999]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0367; FRL-9981-03-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and
State Program Approval Procedures (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Underground Storage Tanks:
Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval
Procedures (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1360.16, OMB Control No. 2050-0068)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2019. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0367 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth McDermott, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks, Mail Code 5401R, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, requires that EPA develop standards for Underground
Storage Tank (UST) systems, as may be necessary, to protect human
health and the environment, and procedures for approving state programs
in lieu of the federal program. EPA promulgated technical and financial
requirements for owners and operators of USTs at 40 CFR part 280, and
state program approval procedures at 40 CFR part 281. This ICR is a
comprehensive presentation of all information collection requirements
contained at 40 CFR parts 280 and 281.
    The data collected for new and existing UST system operations and
financial requirements are used by owners and operators and/or EPA or
the implementing agency to monitor results of testing, inspections, and
operation of UST systems, as well as to demonstrate compliance with
regulations. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements
specified under the regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor
EPA can ensure that UST systems are being managed in a manner
protective of human health and the environment.
    EPA uses state program applications to determine whether to approve
a state program. Before granting approval, EPA must determine that
programs will be no less stringent than the federal program and contain
adequate enforcement mechanisms.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that own and operate
underground storage tanks (USTs), states that implement the UST
programs, and tribes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 280).
    Estimated number of respondents: 202,830.
    Frequency of response: Once, on occasion, annual.
    Total estimated burden: 8,722,192 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $679,800,866 (per year), includes
$424,720,745 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is an increase of 3,309,061 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This ICR renewal includes several new requirements
that became effective as of October 2018, which has resulted in a
burden increase (e.g., annual release detection operability testing and
recordkeeping, periodic testing and inspection of spill, overfill
equipment and containment sumps, operator training, walkthrough
inspections, notification of ownership changes, and maintaining records
for compatibility). In addition, EPA expects most states to submit
state program re-approval

applications during the three-year period of this ICR.

    Dated: July 9, 2018.
Carolyn Hoskinson,
Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
[FR Doc. 2018-15999 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34927-34929]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-58]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0065; FRL-8683-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface
Coating Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1957.05, OMB Control Number
2060-0487

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2007-0065, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0065, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1957.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0487
    ICR Status: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants were proposed
(65 FR 44616) on July 18, 2000, promulgated (67 FR 39812) on June 10,
2002, and amended (68 FR 12592) on March 17, 2003. These standards
apply to each facility operating a coil coating line and that is a
major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This coating line
coats metal coil of thicknesses less than, greater than, or equal to
0.15 millimeters (0.006 inches) thick.
    Abstract: Owners or operators must submit notification reports upon
construction or reconstruction of any metal coil surface coating plant.
Semiannual reports for periods of operation during which the emission
limitation has exceeded, or reports certifying that no exceedances have
occurred, also are required. Owners and operators must submit
notification reports upon the construction, reconstruction, or
modification of any metal coil surface coating plant. Also, required is
a one-time-only initial notification for new and reconstructed sources.
Owners or operators of metal coil surface coating plants subject to the
rule must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file
for at least five years following the date of such measurements,
maintenance reports, and records.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information estimated to average 119
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Metal coil surface coating plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 89.
    Frequency of Response: Weekly, annually, semiannually, initially
and occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 19,901.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,588,365 for labor costs, inclusive,
plus O&M costs of $3,648 and $00.00 for annualized capital costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or
cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden. It should be noted that the previous ICR rounded the burden
cost down to the nearest one

thousand. In this ICR, the exact cost figure is reported which results
in an apparent increase in the cost when, in fact, no increase has
occurred.
    Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there
is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in
the previous ICR was used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden
to industry.

    Dated: June 5, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-13891 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29911-29912]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0026; OMB No. 1660-NW103]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request; Federal Emergency Management Agency
Programs Customer Satisfaction Surveys

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), DHS.

