[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69486-69488]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28454]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63252; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-150]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the Fee Schedule

November 5, 2010.
    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 October 29, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Delete a symbol from
the list of ``Select Symbols'' included in the ``Rebates and Fees for
Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols'' section of the Fee
Schedule; (ii) change the symbol of a Select Symbol to reflect a recent
corporate action; (iii) add the KBW Bank Index (``BKX'') to the list of
symbols in the Equity Options Fees and assess an Options Surcharge on
BKX; (iv) delete the Cancellation Fee for electronically delivered
customer orders from Section I of the Fee Schedule; and (v) amend the
fees for electronic auctions and opening process.
    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be effective for trades settling on or after November 1,
2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Fee Schedule, specifically Section I, Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity In Select Symbols, and Section II, Equity Options
Fees.
Section I
BIDU and UAUA
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Section I of the Fee Schedule to
remove the symbol for Baidu Inc. (``BIDU'') from the list of Select
Symbols subject to the Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity. The Exchange also proposes to change the symbol for UAL
Corporation from ``UAUA'' to ``UAL'' to reflect a recent corporate
action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 1, 2010, UAL Corporation announced that as a
result of a merger between UAL Corporation and Continental Airlines,
Inc. that it would change its name and underlying symbol. UAL
Corporation is now known as United Continental Holding, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancellation Fee
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a Cancellation Fee on
electronically delivered customer and Professional AON orders that are
submitted by a member. The Exchange assesses $2.10 per order for each
cancelled electronically delivered customer order and $1.10 per order
for each cancelled electronically delivered AON order submitted by a
Professional in excess of the number of customer or AON orders
submitted by a Professional executed on the Exchange by a member
organization in a given month.\4\ A Cancellation Fee is not assessed in
a month in which fewer than 500 electronically delivered customer or
AON orders submitted by a Professional, respectively, are cancelled.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All customer and AON orders submitted by a Professional from
the same member organization that are executed in the same series on
the same side of the market at the same price within a 300 second
period are aggregated and counted as one executed customer or AON
option order submitted by a Professional.
    \5\ A Cancellation Fee does not apply to pre-market
cancellations, Complex Orders that are submitted electronically,
unexecuted Immediate-or-Cancel (IOC) customer orders or cancelled
customer orders that improved the Exchange's prevailing bid or offer
(PBBO) market at the time the customer orders were received by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Cancellation Fee in Section
I so that the Cancellation Fee would not apply to customer orders in
the Select Symbols.\6\ The Cancellation Fee would continue to apply to
Professional All-or-None (``AON'') orders in the Select Symbols. The
Cancellation Fee for both customer and Professional AON orders would
continue to apply for all other symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the Cancellation Fee is no longer required
for customers in the Select Symbols to cover the cost of system
utilization due to planned capacity investments. In addition, the
requirement to mark Professional orders has also alleviated some of the
capacity issues that resulted from customer cancel orders.\7\ The
Exchange believes that by removing the Cancellation Fee for customer
orders in the Select Symbols only will encourage trading in those
Select Symbols. The Exchange intends to evaluate the customer
Cancellation Fee for non-Select Symbols as well to determine if the
volume from cancelled customer orders contributes to the system
congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61802 (April 5,
2010), 75 FR 17193 (March 30, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Auction and Opening Process
    The Exchange proposes to amend and clarify its Fee Schedule with
respect to electronic auctions. Currently, complex orders executed
electronically in the Exchange's Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA'')
\8\ are assessed the Fees set forth in Part B of the Fee Schedule.
Orders other than complex orders executed in electronic auctions (such
as the Exchange's Quote Exhaust and Market Exhaust Auctions) \9\, and
in the Exchange's opening process, are currently assessed the fees set
forth in Part A of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange is proposing to
assess all orders executed in any of the Exchange's electronic
auctions, and the opening process, the fees set forth in Part B of the
Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ COLA is the automated Complex Order Live Auction process. A
COLA may take place upon identification of the existence of a COLA-
eligible order either: (1) Following a COOP, or (2) during normal
trading if the Phlx XL II system receives a Complex Order that
improves the cPBBO. See Exchange Rule 1080. In May 2009 the Exchange
enhanced the system and adopted corresponding rules referring to the
system as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
The Exchange intends to submit a separate technical proposed rule
change that would change all references to the system from ``Phlx XL
II'' to ``PHLX XL.''
    \9\ Market Exhaust occurs when there are no Phlx XL II
participant (specialist, SQT or RSQT) quotations in the Exchange's
disseminated market for a particular series and an initiating order
in the series is received. In such a circumstance, the Phlx XL II
system, using Market Exhaust, will initiate a Market Exhaust auction
for the initiating order. Under Market Exhaust, any order volume
that is routed to away markets will be marked as an Intermarket
Sweep Order or ``ISO.'' See Exchange Rule 1082. In May 2009 the
Exchange enhanced the system and adopted corresponding rules
referring to the system as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-32). The Exchange intends to submit a separate
technical proposed rule change that would change all references to
the system from ``Phlx XL II'' to ``PHLX XL.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BKX
    The Exchange is proposing to add BKX to the list of symbols that
are subject to: (i) The fees set forth in Section II, and (ii) the
options surcharge.\10\ The Exchange proposes to assess a $.10 per
contract Option Surcharge on Specialists \11\, Registered Option
Traders \12\, Streaming Quote Trader \13\, Remote Streaming Quote
Trader \14\, Broker-Dealers and Firms. The Exchange believes that the
addition of BKX will encourage order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This footnote contained an inaccuracy and was deleted. See
E-mail from Angela Saccomandi Dunn, Assistant General Counsel, Phlx
to Ronesha A. Butler, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and
Markets (``Division''), Commission dated November 2, 2010.
    \11\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \12\ A Registered Option Trader or ROT is defined in Exchange
Rule 1014(b) as a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account. A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i)
and (ii).
    \13\ A Streaming Quote Trader or SQT is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
through AUTOM in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \14\ A Remote Streaming Quote Trader or RSQT is defined Exchange
Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member
organization with no physical trading floor presence who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which
such RSQT has been assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be effective for trades settling on or after November 1,
2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \16\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The removal of one symbol from the Fee Schedule regarding Rebates
and

Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity will apply to all categories of
participants in the same manner. Also, the amendment to the UAUA symbol
is for ease of reference in identifying symbols.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the customer
Cancellation Fee, with respect to Select Symbols, are reasonable
because they are no longer required to recover costs associated with
excessive order cancellation activity. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to determine the impact,
if any, on system capacity when there is no fee to cancel certain order
types. The Exchange believes that there should not be increased system
congestion as a result of removing the customer Cancellation Fee in the
Select Symbols. The Exchange will assess the impact to the system after
the removal of the fee to determine if the number of cancellation does
not once again increase. The Exchange removed the customer Cancellation
Fee only in Select Symbols to make such a determination.
    The Exchange believes that the Cancellation Fee is still necessary
with respect to Professional AON orders because those orders are
treated as customer orders for purposes of priority. Member
organizations must indicate whether orders are for Professionals. The
Exchange believes that this requirement to mark an order as
Professional has shifted the source of the system congestion from the
customer orders to the Professional AON orders. By continuing to assess
a Cancellation Fee for Professional AON orders in all symbols will
continue to ease system congestion and allow the Exchange to recover
costs associated with excessive order cancellation activity.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess all electronic auctions and the
opening process the fees in Part B will simplify the Fee Schedule so
that all participants will equally be assessed the complex order fees.
The fees in Part B are reasonable because they are equal to or lower
than the fees currently assessed on the various market participants.
Customers will receive a higher rebate as a result of amending the
fees.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission notes that firms and broker-dealers will
also receive rebates under the proposed Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that assessing a $.10 Options Surcharge on
BKX and adding BKX to Section II, Equity Options, is equitable since it
is similar to option surcharges \18\ assessed by the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') \19\ and NYSEArca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') \20\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange revised the text to more accurately describe
which Phlx fees were similar to ISE and NYSE Arca fees. See E-mail
from Angela Saccomandi Dunn, Assistant General Counsel, Phlx to
Ronesha A. Butler, Special Counsel, Division, Commission dated
November 2, 2010.
    \19\ See ISE's Schedule of Fees.
    \20\ See NYSE Arca's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\21\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-150 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-150. 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,\22\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2010-150 and should be submitted on or before December 3, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28454 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32069-32072]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model
188 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by
the design approval holder (DAH) indicating the left and right lower
surface panels of the wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for
cracking at these panels, and repair if necessary. The proposed AD
would also require a one-time bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all
open holes for cracking, repair if necessary, and modification. We are
proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the left and right
lower surface panels of the wings, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2015-
1419; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-
5554; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2015-1419;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits,

