[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13711-13714]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0002-N-5]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the proposed
information collection activities listed below. Before submitting these
information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific
aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than May 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the information collection
activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis
Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting
FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a
self-addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB Control
Number 2130-XXXX,'' (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is
listed below) and should also include the title of the ICR.
Alternatively, comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 493-
6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Toone
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB control number
in any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received
in response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in
its information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone numbers are not
toll free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to
the public to allow comment on information collection activities before
seeking OMB approval of the activities. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites
interested parties to comment on the following summary of proposed
information collection activities regarding: (1) Whether the
information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the activities will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques
and other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its
efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated
with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In
summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three
objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure that it organizes
information collection requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to
improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the
resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See
44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of currently approved information
collection activities that FRA will submit for OMB renewed or revised
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Hours of Service Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0005.

    Abstract: On August 12, 2011, FRA amended its hours of service
recordkeeping regulations, to add a new 49 CFR part 228, subpart F,
providing substantive hours of service requirements, including maximum
on-duty periods, minimum off-duty periods, and other limitations, for
train employees (e.g., locomotive engineers and conductors) providing
commuter and intercity rail passenger transportation. See 76 FR 50359.
The regulations require railroads to evaluate work schedules for risk
of employee fatigue and implement measures to mitigate the risk, and to
submit to FRA for its approval the relevant schedules and fatigue
mitigation plans. This regulation also made corresponding changes to
FRA's hours of service recordkeeping regulations to require railroads
to keep hours of service records and report excess service to FRA in a
manner consistent with the new requirements. This regulation was
mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432,
Division A). FRA uses the information collected under this rule to
ensure compliance with the requirements of the regulation. In
particular, FRA uses the information collected as a result of new
subpart F to verify the train employees of commuter and intercity
passenger railroads do not exceed maximum on-duty periods, abide by
minimum off-duty periods, and adhere to other limitations in this
regulation, to enhance rail safety and reduce the risk of accidents/
incidents caused or contributed to by train employee fatigue.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.3.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: 768 railroads/signal contractors.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion/monthly.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section             Respondent universe       responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
228.11--Hours of duty records--    768 railroads/       12,318,750 records   2 min./10 min./5          2,856,125
 train & engine employees           signal contractors.  + 10,293,000         min./10 min.
 (electronic records); train &                           records + 876,000
 engine employees (paper records:                        records +
 Dispatchers' (paper records);                           3,942,000 records.
 signalmen (paper records).
228.17--Dispatcher's records of    150 dispatch         200,750 records....  3 hours............         602,250
 train movements.                   offices.
228.19--Monthly reports of excess  300 railroads......  2,670 reports......  2 hours............           5,340
 service.
228.103--Construction of employee  50 railroads.......  1 petition.........  16 hours...........              16
 sleeping quarters--petitions to
 allow construction near work
 area.
228.207--Training in use of        768 railroads/       47,000 trained-      1 hour.............          47,000
 electronic system--initial         signal contractors.  employees.
 training.
49 U.S.C. 21102(b)--Petitions for  10 railroads.......  2 petitions........  10 hours...........              20
 exemption from hours of service
 laws.
228.407--RR analysis of one cycle  168 railroads......  2 analyses.........  20 hours...........              40
 of work schedules--submission to
 FRA.
--Reports to FRA of work           168 railroads......  1 report...........  2 hours............               2
 schedules that violate fatigue
 threshold.
--Fatigue mitigation plans         168 railroads......  1 plan.............  4 hours............               4
 submitted to FRA.
--Submission of work schedules,    168 railroads......  1 document.........  2 hours............               2
 proposed fatigue mitigation
 tools, & determination of
 operational necessity corrected
 document.
--Analysis of certain later        168 railroads......  5 analyses.........  4 hours............              20
 changes in work schedules.
 Follow-up analysis.
--Submission of corrected          168 railroads......  1 document.........  2 hours............               2
 document for FRA disapproved
 work schedule.
--RR development & adoption of     168 railroads......  8 updated written    4 hours............              32
 written fatigue mitigation plan                         plans.
 for any work scheduler
 identified through analysis in
 paragraphs (a) or (d) of this
 section.
--RR consultation with employees   168 railroads......  5 consultations....  2 hours............              10
 on: Work schedules found to be
 at risk for fatigue level that
 compromises safety; railroad's
 selection of fatigue migitation
 tools; and all submissions
 seeking FRA approval.
--Filed statements with FRA by     railroad employees/  2 statements.......  2 hours............               4
 employees and employee             employee
 organizations unable to reach      organizations.
 consensus with railroad on work
 schedules or mitigation tools.
228.411--Developing training       168 railroads......  14 programs........  5 hours............              70
 programs.
--New employees initial training.  168 railroads......  150 employees......  1 hour.............             150
--Refresher training.............  168 railroads......  3,400 trained        1 hour.............           3,400
                                                         employees.
--Records of Training............  168 railroads......  3,550 records......  5 minutes..........             296
--Written Declaration by Tourist   140 railroads......  2 written            1 hour.............               2
 Railroads for Exclusion from                            declarations.
 This Section's Requirements.
--Appendix D: Guidance on fatigue  168 railroads......  2 plans............  10 hours...........              20
 management plan--updated plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 27,687,317.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 3,514,805 hours.
    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