ACTION: Notice of new information collection; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a new
information collection to replace a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of Individual
Assistance customer satisfaction survey responses and information for
assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to
individuals and households.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID

FEMA-2017-0026. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Guillory, Statistician,
Customer Survey & Analysis Section, Recovery Directorate, FEMA at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>940-891-8528. You may contact the
Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection is in accordance with
Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to
survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they
want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-62, 107
Stat. 285) requires agencies to set missions and goals and measure
performance against them. In addition, the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866) requires quarterly performance
assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency
performance and improvement. FEMA will fulfill these requirements by
collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of
the Recovery Directorate's external customers.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs Customer
Satisfaction Surveys.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NW103.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 519-0-45, Preparedness Survey--Electronic;
FEMA Form 519-0-44, Preparedness Survey--Phone; FEMA Form 519-0-47,
Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) Survey--Electronic; FEMA Form
519-0-46, Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) Survey--Phone; FEMA
Form 519-0-49, Temporary Housing Units (THU) Survey--Electronic; FEMA
Form 519-0-48, Temporary Housing Units (THU) Survey--Phone; FEMA Form
519-0-51, Shelter and Temporary Essential Power (STEP) Survey--
Electronic; FEMA Form 519-0-50, Shelter and Temporary Essential Power
(STEP) Survey--Phone.
    Abstract. Federal agencies are required to survey their customers
to determine the kind and quality of services customers want and their
level of satisfaction with those services. Analysis from the survey is
used to measure FEMA's survivor-centric mission of being accessible,
simple, timely and effective in meeting the needs of survivors.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Number of Respondents: 8,896.
    Number of Responses: 8,896.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,548.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual burden hour cost to
respondents is $193,292. The estimated annual non-labor cost to
respondents participating and traveling to focus groups is $30,816.
There are no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance
costs for technical services. There are no annual start-up or capital
costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $716,338.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: June 26, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Records Management Program Chief (Acting), Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-13699 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20145-20147]
[DOCID:fr19ap06-145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53637; File No. SR-CBOE-2004-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments Nos.
1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Restrictions on Arbitrators serving on
CBOE's Arbitration Committee

April 12, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 14, 2004, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend rules
concerning restrictions on the activities of arbitrators who serve as
members of the CBOE Arbitration Committee (``Committee''). On December
13, 2005 and February 15, 2006, CBOE filed Amendments Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively, to the proposed rule change including amendments to CBOE
Rules 18.10, 18.13 and 18.14 concerning the removal of arbitrators and
restrictions on the activities of arbitrators who serve as members of
the Committee.\3\ The

proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 13, 2006.\4\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety. Amendment No. 2 replaced the rule text in the original
filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. Also, Amendment No. 2
supplemented the ``Purpose'' section of Amendment No. 1 with
additional explanations as to the basis for certain proposed rule
amendments.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53431 (March 7,
2006), 71 FR 12755 (March 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Proposed Changes to CBOE Rule 18.10