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas
or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD.
As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if
the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH
indicating that the left and right lower surface panels of the wings
are subject to WFD. The root cause of WFD is fatigue cracks manifesting
and growing simultaneously at similar structural details and stress
levels on the outer wings. Fatigue cracking is increasingly likely as
the airplane is being operated and is aging; without intervention,
fatigue cracking of the left and right lower surface panels of the
wings on the inboard and outboard sides of the buttock line (BL) 65
splice joint could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C,
Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. The service information describes
procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and
right lower surface panels of the wings on the inboard and outboard
sides of the BL 65 splice joint, and repair if necessary. This service
information also describes procedures for a one-time bolt-hole eddy
current inspection of all open holes for cracking, repair if necessary,
and modification of the BL 65 wing root joint. 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 of this NPRM.

Related ADs

    This proposed AD is related to AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243
(Docket No. 81-NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-03-
53R1, Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347, January
25, 1982); for all Lockheed Model L-188 series airplanes. AD 81-03-53R1
requires inspecting for fuel leakage and fatigue cracks, and
replacement, as necessary, of defective parts on the wing lower BL 65
splice joints.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per  product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-ray or ultrasonic inspections  Up to 40                        $0  Up to $3,400.........  Up to $13,600.
                                  work[dash]hours x
                                  $85 per hour = up
                                  to $3,400.
Bolt hole inspections..........  60 work-hours x                  0  $5,100...............  $20,400.
                                  $85 per hour =
                                  $5,100.
Modification...................  400 work-hours x             5,000  $39,000..............  $156,000.
                                  $85 per hour = $
                                  34,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair....................................  500 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0          $42,500
                                             $42,500.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company:
Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243 (Docket No. 81-
NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-03-53R1,
Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347, January 25,
1982).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in
any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder indicating the left and right lower surface panels of the
wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this
AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the left and right lower surface
panels of the wings on the inboard and outboard sides of the buttock
line (BL) 65 splice joint, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Repair

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Inspect for cracking of the inboard and outboard
sides of the lower splice joint at BL 65, using X-ray, ultrasonic,
and bolt-hole eddy current inspection techniques, as applicable, and
repair any cracking found, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C,
Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. All applicable repairs must be
done before further flight. Repeat the inspections at intervals not
to exceed 2,000 flight hours, until the modification required by
paragraph (h) of this AD has been done. Accomplishing the
inspections required by this paragraph terminates the inspections
required by paragraphs A. and B. of AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243
(Docket No. 81-NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-
03-53R1, Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347-01,
January 25, 1982).
    (1) Before the accumulation of 19,000 total flight hours.
    (2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(h) Modification

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD: Do a bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all
open holes for cracking, repair any cracking found before further
flight, and modify the BL 65 wing root lower joint, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra
Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C, Revision C, dated April 30, 2014.
Accomplishing this modification terminates the inspections required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 29,000 total flight hours.
    (2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(i) No Reporting Required

    Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C,
Revision C, dated April 30, 2014, specifies to submit a report of
crack findings, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO,
1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13339 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56519-56520]
[DOCID:fr27se06-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2210-142.
    c. Date filed: September 8, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Roanoke River, in
Bedford, Pittsylvania, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Teresa P. Rogers, Hydro Generation
Department, Appalachian Power, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24022-2121,
(540) 985-2441.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: October 6, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2210-142) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests a variance to
grant Garry Viar permission construct a floating dock that will serve a
single family home in the Lynville Creek area of Franklin County,
Virginia. The proposed structure will be located adjacent to shoreline
classified as Conservation/Environmental according to the Shoreline
Management Plan, approved on July 5, 2005. The licensee is requesting
the variance because the proposed action is not in conformance with the
approved Shoreline Management Plan because of its proximity to
wetlands. The licensee submitted the request for variance because the
wetlands will not be impacted nor will vegetation be removed from the
project boundary.
    l. Location of Application: The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
(866) 208-3676 or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be

obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15811 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P