    Title: Reflectorization of Freight Rolling Stock.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0566.
    Abstract: FRA issued this regulation to mandate the
reflectorization of freight rolling stock (using retroreflective
material on freight cars and locomotives) to enhance the visibility of
trains to reduce the number and severity of accidents at highway-rail
grade crossings where visibility was a contributing factor. See 70 FR
144, Jan. 3, 2005. FRA uses the information collected to verify that
the railroad person responsible for the car reporting mark is notified
after the required visual inspection when the freight equipment has
less than 80 percent of the required retroreflective sheeting present,
undamaged, or unobscured. Further, FRA uses the information collected
to verify that the required locomotive records of retroreflective
sheeting defects found after inspection are kept in the locomotive cab
or in a railroad accessible electronic database FRA can access upon
request. Finally, FRA uses the information collected to confirm that
railroads/car owners meet the prescribed standards for the inspection
and maintenance of the required retroreflective material.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.113.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: 716 railroads/car owners.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion/monthly.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section             Respondent universe       responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
224.7--Waivers...................  716 railroads/       20 petitions.......  1 hour.............              20
                                    freight car owners.
224.15--Petitions for special      2 manufacturers....  12 petitions.......  40 hours...........             480
 approval of alternative standard.
--Public comment on special        2 manufacturers/     3 comment..........  1 hour.............               3
 approval procedures.               railroads/general
                                    public.
224.109--RR notification to        AAR/300 car shops..  131,619 notices....  2 minutes..........           4,387
 person responsible for reporting
 mark after visual inspection for
 presence and condition when
 freight car on either side has
 less than 80% reflective
 sheeting of the damaged,
 obscured, or missing sheeting.
--locomotives record of freight    716 railroads/       2,471 records......  3 minutes..........             124
 retroreflective sheeting defects   freight car owners
 found after inspection kept in     (24,707
 locomotive cab or in railroad      locomotives).
 accessible electronic database
 that FRA can access upon request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 134,125.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 5,014 hours.
    Type of Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
    Title: Railroad Safety Appliance Standards.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0594.
    Abstract: FRA amended the regulations for safety appliance
arrangements on railroad equipment on April 28, 2011. See 76 FR 23714.
The amendments are intended to promote the safe placement and
securement of safety appliances on rail equipment by establishing a
process for the review and approval of existing industry standards.
This process permits railroad industry representatives to request
approval of existing industry standards for the safety appliance
arrangements on newly constructed railroad cars, locomotives, tenders,
or other rail vehicles, in lieu of the provisions in 49 CFR part 231.
This special approval process enhances railroad safety by allowing FRA
to consider technological advancements and ergonomic design standards
for new car construction. It ensures that modern rail equipment
complies with applicable statutory and safety-critical regulatory
requirements related to safety appliances while providing the
flexibility to efficiently address safety appliance requirements on new
designs for railroad cars, locomotives, tenders, or other rail
vehicles. FRA uses the information collected under this regulation to
better serve the goal of adapting to changes in modern rail car design
while facilitating statutory and regulatory compliance.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: 734 railroads/labor unions/general public.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section             Respondent universe       responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
231.33--Procedure for special      AAR (industry rep.)  100 petitions......  160 hours..........          16,000
 approval of existing industry
 safety appliance standards--
 filing of petitions.
--Affirmative statement by         AAR (industry rep.)  100 statements.....  30 minutes.........              50
 petitioner that a petition copy
 has been served on rep. of
 employees responsible for
 equipment's operation/inspection/
 testing/maintenance.
--Service of each special          AAR (industry rep.)  ...................  15 minutes.........             283
 approval petition on parties
 designated in section 231.33(c).
--Statement of interest in         5 rail labor unions/ 1,130 petition       8 hours............           2,400
 reviewing special approval filed   general public.      copies.
 with FRA.
--Comments on petitions for        728 railroads/5      300 statements.....  10 hours...........           1,500
 special approval.                  labor groups/
                                    general public.
--Disposition of petitions:        AAR (industry rep.)  150 comments.......  6 hours............              18
 petition returned by FRA
 requesting additional
 information.