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 18.10 to codify its
unwritten policy that restricts members of the Committee from
representing parties as counsel \5\ in any arbitration dispute, claim
or controversy that has been submitted to CBOE for resolution (``CBOE
Arbitration''). This restriction would extend for six months after the
date on which a Committee member ceases being a member of the
Committee. Moreover, if a Committee member is appointed as an
arbitrator in a pending CBOE Arbitration (``Pending CBOE Arbitration'')
and subsequently ceases being a member of the Committee, but continues
to serve as an arbitrator in the Pending CBOE Arbitration, that person
cannot represent a party as counsel in a separate CBOE Arbitration
until he or she has ceased serving as an arbitrator in the Pending CBOE
Arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CBOE Rule 18.17 provides: ``All parties shall have the right
to representation by counsel at any stage of the proceedings.''
Since persons who are eligible to act as ``counsel'' in CBOE
arbitration proceedings are not limited to licensed attorneys, the
proposed rule change would apply to any person acting as ``counsel''
in a CBOE arbitration proceeding whether the person is a licensed
attorney or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CBOE rules, any CBOE Arbitration between parties who are
members or persons associated with a member shall be resolved by an
arbitration panel that consists of three members of the Committee.\6\
The Committee is maintained primarily as a means for managing a pool of
qualified industry arbitrators that is composed of a cross-section of
Exchange members and/or former members or associated persons of members
or other individuals who are knowledgeable about the securities
industry.\7\ All Committee members are appointed in accordance with
Exchange governance rules and guidelines.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 18.2(a). Rule 18.2(a) specifically provides
that the arbitration panel appointed to resolve member-to-member
arbitrations shall consist of ``not less than three members of the
Arbitration Committee.'' However, as a matter of practice,
arbitration panels typically consist only of three members of the
Arbitration Committee.
    \7\ Unlike other Exchange committees, the Arbitration Committee
does not meet as a whole except for training or to administer the
annual Committee orientation. For a CBOE Arbitration involving
customers or non-Exchange members and a member(s), CBOE rules
require that the dispute be resolved by an arbitration panel that
consists of no less than three arbitrators, the majority of which
consists of arbitrators who are not from the securities industry
(``Public Arbitrators''). (See CBOE Rule 18.10). In non-member CBOE
Arbitrations, members of the Arbitration Committee may be appointed
as industry arbitrators.
    \8\ See CBOE Rule 18.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has long adhered to an unwritten policy that prohibits
a Committee member who is an attorney from representing a party in a
CBOE Arbitration while that person is serving on the Committee. This
policy is consistent with the Exchange's belief that, while serving on
the Arbitration Committee, arbitrators should be committed to the
impartial resolution of any disputes that come before them and should
avoid circumstances that could disqualify them from being appointed in
future arbitrations or give rise to the appearance of partiality. The
Exchange does not believe that a Committee member should act as an
advocate in a CBOE Arbitration while serving as a member of the CBOE
Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Exchange feels it would be
prudent to codify its unwritten policy within the rules governing CBOE
Arbitrations. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule
text relating to restricting an arbitrator from representing a party as
counsel in any CBOE Arbitration (proposed Rule 18.10(c)) also would
extend to restrict an arbitrator from representing a party as counsel
in any capacity, not just acting as an attorney.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that a sufficient period of time
should pass after an arbitrator is no longer a member of the Committee
before that individual may represent a party as counsel in a CBOE
Arbitration. Without this required separation period, a former
Committee member conceivably could appear as counsel to a party before
other members of the Committee in a CBOE arbitration immediately after
resigning from the Committee. Although CBOE does not believe that
membership on the Arbitration Committee necessarily creates meaningful
relationships with other Committee members, such that present Committee
members could not be impartial in considering a case on which a
recently retired Committee member serves as counsel, a prescribed
waiting period is a sensible precaution against the appearance of
partiality. The Exchange believes that a six-month waiting period would
be appropriate and would help to eliminate the appearance of partiality
that could otherwise exist.
    Finally, the rule proposal provides that, if a Committee member is
appointed as an arbitrator to a pending CBOE Arbitration and
subsequently ceases to be a member of the Committee, but continues to
serve as an arbitrator in the pending CBOE Arbitration, that person
cannot represent a party in a separate CBOE Arbitration as counsel
until the arbitrator ceases to be appointed as an arbitrator in the
pending CBOE Arbitration. This provision of the proposed rule would
address the unlikely, but possible, situation in which an arbitration
proceeding remains pending more than six months after the date on which
an appointed arbitrator to that case ceased being a member of the
Committee.\9\ The Exchange believes that this provision is consistent
with the purpose of this rule change, which is the avoidance of the
appearance of partiality on the part of a CBOE Arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed CBOE Rule 18.10(c)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules supplement existing policies and procedures that
are in place to screen arbitrators for conflicts, potential conflicts,
and the appearance of conflicts prior, and subsequent, to appointment.
Specifically, CBOE policies and procedures require any arbitrator,
prior to or subsequent to appointment to a CBOE Arbitration, to
disclose any information that presents a conflict, existing or
potential, or creates the appearance of a conflict with any party,
fact, or circumstance related to the case in question.\10\ Arbitrators
also are required to disclose any new information or circumstances that
may arise after their appointment that would create a similar conflict
or potential for conflict. Thus, if a former member of the Arbitration
Committee were to serve as counsel to a party before a CBOE arbitration
panel, the appointed arbitrators would be required to disclose any past
relationships with the former Committee member regardless of how much
time has passed since that former member resigned from the
Committee.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Rule 18.13.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to CBOE Rules 18.13 and 18.14

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new rules governing the process
for removing or disqualifying arbitrators: (1) When the appointed
arbitrator has conflicts of interest with the parties or subject matter
or if there is evidence of arbitrator bias, or (2) for failing to
comply with arbitrator disclosure requirements. Specifically, Exchange
Rules 18.13 and 18.14 would be

