[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83590-83594]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26263]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99017; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Suspension of and Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Establish an Options
Regulatory Fee

November 24, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On September 27, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
(file number SR-MEMX-2023-25) to adopt an Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'').\3\ The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon
filing with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 4, 2023.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98585 (September 28,
2023), 88 FR 68692 (October 4, 2023) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is
hereby: (1) temporarily suspending file number SR-MEMX-2023-25; and (2)
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
file number SR-MEMX-2023-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0015
per contract side.\7\ The per-contract ORF will be collected by the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') on behalf of the Exchange for
each options transaction, cleared or ultimately cleared by an Exchange
member in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on which
the transaction occurs. The ORF is collected from either: (1) a Member
that was the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction; or (2) a non-
Member that was the ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the
executing clearing firm for the transaction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68692.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the amount of the proposed ORF fee is
``based on historical industry volume, projected volumes on the
Exchange, and

projected Exchange regulatory costs.'' \9\ The Exchange states that
``revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's
other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not
all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.'' \10\ The Exchange notes that
it will monitor the amount of ORF revenue it collects ``to ensure that
it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 68693.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the ORF will automatically sunset on
September 30, 2024, approximately one year after the operative
date.\12\ The Exchange believes this will allow it time to ``gather the
necessary data, including its actual regulatory costs and revenues, as
well as the cost of regulating executions that clear in a customer
capacity and executions that occur on away markets, while also allowing
it to adequately cover a portion of the projected costs associated with
the regulation of its Members.'' \13\ According to the Exchange,
allowing the collection of ORF from the outset of its operations on
September 27, 2023 until September 30, 2023, when the fee will
automatically sunset, will allow the Exchange to fund its regulatory
program and collect evidence to provide to the Commission and inform
its approach to ORF after the sunset period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 68692 and 68695.
    \13\ Id. at 68695.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\15\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\16\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act to allow for additional analysis
of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the rules
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\17\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \19\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \20\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated that establishing
an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 is reasonable because it ``will serve
to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated
regulatory costs'' and ``is lower than the amount of ORF assessed on
other exchanges.'' \22\ According to the Exchange, its ORF is designed
to ``generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's
other regulatory fees, will be less than 75% of the Exchange's
regulatory costs. . . .'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68695-96. Several other
exchanges have a lower ORF rate than that proposed by the Exchange.
See, e.g., Nasdaq ISE, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules/ISE%20Options%207
($0.0013); Nasdaq GEMX, available at Rules [bond] Nasdaq GEMX
($0.0012); CboeEDGX, available at Cboe EDGX Options Exchange Fee
Schedule ($0.0001); and MIAX Emerald, available at https://www.miaxglobal.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Emerald_Fee_Schedule_10122023_3.pdf ($0.0006).
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also asserted that the ORF is equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory because ``it is charged to all Members on
all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC'' and is
``directly based on the amount of customer options business they
conduct.'' \24\ In addition, the Exchange stated that ``[r]egulating
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and
less labor-intensive.'' \25\ Further, the Exchange stated that it has
``broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Members'
activities, irrespective of where their transactions take place'' and
notes that it ``will not be able to effectively surveil [its Members']
conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options
markets.'' \26\ Consequently, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all
customer-range transactions cleared by a Member, even if the
transactions do not take place on the Exchange and regardless of
whether the transaction was executed by a member.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id. at 68693 and 68696.
    \27\ Id. The Exchange also states that its proposed collection
method which is similar to that utilized by other options exchanges
``was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that
desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that
ultimately clears the transaction.'' Id. at 68696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that implementing the proposed ORF
with a sunset date of approximately one year after the operative date
is reasonable because ``it will give the Exchange adequate time to
collect and analyze pertinent data while ensuring the Exchange, as a
new entrant into equity options trading, is able to adequately fund its
regulatory program to the same extent as its competitors.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 68697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to
establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 is consistent with the
statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the
rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not

impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\31\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \32\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\33\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities'' \34\
(emphasis added);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers'' \35\ (emphasis added); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to establish an ORF in the
amount of $0.0015 per contract side ``based on historical industry
volume, projected volumes on the Exchange, and projected Exchange
regulatory costs.'' \37\ The Exchange also states that ``revenue
generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other
regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all,
of the Exchange's regulatory costs.\38\ However, those and other
statements in support of its proposed establishment of an ORF are
general in nature and lack sufficient detail and specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68692.
    \38\ Id. at 68693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange does not elaborate on the ``material
portion'' of options regulatory expenses that it seeks to recover from
the ORF and why the threshold it selected (i.e., that ORF will ``not
exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs'') correlates to
the degree of regulatory responsibility and expenses borne by the
Exchange as it relates to the regulation of customer options
transactions.\39\ Further, the Exchange has not provided any
quantifiable information to support its assertion that regulating
customer trading activity is ``much more labor-intensive'' and
therefore, more costly. The Exchange does not claim in its filing that
its regulation of customer activity will consume 75% of total
regulatory costs nor does it assert that customer activity will require
a level of effort that will occupy 75% of the regulatory department's
attention. Further, the Exchange does not sufficiently analyze how
funding 75% of its total regulatory costs (including direct and
indirect expenses) from ORF constitutes an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees among members, and it does not provide sufficient
detail to allow the Commission and commenters to consider those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange has not provided specific or detailed
information regarding the anticipated regulatory cost associated with
regulating, monitoring, and surveilling on-exchange activity compared
to activity that takes place on other exchanges (which exchanges assess
their own ORF on those trades). In particular, the Exchange proposes to
collect ORF on executions that do not occur on the Exchange. The
proposed ORF rate is the same for on-exchange and off-exchange
activity, so the proposal will result in the Exchange at least
initially funding a very significant portion of its total regulatory
costs from a fee charged on contracts that execute away from the
Exchange. The Exchange does not provide a sufficiently detailed
analysis or present specific facts to show the level of regulatory
effort and regulatory costs it would expend on contracts that execute
on other exchanges. Without more information in the filing on the
Exchange's projected regulatory revenues, regulatory costs, and
regulatory activities to supervise and regulate members, specifically,
e.g., customer versus non-customer activity and on-exchange versus off-
exchange activity, the proposal lacks specific information that can
speak to whether the proposed ORF is reasonable, equitably allocated,
and not unfairly discriminatory, particularly given that the ORF is
assessed only on transactions that clear in the ``customer'' range and
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \40\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\41\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change are general in nature and