231.35-Procedure for modification  AAR (industry rep.)  24 petitions for     160 hours..........           3,840
 of an approved industry safety                          modification.
 appliance standard for new car
 construction--filing of
 petitions.
--Affirmative statement by         AAR (industry rep.)  24 statements......  30 minutes.........              12
 petitioner that a petition copy
 has been served on rep. of
 employees responsible for
 equipment's operation/inspection/
 testing/maintenance.
--Service of each special          AAR (industry rep.)  2,712 petition.....  2 hours............           5,424
 approval petition on parties
 designated in section 231.35(b).
--Statement of Interest in         5 rail labor unions/ 72 statements......  8 hours............  ..............
 Reviewing Special Approval Filed   general public.
 with FRA.
--Comments on petitions for        744 railroads/5      36 comments........  10 hours...........  ..............
 modification.                      labor unions/
                                    general public.
--FRA review of petition for       AAR (industry rep.)  4 additional         6 hours............              24
 modification; agency objection                          documents.
 and AAR response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 4,655.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 30,487 hours.
    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and
a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Sarah L. Inderbitzin,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-05048 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 883-885]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31607]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71216; File No. SR-CHX-2013-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Provide That the Match Trade Prevention Modifier Is Not Compatible
With the Fill Or Kill Modifier

December 31, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 23, 2013, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. CHX has filed this proposal pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
19b-4(f)(6) \3\ which is 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to provide that
the Match Trade Prevention order execution modifier is not compatible
with the Fill Or Kill order duration modifier. The text of this
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
(www.chx.com), on the Commission's Web site at (www.sec.gov), and in
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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to
provide that the Match Trade Prevention (``MTP'') order execution
modifier is not compatible with the Fill Or Kill (``FOK'') order
duration modifier and that any limit or market order marked MTP and FOK
shall be rejected by the Matching System.\4\ Given that MTP has been
incompatible with FOK since MTP became operative on December 2, 2013,
the Exchange also submits this filing to correct certain statements in
the Form 19b-4 filed by the Exchange under SR-CHX-2013-20, which
inaccurately states that the MTP modifier is fully compatible with all
order modifiers applicable to limit and market orders.\5\ More
accurately, the MTP modifier is fully compatible with all order
modifiers applicable to limit and market orders, except for the FOK
modifier, as discussed in detail below. The Exchange does not propose
to substantively amend the functionality of the MTP modifier.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Article 1, Rule 2(d)(2) defines ``Fill Or Kill'' or ``FOK''
as ``a modifier that requires an order to be executed in full and
for limit orders, at or better than its limit price, as soon as the
order is received by the Matching System, but that will be
immediately cancelled if it cannot be executed in full. An order
marked FOK may be executed at one or more different prices against
orders in the Matching System (including any Reserve Size or
undisplayed orders).
    An order marked FOK shall be deemed to have been received `Do
Not Route,' as defined under paragraph (b)(3)(A), which cannot be
overridden by an order sender.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70948 (November 26,
2013), 78 FR 72731 (December 3, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-20) (``Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Adopt a Match Trade Prevention Modifier for Limit and Market Order
Submitted to the Exchange'').
    \6\ The Exchange notes that it deactivated the FOK modifier as
of December 4, 2013, pursuant to its authority under Article 20,
Rule 4(b), and that the Exchange has never received any orders
marked MTP and FOK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On November 20, 2013, the Exchange filed SR-CHX-2013-20 for
immediate effectiveness, which adopted the current MTP order modifier,
as defined under Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F), and became operative on
December 2, 2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the MTP functionality is based on the interaction between
MTP Trading Groups \8\ and, if applicable, subgroups within the MTP
Trading Group, which are created through the use of optional MTP
sublevel designations. Assuming that the MTP functionality has been
activated by the Trading Permit Holders that are part of the MTP
Trading Group, an incoming limit or market order marked with an MTP
modifier, which is comprised of a compulsory MTP Action and an optional
MTP sublevel designation, will not be allowed to execute against a
resting opposite side order from the same MTP Trading Group. However,
if the MTP modifier of the incoming limit or market order indicates an
MTP sublevel designation, the order will be considered to have
originated from a subgroup within the MTP Trading Group, designated by
the sublevel value, and will only be prevented from executing against
resting opposite side orders from the same subgroup (i.e., same
optional MTP sublevel designation). Consequently, an incoming order
that originated from a subgroup will not be prevented from executing
against opposite side resting orders from the same MTP Trading Group,
so long as the opposite side order is not part of the same subgroup
(i.e., the resting order is either marked by a different MTP sublevel
designation or is not marked by any MTP sublevel designation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Article 1, Rule 1(mm) defines ``MTP Trading Group'' as ``a
group of one or more Trading Accounts that have been aggregated at
the request of all Participant Trading Permit holders that control
all Trading Accounts within the proposed group for the purpose of
enabling Match Trade Prevention (`MTP') functionality, pursuant to
Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F)(i). A Trading Account may not be assigned
to more than one MTP Trading Group. Any Exchange-approved changes to
the composition of an MTP Trading Group shall be effective no
earlier than the trading day following the request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once MTP is triggered, one or both orders will be cancelled
pursuant to the MTP Action of the MTP modifier attached to the incoming
order. If the incoming order has an MTP Action of ``N,'' the incoming
order would be cancelled. If the incoming order has an MTP Action of
``O,'' the resting order would be cancelled. If the incoming order has
an MTP Action of ``B,'' both the incoming and resting orders would be
cancelled. Moreover, if the incoming order is marked ``I,'' MTP would
be deactivated and would not prevent a match.
MTP and FOK
    On p. 16 and p. 41 of SR-CHX-2013-20,\9\ the Exchange stated that
the ``proposed MTP modifier is fully compatible with all order
execution, display, and duration modifiers, that are applicable to
limit and market