amended to provide greater safeguards against the possibility that a
CBOE Arbitration could proceed with an appointed arbitrator who should,
by rule, not be hearing and resolving the arbitration. These amendments
would be substantially similar to those recently proposed by the
NASD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15,
2005); 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (proposing new NASD Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Proposed Customer
Code'')); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005);
70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (proposing new NASD Code of Arbitration
Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Proposed Industry Code'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 18.13(a)-(c) currently outlines the disclosures that a CBOE
arbitrator must make that help to assess whether the arbitrator would
be precluded from rendering an objective and impartial decision in a
CBOE Arbitration.\13\ Proposed Rules 18.13(d)(1) and 18.13(d)(2)
provide that the Director of Arbitration may remove an arbitrator based
on the disclosures made under Rule 18.13(a)-(c) and information not
known to the parties when the arbitrator was selected. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 18.13(d), in proposed Rule 18.13(d)(3), to
clarify that the Director of Arbitration will grant a party's request
to disqualify an arbitrator if it is reasonable to infer, based on
information known at the time of the request, that the arbitrator is
biased, lacks impartiality, or has an interest in the outcome of the
CBOE Arbitration. Such interest or bias must be direct, definite, and
capable of reasonable demonstration, rather than being remote or
speculative. In addition, proposed Rule 18.13(d)(4) would help to
ensure that parties to a CBOE Arbitration are informed of the
disclosure of any new information that is required to be disclosed by
an arbitrator under Rule 18.13 unless either the Director of
Arbitration removes the arbitrator or the arbitrator withdraws
voluntarily as soon as the arbitrator learns of any interest,
relationship, or circumstances described under Rule 18.13(a) that might
preclude the arbitrator from rendering an objective and impartial
determination in the CBOE Arbitration. These proposed changes are
substantially similar to the standards proposed by NASD.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See CBOE Rule 18.13(a)-(c).
    \14\ See Proposed Customer Code and Proposed Industry Code,
supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, this proposal would amend CBOE Rule 18.14, which currently
provides the process by which the Exchange fills vacancies of an
arbitrator, who for any reason, is unable to perform as an
arbitrator.\15\ The Exchange proposes to provide within Rule 18.14 a
more detailed process by which the Director of Arbitration may remove
or disqualify an arbitrator based on: (1) Conflicts of interest or bias
involving an arbitrator; (2) challenges for cause; and (3) information
required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 18.13 and that was not
previously disclosed.\16\ These proposed changes are also substantially
similar to proposed NASD arbitration rules governing the same subject
matter.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Such reasons include the disqualification, resignation,
death, disability, or withdrawal of the arbitrator.
    \16\ Proposed Rule 18.14(c) also would provide standards to be
used in deciding challenges for cause, which standards are identical
to those provided under proposed Rule 18.13(d).
    \17\ See Proposed Customer Code and Proposed Industry Code,
supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\18\ Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other
things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, and in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5), in that it is designed to protect investors and the
public interest by strengthening the integrity of the CBOE Arbitration
program. The proposed rule change does so by limiting the possibility
of conflicts of interest: (1) By restricting members of the Committee
from representing parties to an arbitration while serving on the
Committee and for six months after ceasing to be a member of the
Committee, and (2) by adopting new rules governing the process for
removing or disqualifying arbitrators when the appointed arbitrator has
conflicts of interest with the parties or subject matter or if there is
evidence of arbitrator bias, as well as for failing to comply with
arbitrator disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Conclusions

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2004-65), as amended,
be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5853 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5912-5915]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0901; Product Identifier 2017-NM-106-AD; Amendment
39-19183; AD 2018-03-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 757-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of scribe line damage on fuselage skin. This AD requires
detailed inspections of fuselage skin for the presence of scribe lines,
and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 19,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0901.

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-
0901; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Truong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 757-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45526). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of scribe line damage on fuselage skin, caused by sharp tools
used during fuselage maintenance. The NPRM proposed to require detailed
inspections of fuselage skin for the presence of scribe lines, and
applicable on-condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe line damage.
Failure to detect and completely remove scribe lines may lead to
fatigue cracking, rapid decompression, and inability of the principal
structural element to sustain limit load.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    The Boeing Company and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

Request To Add Exemption Paragraph

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) asserted that any FAA-approved repair
installed after the original issue date of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, would not have the scribe
line issue because operators are using the approved sealant removal
tools and instructions specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, which would prevent the occurrence of
scribe line damage. Delta requested that a paragraph be added to the
proposed AD specifying that such a repair would be exempt from the
requirements of the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenter's request because the Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, provides an
exception to inspection requirements for external and internal approved
repairs that are installed under certain conditions, including the use
and recording of the correct sealant removal procedure. An FAA-approved
repair that is installed under the same conditions would also be
provided the same exception to the inspection requirements. We have
added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to specify that, for the purposes of
determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase
``FAA-approved repair'' may be substituted for ``approved repair'', as
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20,
2017.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this
AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a ``change in product''
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July
20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detecting
and correcting scribe line damage on fuselage skin. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.................  Up to 149 work-hours               $0  Up to $12,665 per      Up to $468,605 per
                               x $85 per hour =                       inspection cycle.      inspection cycle.
                               $12,665 per
                               inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

products identified in this rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-03-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19183; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0901; Product Identifier 2017-NM-106-AD.