lack detail and specificity. The Commission cannot unquestionably rely
on an exchange's statements and representations.\43\ Instead, the
Commission needs sufficient information to support independent findings
that a proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act.\44\
Here, such an analysis includes, among other things, whether the
proposed ORF is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other changes among the Exchange's members, as well as whether the
proposed ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 447
(August 8, 2017).
    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission needs additional information from the Exchange to
demonstrate how the proposal meets those and other applicable
requirements of the Act, to assess whether the Exchange has established
a sufficient nexus between the proposed ORF and the Exchange's
regulation of customer trading activity both on and off exchange. While
the Commission broadly solicits comment from all interested parties on
the proposal, the Commission believes that the Exchange alone has
access to much of the specific detail necessary to fully address these
questions and concerns because these matters involve qualitative and
quantitative information about the Exchange's operations. Specifically,
among other things, the Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal
contained in the Notice.\45\ In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the following aspects of the proposal and asks commenters to
submit data where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Information on the Exchange's Projected Regulatory Costs and
Revenues. The Exchange states that its proposed ORF rate is reasonable
based on historical industry volume, projected volumes on the Exchange,
and projected Exchange regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its
regulatory costs would include direct regulatory expenses and certain
indirect expenses for work ``allocated in support of the regulatory
function.'' \46\ According to the Exchange, indirect regulatory
expenses (including, among other things, human resources, legal,
information technology, facilities and accounting, as well as certain
shared expenses necessary to operate the Exchange and carry out its
regulatory function) are anticipated to be approximately 24% of the
Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2023 and 2024 and direct
regulatory expenses are anticipated to be approximately 76% of the
Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2023 and 2024.\47\ Do commenters
believe the Exchange has provided adequate detail regarding these
metrics? If not, what additional information should be provided to
demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 68693.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Information on the Exchange's Imposition of ORF on Customer
Orders. The Exchange states that it will ensure that revenue generated
from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs.\48\
Do commenters believe that the Exchange has sufficiently analyzed and
justified its proposal to fund 75% of its total regulatory expenses
from a fee imposed only on options transactions clearing in the
customer-range, where those expenses include the regulation of
transactions that clear in the non-customer-range (e.g., broker-dealer
and market maker trades)? In addition, explaining that the proposed ORF
would be charged to ``all Members on all their transactions that clear
as customer at the OCC,'' the Exchange states that such methodology
``ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly
based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.'' \49\
The Exchange further asserts that ``[r]egulating customer trading
activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure
of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading
activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive.''
\50\ According to the Exchange, ``the costs associated with
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.'' \51\ Do commenters believe
that the Exchange has provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and
qualitative evidence in support of this aspect of its proposal?
Specifically, examples of information that would be helpful to
demonstrate how the assessment of ORF only on orders that clear in the
customer-range correlates to the level of effort and costs the Exchange
expends to regulate customer options transactions include: (a) the
percentage of volume expected to clear in the customer-range both on
and off the Exchange compared to the percentage of volume expected to
clear in a range other than customer both on and off the Exchange; (b)
the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory budget that would be
attributable to the regulation of orders that are expected to clear in
the customer-range compared to the percentage of the Exchange's
regulatory budget that would be attributable to orders that are
expected to clear in a range other than customer; (c) the anticipated
percentage of the Exchange's regulatory level of effort that would be
attributable to the regulation of orders that are expected to clear in
the customer-range compared to the anticipated percentage of the
Exchange's regulatory level effort that would be attributable to orders
that are expected to clear in a range other than customer; and (d) the
proportion of the Exchange's revenues, as reported in the most recent
annual financials it submitted on Form1, that would be represented by
expected ORF revenues if those revenues had been included in the most
recent annual financials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See id.
    \49\ Id. at 68696.
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Information on the Exchange's Assessment of ORF on Away-Market
Activity. The Exchange states that it has ``broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect a Member's activities, irrespective of
where their transactions take place. . . .'' \52\ The Exchange
therefore believes that it is appropriate to impose the ORF even where
the transaction does not take place on the Exchange.\53\ Do commenters
believe that the Exchange has provided sufficiently detailed
quantitative and qualitative evidence in support of how the assessment
of ORF on away-market transactions correlates to the effort it will
expend on regulating away-market transactions compared to the level of
effort the Exchange will invest in regulating transactions on Exchange?
Specifically, examples of information that would be helpful to assess
the application of the ORF to executions that do not occur on the
Exchange include: (a) the projected percentage of the Exchange's
overall regulatory budget that is expected to be attributable to
regulating away-market transactions compared to the projected
percentage of the Exchange's overall regulatory budget that is expected
to be attributable to regulating on-Exchange transactions; (b) the
projected percentage of the Exchange's regulatory level of effort that
is expected to be attributable to the regulation of away-market
transactions compared to the projected percentage of