orders.'' \10\ While MTP and FOK are compatible in theory,\11\ MTP and
FOK are incompatible in practice because the Matching System currently
handles an incoming order marked FOK in a manner that may result in the
FOK modifier being ignored if (1) the incoming order must execute
against two or more resting orders and (2) MTP is triggered by the
second or subsequent resting orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ In contrast, Post Only and FOK are theoretically and
practically incompatible. See Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(D). A limit
order marked Post Only requires the order to be posted to the CHX
Book or cancelled if the order would remove liquidity from the CHX
Book. In contrast, a limit order marked FOK cannot post to the CHX
Book and must remove liquidity from the CHX Book and be executed in
full or be cancelled in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, when the Matching System receives an incoming limit
order marked FOK, the Matching System will take the preliminary step of
determining whether there is sufficient resting order size to
immediately execute the incoming FOK order in full. In doing so, the
Matching System only considers the total size of the resting orders
necessary to immediately execute the incoming FOK order in full and
does not pre-match the incoming FOK order against each of these resting
orders. If there is not enough resting size, the Matching System will
cancel the incoming FOK order. If there is enough resting size, the
Matching System will next attempt to match the incoming FOK order
against each of the resting orders necessary to execute the incoming
FOK order in full and will execute such orders in price/time priority
of the resting orders.\12\ In considering each set of contra-side
orders, the Matching System will consider all order modifiers attached
to the contra-side orders, but will consider the MTP modifier(s) last.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Article 20, Rule 8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to adopting the MTP modifier, this process of handling
incoming FOK orders was sufficient because there were no other order
modifiers that could prevent a full and immediate execution of the
incoming FOK order after the preliminary resting size test of the FOK
modifier was satisfied. Thus, it was impossible for an incoming FOK
order to be partially-executed. However, an incoming FOK order marked
MTP could now result in a partial execution of an incoming FOK order.
Specifically, if MTP is triggered by the second or subsequent resting
order, there may not be enough resting size remaining to fully satisfy
the incoming FOK order. Thus, an incoming FOK order could be cancelled
with a partial execution, which would violate the FOK modifier. The
following Examples 1 and 2 illustrate this scenario.
    Example 1. Assume that the Matching System receives an incoming
limit buy order (``Bid A'') for 1,000 shares of security XYZ priced at
$10.10/share is marked FOK and MTP, with an MTP Action of ``N'' and no
MTP sublevel designation, and originated from MTP Trading Group A1.
Assume that the CHX Book for security XYZ contains no resting bids, but
has two resting offers (``Offers A and B''). Assume that Offer A is a
limit order for 500 shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share marked MTP
that originated from MTP Trading Group B1. Assume that Offer B is also
a limit order for 500 shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share marked MTP
that originated from MTP Trading Group B1. Assume further that Offer A
has time priority over Offer B and that Offers A and B are at the
National Best Offer.
    Under this Example 1, since Bid A is marked FOK, the Matching
System will take the preliminary step of determining whether Bid A