 (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 19, 2018.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-300
series airplanes, certificated in any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01518SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgSTC.nsf/0/38b606833bbd98b386257faa00602538/$FILE/ST01518SE.pdf)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of scribe line damage on
fuselage skin, caused by sharp tools used during fuselage
maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe
line damage. Failure to detect and completely remove scribe lines
may lead to fatigue cracking, rapid decompression, and inability of
the principal structural element to sustain limit load.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Required Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, do
all applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for
compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated
July 20, 2017.

 (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD, the phrase ``the effective date of this AD'' may be
substituted for ``the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July
20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as
RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (3) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD, the phrase ``FAA-approved repair'' may be substituted
for ``approved repair,'' as specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Truong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5224; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

 (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20,
2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600
Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone
562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 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 January 26, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02358 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


U. S. EPA PUBLIC MEETING June 6, 2003 OPENING STATEMENT THE LITTLE HOCKING WATER ASSOCIATION, INC. LITTLE HOCKING, OHIO Good afternoon everyone. My name is Bob Griffin. I am general manager of the Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. I would like to thank the EPA for this opportunity to comment. I would like to share our perspective on the C 8 contamination of our water supply. To the best of our knowledge, our water system has the highest level of C 8 contamination of any public water supply in the United States, if not the world. The C 8 level in the water currently being delivered to our customers on a daily basis is about 2.0 ppb. This is twice DuPont's historic community exposure guideline of 1.0 ppb.

The Little Hocking Water Association is located in Washington County, Ohio. We are a rural water system serving about 12,000 people. Our water wells are located along the Ohio River directly across from DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia. The prevailing wind blows from the DuPont plant toward our well field. Last year DuPont discharged a total of 20,000 pounds of C 8 from the Washington Works plant. Other Ohio water systems both upstream and downstream from us have C 8 contaminated water supplies. The Tuppers Plains Chester Water District is about 15 miles downstream from us and their aquifer is contaminated with C 8.

One of the goals of this EPA investigation is to understand how the general public is being exposed to C 8. Unfortunately, in our case we already know some of the pathways by which people in our community are being exposed. Twenty years ago, DuPont knew C 8 contaminated our water but we didn't find out about it until about a year and a half ago. Since then we have learned that C 8 not only contaminates the aquifer from which we pump our drinking water, but it also contaminates our soil and the air that we breathe. In water samples from our well field we have found C 8 levels as high as 8.6 ppb in a production well; up to 78.0 ppb in a test boring. In soil samples we have found levels as high as 170 micrograms per kilogram. It is now apparent that our community has probably been unknowingly exposed to this chemical for more than 50 years.

It is my understanding that the EPA will not pursue human biomonitoring through the ECA's that we are discussing today. Even so, the EPA recognizes that the population living near the industrial sites have not been sampled and that these people may have PFOA blood serum levels that are higher than the general population. Based on a chart developed by DuPont, there have been newspaper articles suggesting that people in our community may have higher C 8 levels in their blood than DuPont's own workers. Therefore, I recommend that our community should be a targeted sampling group. Not only are we exposed through the same products that the general population uses nationwide, we are also exposed through our air, soil, and water. Unfortunately, we are a ready made study group.

Under the West Virginia Consent Order, a C 8 ` screening level' of 150 ppb for water was established. However, the very industry responsible for the contamination of our air, water, and soil was heavily involved in all aspects of this Consent Order work. Consequently, based on newspaper polls, the majority of the people in our community do not have confidence in the 150 ppb number.

Because of the controversy surrounding this issue, there is a need for a study of the problem that is truly independent of industries that have a vested interest in the outcome, so that the residents of our community can have some confidence about the quality of their air and water.

Therefore, we are requesting that we not be forgotten in this investigative process that the EPA is undertaking. People in our community and other communities along the Ohio River are drinking water every day that has C 8 in it, without truly knowing the long term health effects to them, or their children and grandchildren. PLEASE DO NOT FORGET US. Please give us data and information that we can have confidence in. THANK YOU