the Exchange's regulatory level of effort that is expected to be
attributable to the regulation of orders that execute on the Exchange;
(c) the anticipated percentage of ORF revenue that is expected to be
derived from away-market transactions compared to the anticipated
percentage of ORF revenue that is expected to be derived from
executions on the Exchange; and (d) more detail on the regulatory
activities the exchange expects to perform for trades that do not occur
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See id. at 68694.
    \53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Information on the Exchange's Regulatory Program Concerning
Clearing Brokers. The Exchange states that ORF is collected on
``customer range'' options transactions cleared or ultimately cleared
by an Exchange member regardless of the exchange on which the
transaction occurs.\54\ The Exchange also will collect ORF from a non-
Member clearing broker where a member was the executing firm and a non-
Member was the ultimate clearing firm. Do commenters believe that the
Exchange has provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and
qualitative evidence in support of this aspect of its proposal?
Specifically, examples of information that would be helpful to provide
context for the collection of ORF from member and non-member clearing
brokers and determine whether a sufficient nexus exists between the ORF
and the Exchange's regulation of clearing activity, include: (a) the
percentage of the Exchange's regulatory expenses and level of
regulatory activity that is expected to pertain to clearance and
settlement activity and the percentage this is expected to account for
with respect to the Exchange's overall regulatory costs and regulatory
activity, and if that differs depending on whether the ultimate
clearing firm is an Exchange member or not and whether the contract
executes on the Exchange or not; (b) the number of ``ultimate clearing
firms'' that are Exchange members compared to the number of ``ultimate
clearing firms'' that are non-Members from which ORF is expected to be
collected on behalf of the Exchange; and (c) the percentage of ORF
revenues that is expected to be collected from Member clearing firms
compared to the percentage of ORF revenue that is expected to be
collected from non-Member clearing firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See id. at 68692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with the requirements that exchange fees be reasonable,
equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by December 21, 2023.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January 4, 2024. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-25 and should be
submitted on or before December 21, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by January 4, 2024.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\57\ that file number SR-MEMX-2023-25, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26263 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82309-82310]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 9, 2012, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Caleb Briggs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: (301)
847-8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-(800) 741-8138;<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington,
DC area), and follow the prompts to the desired center or product area.
Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this
meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: During the morning session, the committee will discuss
supplemental new drug application (NDA) 21790/010 for DACOGEN
(decitabine) for injection, application submitted by Eisai, Inc. The
proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of
acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in adults 65 years of age or older who
are not considered candidates for induction chemotherapy, which is the
standard first phase of treatment for AML.
    During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss NDA
022481, with the proposed trade name PIXUVRI (pixantrone dimaleate)
injection, application submitted by Cell Therapeutics, Inc. The
proposed indication (use) for this product is as a single agent
treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory (difficult to
treat), aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma who received two or more
prior lines of therapy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
January 25, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
January 17, 2012. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by January 18,
2012.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caleb Briggs at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 23, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-33552 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36443-36447]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7533; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-080-AD;
Amendment 39-18528; AD 2016-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200
Freighter series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of an under-torqued forward engine
mount bolt. This AD requires a one-time torque check of the forward and
aft engine mount bolts and corrective actions if necessary. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly torqued engine mount
bolts, which could lead to detachment of the engine from the airplane
during flight and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to
persons on the ground.

DATES: This AD is effective July 12, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
7533.

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-
7533; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-
200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81216)
(``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an under-torqued
forward engine mount bolt. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time
torque check of the forward and aft engine mount bolts, and corrective
actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
improperly torqued engine mount bolts, which could lead to detachment
of the engine from the airplane during flight and consequent damage to
the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0082, dated May 11, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model
A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series
airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2013, during a pre-delivery test on an A330 aeroplane fitted
with Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4170 engines, an issue with N1 [low
pressure spool] vibrations level on [engine] ENG1 was identified.
While performing an engine removal, one forward engine mount bolt
was found improperly torqued. The investigation concluded this was
due to a production line engine installation quality issue. Further
analysis showed that some aeroplanes, delivered between June 2006
and January 2014, may have had the rear (AFT) and forward (FWD)
engine mount bolts improperly torqued.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could ultimately
lead to an in-flight detachment of the engine from the aeroplane,
possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to
persons on the ground.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued four Alert Operators
Transmissions (AOT) A71L004-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted PW
engines), AOT A71L006-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted with General
Electric (GE) engines), AOT A71L005-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted
with Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engines) and AOT A71L008-14 (for
A340 aeroplanes fitted with RR Trent 500 engines) to provide torque
check instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time torque check of the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts and,
depending on findings, re-torque of the affected [engine mount]
bolt(s) and/or replacement of all four [engine mount] bolts and
associated nuts.