could be immediately executed in full. Given that Bid A is for 1,000
shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share and Offers A and B are for a
combined 1000 shares of XYZ priced at $10.10/share, the Matching System
will determine that there is enough resting order size on the CHX Book
to immediately execute Bid A in full. The Matching System will then
attempt to match Bid A against Offer A. Since the non-MTP order
modifiers attached to Bid A and Offer A do not conflict, the Matching
System will next consider the MTP Trading Groups of the order because
the incoming order is marked MTP with an MTP Action of ``N.'' Since Bid
A is from Trading Group A1 and Offer A is from Trading Group B1, MTP
will not be triggered and the MTP Action of ``N'' will not come into
play. As such, the Matching System will permit Bid A to execute against
Offer A, which will result in Bid A being decremented by 500 shares.
The Matching System will then go through the same process with the 500
remaining shares of Bid A and Offer B. Given that Offer B is identical
to Offer A, the Matching System will go through the same process and
permit the remaining 500 shares of Bid A to execute against Offer B.
The result is that Bid A has been immediately executed in full, which
is consistent with the FOK modifier.
    Example 2. Assume the same as Example 1, except that Offer B
originated from MTP Trading Group A1, which is the same MTP Trading
Group as Bid A.
    Under this Example 2, MTP would prevent the remaining 500 shares of
Bid A from executing against Offer B because both orders originated
from MTP Trading Group A1. Pursuant to the MTP Action of ``N,'' Bid A
would be cancelled as it is the incoming order, while Offer B would
remain posted to the CHX Book. As a result, Bid A would be cancelled
with a partial execution (i.e., 500 shares of Bid A executed against
the full size of Offer A), which is in violation of the FOK modifier.
The result would be the same if Bid A were marked ``O,'' as the ``O''
MTP Action would require Offer B to be cancelled and since there are no
remaining resting orders against which Bid A could execute, Bid A would
be cancelled with a partial execution. Similarly, if Bid A had an MTP
Action of ``B,'' both Bid A and Offer B would be cancelled, which would
also result in Bid A being cancelled with a partial execution.
    The Exchange notes that this issue could be resolved by having the
Matching System pre-match an incoming FOK order against the required
resting orders prior to executing any one trade. If the pre-match
revealed that one or more of the resting orders could not execute
against the incoming order due to MTP and that the result would be
insufficient remaining resting size to fully and immediately execute
the incoming FOK order, the pre-match would fail and the incoming FOK
order would be cancelled without any partial executions. However, given
the tremendous amount of resources needed to modify the Matching System
to make this change and in light of the fact that the Exchange
infrequently receives FOK orders, the Exchange proposes to reject all
incoming orders marked MTP and FOK when the FOK modifier is
reactivated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 6. If the Exchange decides to modify the
operation of the Matching System to permit an order to be marked FOK
and MTP, the Exchange will file a proposed rule change pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 under the Act to effectuate such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange submits that the proposed rule filing is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general \14\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\15\ because it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
free and open market and, in general, by protecting investors