    Findings (or discrepancies) include one engine mount bolt that is
loose or able to rotate, two or more engine mount bolts that are loose
or able to rotate, or one or more engine mount bolts that are fully
broken. Corrective actions include re-torqueing the affected engine
mount bolt(s), and replacing all engine mount bolts and associated nuts
with new engine mount bolts and nuts on the engine where the loose or
fully broken engine mount bolt(s) were detected. This AD specifies
reporting of all findings (including no discrepancies). The corrective
actions include re-torqueing loose engine mount bolts before further
flight. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2015-7533.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Changes to the NPRM

    Paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i) of the proposed AD refer to the
accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01,
dated February 20, 2012. However, operators might also accomplish
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31,
2015. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i) of this
AD to refer to the actions specified in ``Airbus Service Bulletin A330-
71-3028.''
    Paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD refers to Airbus AOT A71L008-
14, dated September 29, 2014, and is an exception to the service
information specified in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD. However,
paragraph (l) of the proposed AD refers to Airbus AOT A71L008-14,
Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014. We have revised paragraph (m)(1)
of this AD to refer to Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated
December 18, 2014.
    For consistency, we have also replaced the words ``bolt(s)'' and
``pylon bolt(s)'' in this AD with ``engine mount bolt(s)'' in order to
match the language in the MCAI. In the service information referenced
in this AD, the term ``pylon'' is also used in some sentences to
describe the engine mount bolts.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed the following service information.
     Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.
The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time
torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine
mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2
of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having PW engines, doing
corrective actions, and reporting all findings.
     Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11,
2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time
torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine
mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2
of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having RR Trent 700 engines,
doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings.
     Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014. The service
information describes procedures for doing a one-time torque check to
determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine mount bolts at
five FWD and four AFT positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon
2 of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having GE engines, doing
corrective actions, and reporting all findings.
     Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18,
2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time
torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine
mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2
of Airbus Model A340 series airplanes having Trent 500 engines, doing
corrective actions, and reporting all findings.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour per
product to report torque check findings. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD
on U.S. operators to be $60,755, or $1,105 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $90,200 for a cost
of $91,900 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-11-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-18528. Docket No. FAA-2015-7533;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-080-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, from
manufacturer serial number (MSN) 0715 through MSN 1507 inclusive,
and MSN 1509, except airplanes on which all engines have been
removed and/or replaced since the date of the first flight of the
airplane.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an under-torqued forward
engine mount bolt. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
improperly torqued engine mount bolts, which could lead to
detachment of the engine from the airplane during flight, and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the
ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Affected Engine

    For the purpose of this AD, an affected engine is an engine that
has never been removed and/or replaced since first flight of the
airplane.

(h) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With Pratt and
Whitney (PW) Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series
airplanes equipped with PW engines: At the earlier of the times
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD,
accomplish a one-time torque check of the forward (FWD) and rear
(AFT) engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations
specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.2, ``Inspection Requirements,'' of Airbus Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.
    (i) Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD.
    (ii) During the accomplishment of actions specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, if done after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, only one FWD engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Do
the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii),
(h)(2)(iii), or (h)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an
average flight time of greater than 132 minutes and having
accumulated less than 2,350 flight cycles and less than 24,320
flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further
flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt, and, within 2,350
flight cycles or 24,320 flight hours since first flight of the
airplane, whichever occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts
and associated nuts, in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014.
    (ii) For Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an
average flight time of 132 minutes or lower and having accumulated
less than 1,950 flight cycles and less than 20,210 flight hours
since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, re-torque
the affected engine mount bolt, and within 2,350 flight cycles or
24,320 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever
occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts,
in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,''
of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.
    (iii) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes
having accumulated less than 2,140 flight cycles and less than 6,600
flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further
flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt and within 2,140
flight cycles or 6,600 flight hours since first flight of the
airplane, whichever occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts
and associated nuts, in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014.
    (iv) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A),
(h)(2)(iv)(B), and (h)(2)(iv)(C) of this AD: Before further flight,
replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance
with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT
A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.
    (A) Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an
average flight time of greater than 132 minutes and having
accumulated 2,350 flight cycles or more or 24,320 flight hours or
more since first flight of the airplane.
    (B) Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an
average flight time of 132 minutes or lower and having accumulated
1,950 flight cycles or more or 20,210 flight hours or more since
first flight of the airplane.
    (C) Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes having
accumulated 2,140 flight cycles or more or 6,600 flight hours or
more since first flight of the airplane.
    (3) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, two or more FWD engine mount bolts are found that rotate:
Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and
associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014.
    (4) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, one or more FWD engine mount bolts are found fully broken:
Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and
associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
    (5) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, only one AFT engine mount bolt is found that rotates:
Before further flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt, and
replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts at the next
engine removal, in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014.
    (6) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, two or more AFT engine mount bolts are found that rotate:
Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and
associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014.
    (7) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, one or more AFT engine mount bolts are found fully broken:
Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and
associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