and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed rule filing
amending Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to provide that the MTP modifier is
not compatible with the FOK modifier and that orders marked MTP and FOK
shall be rejected by the Matching System provides accuracy concerning a
functionality already offered by the Exchange, which, in turn, promotes
all of the objectives of Section 6(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed filing will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because this filing clarifies
the operation of the current MTP modifier and does not propose to
modify its functionality.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\19\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. The Exchange requested such waiver so
that it may immediately provide accuracy as to the current
functionality of the MTP modifier and address inaccurate statements in
SR-CHX-2013-20. Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2013-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2013-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CHX-2013-23,
and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31607 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46900-46903]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0673; Product Identifier 2019-NM-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-24-07, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and
Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
AD 2014-24-07 requires repetitive rototest inspections for cracking;
corrective actions if necessary; and modification of the torsion box,
which terminates the repetitive inspections. Since the FAA issued AD
2014-24-07, the FAA has determined that the compliance times for the
repetitive inspections must be revised for certain airplanes. This
proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 2014-24-07, with certain
revised compliance times, as specified in a European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. This
proposed AD would also revise the applicability to include additional
airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 21,
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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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-
0673; 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 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

    The FAA invites 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-2019-0673;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-101-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR 72124,
December 5, 2014) (``AD 2014-24-07''), for certain Airbus SAS Model
A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -
132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232
airplanes. AD 2014-24-07 requires repetitive rototest inspections for
cracking; corrective actions if necessary; and modification of the
torsion box, which terminates the repetitive inspections. AD 2014-24-07
resulted from a report of a crack found in the fuselage during a
fatigue test campaign. The FAA issued AD 2014-24-07 to address cracking
in the side box beam flange of the fuselage, which could affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2014-24-07 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2014-24-07, the compliance times for the
repetitive inspections have been reduced for airplanes with a retrofit
sharklet installation with non-structural reinforcement.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the

European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0122, dated June 4, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0122'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 airplanes; Model A319-111,
-112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212,
-214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the full scale fatigue test campaign of the A320 family
type design, a crack was reported in the fuselage side box beam
flange at frame (FR) 43 level, both sides.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB
[service bulletin] A320-53-1258, providing instructions for
repetitive inspections, and SB A320-53-1251, later revised,
providing modification instructions.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0261 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2014-24-07], requiring repetitive inspections and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of corrective action(s). That [EASA] AD
also required a modification, which constitutes terminating action
for the required repetitive inspections.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus issued SB A320-57-1193
(retrofit mod 160080) to allow retrofit sharklet installation on
A320 and A319 aeroplanes with non-structural reinforcement, and
revised SB A320-53-1258, including new affected aeroplane
configuration and applicable accomplishment timescale.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0261, which is superseded, but requires
accomplishment of repetitive inspections and, depending on findings,
corrective action(s), at different accomplishment timescale,
depending on aeroplane configuration. This [EASA] AD also requires a
modification, which constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2014-24-07, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2014-24-07. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2019-0122, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0122 describes procedures for repetitive rototest
inspections for cracking; corrective actions if necessary; and
modification of the torsion box, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections.
    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 the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
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 2019-0122 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Model A320-216 Airplanes

    The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was U.S. type certificated on
December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA ADs that affected Model
A320-216 airplanes were included in the U.S. type certificate as part
of the Required Airworthiness Actions List (RAAL). One or more Model
A320-216 airplanes have subsequently been placed on the U.S. Register,
and will now be included in FAA AD actions. For Model A320-216
airplanes, the requirements that correspond to AD 2014-24-07 were
mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that RAAL requirement is
still in effect, for continuity and clarity the agency has identified
Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this AD; the restated
requirements of this proposed AD would therefore apply to those
airplanes.

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 2019-0122 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0122, through that incorporation,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the
heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD.
Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0122 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0122 will be available on the internet
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0673 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 851 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2014-24-07...  178 work-hours x $85 per         $31,334         $46,464     $39,540,864
                                         hour = $15,130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new requirements of this proposed AD add no new economic
burden.
    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this proposed 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR 72124, December 5, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0673; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
101-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by October 21, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR 72124,
December 5, 2014) (``AD 2014-24-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0122, dated June 4, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0122'').
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the side
box beam flange of the fuselage at the frame (FR) 43 level during a
fatigue test campaign. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracking in the side box beam flange of the fuselage, which could
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(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 2019-0122.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0122

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0122 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD. However, where
Table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0122 provides compliance times for group 1B
airplanes as ``[w]ithin 3,000 FC or 6,000 FH'' after a given date,
this AD requires that those compliance times be calculated 3,000
flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours, ``whichever occurs first''
after January 9, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-24-07).
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0122 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 2019-0122 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0122, 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 2019-0122 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0673.
    (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 August 22, 2019.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-19010 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31042]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1763-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Iowa; Amendment No. 23 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 11, 2009, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig
Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Iowa resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding during
the period of May 25 to August 13, 2008, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude that special cost share arrangements are warranted
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I have amended the declarations of May 27, 2008, June
30, 2008, and September 8, 2008, made by President George W. Bush,
to authorize Federal funds for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program, at 100 percent of
total eligible costs for 14 consecutive days.
    This adjustment to the cost share applies only to Public
Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such
adjustments under applicable law. The Stafford Act specifically
prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs
Assistance (Section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75
percent of total eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15353 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17516-17518]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07361]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74587; File No. SR-CME-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish a Default Management Committee and Address OTC Products That
Are Subject to CME's Base Financial Safeguards

March 26, 2015.
    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 March 23, 2015, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III, below, which
Items have been primarily prepared by CME. CME filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4)(ii) \4\ thereunder, so that the proposed rule change was
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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change would make amendments to existing rules to
establish a default management committee (``Active Base OTC Default
Management Committee'' or ``Committee'') and address over-the-counter
(``OTC'') products that are subject to CME's base financial safeguards,
including OTC FX.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning

the purpose 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.
CME 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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and currently offers
clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With
this filing, CME proposes to make rulebook changes that are limited to
its business clearing futures and swaps under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CFTC. More specifically, the proposed rule change
would make amendments to existing rules to establish a default
management committee and address OTC products that are subject to CME's
base financial safeguards, including OTC FX.
    CME currently has an IRS Default Management Committee to assist
with the management of a defaulting IRS Clearing Member's positions and
a CDS Default Management Committee to assist with the management of a
defaulting CDS Clearing Member's positions. The proposed rule change
establishes the Committee as a similar construct to assist with the
management of portfolio of its OTC Clearing Member's positions. The
Committee will be comprised of traders in OTC products that are
employees or directors of Base OTC Clearing Members (or their
affiliates) and will serve on the Committee on a rotating basis. The
Committee will assist CME in structuring hedges and portfolios for
auction. Members of the Committee will also participate in default
management drills for Base OTC products.
    The proposed rule amendments are summarized further as follows:
     New CME Rule 8F025. (Active Base OTC Default Management
Committee) will establish the Committee and specify its composition of
traders in the relevant OTC products who will serve on a rotational
basis;
     CME Rule 8F004 (OTC Clearing Member Obligations and
Qualifications) amendments will add requirements for OTC Clearing
Members to (i) avail traders with proper experience to the Committee
and (ii) participate in OTC Derivative default drill exercises;
     CME Rule 8F014 (Mitigation of Losses) amendments will
harmonize with the related OTC IRS and OTC CDS rules, including the
deletion of allocations of OTC positions;
     CME Rule 8F002 (Definitions) amendments will add the terms
``Base OTC Clearing Member'' and ``OTC Derivative Product Category.''
    The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is
limited to CME's business as a derivatives clearing organization
clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME has
not cleared security based swaps and does not plan to, and therefore
the proposed rule change does not impact CME's security-based swap
clearing business in any way. The proposed rule change will become
effective immediately. CME notes that it has also submitted the
proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary
regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 14-080.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act including Section 17A of the Act.\5\ The
establishment of the Committee and OTC Clearing Member requirements to
provide traders and participate in auction as set forth in the proposed
rule change forms part of CME's default procedures for OTC products to
permit CME to take timely action to contain losses resulting from OTC
positions in the event of a default of a CME OTC Clearing Member. The
proposed rule change should therefore be seen to be designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures
and swaps clearing businesses, which means it is limited in its effect
to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As
such, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's activities as a
derivatives clearing organization clearing futures that are not
security futures and swaps that are not security-based swaps. CME notes
that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the
Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies
underlying the Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-
counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest.
    Because the proposed rule change is limited in its effect to CME's
futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed rule change is
properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME
that:
    (a) primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect
to products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to
securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.

As such, the proposed rule change is therefore consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and is properly filed under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \9\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule change
would make amendments to existing rules to establish a default
management committee to further strengthen CME's ability to take timely
action to contain losses resulting from OTC positions in the event of a
default of a CME OTC Clearing Member. Further, the proposed rule change
is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as such,
does not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in
any way and therefore does not impose any burden on competition that is
inappropriate 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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2015-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 21049-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours or
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2015-005 and
should be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07361 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P