(i) Clarification of Concurrent Actions for Airbus Model A330-223F,
A330-223, A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323 Airplanes Equipped With
Pratt and Whitney (PW) Engines

    AD 2013-14-04, Amendment 39-17509 (78 FR 68352, November 14,
2013), requires a torque check of FWD engine mount bolts using
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February
20, 2012. If accomplishing the torque check of FWD engine mount
bolts, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, within
the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2013-14-04,
perform the torque check of the AFT engine mount bolts at the same
time as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(j) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With General
Electric (GE) Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series
airplanes equipped with GE engines: Within 2,000 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of
the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the
locations specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of
Section 4.2.2, ``Inspection Requirements,'' of Airbus AOT A71L006-
14, dated July 22, 2014.
    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, only one FWD engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Do
the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this
AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 4,000 flight
cycles and less than 30,800 flight hours since first flight of the
airplane: Before further flight, re-torque affected FWD engine mount
bolt(s), in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3,
``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, and,
within 4,000 flight cycles or 30,800 flight hours since first flight
of the airplane, whichever is first, replace the 5 engine mount
bolts, as applicable, and their associated nuts with new engine
mount bolts and nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 4,000 flight cycles or
more or 30,800 flight hours or more since first flight of the
airplane: Before further flight, replace the 5 FWD engine mount
bolts, as applicable, and their associated nuts with new engine
mount bolts and nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.
    (3) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, two or more FWD engine mount bolts are found that rotate:
Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.
    (4) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, one or more FWD engine mount bolts are found fully broken:
Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.
    (5) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, only one AFT engine mount bolt is found that rotates:
Before further flight, re-torque the affected AFT engine mount
bolt(s) in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3,
``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, and, at
the next engine removal, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and
associated nuts with new engine mount bolts and nuts in accordance
with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT
A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.
    (6) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, two or more AFT engine mount bolts are found that rotate:
Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.
    (7) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, one or more AFT engine mount bolts are found fully broken:
Before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in
accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of
Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by
paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

(k) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With Rolls-Royce
(RR) Trent 700 Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series
airplanes equipped with RR Trent 700 Engines: Within 2,000 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a one-time
torque check of the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts on each affected
engine, at the locations specified in, and in accordance with the
instructions of Section 4.2.2, ``Inspection Requirements,'' of
Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014.
    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD, any discrepancy is detected (one engine mount bolt rotates,
two or more engine mount bolts rotate, or one or more engine mount
bolts are fully broken): Within the compliance time specified in
Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014,
accomplish all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the
instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L005-
14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014, except as required by
paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

(l) Action for Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes Equipped With
RR Trent 500 Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes equipped with
RR Trent 500 Engines: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of FWD and AFT
engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations
specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section
4.2.2, ``Inspection requirements,'' of Airbus AOT A71L008-14,
Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014.
    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD, any discrepancy is detected (one engine mount bolt rotates,
two or more engine mount bolts rotate, or one or more engine mount
bolts are fully broken): Within the compliance time specified in
Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014,
accomplish all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
instructions of Section 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A71L008-
14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014, except as required by
paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

(m) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where Airbus AOTs A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December
11, 2014; A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014; and A71L008-14, Revision
01, dated December 18, 2014; specify to contact Airbus for further
actions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    (2) Where Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7,
2014; AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014; AOT
A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014; and AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01,
dated December 18, 2014, specify actions ``if one pylon bolt fully
broken,'' this AD requires that those actions be done if one or more
engine mount bolt is found fully broken during any torque check
required by paragraph (h)(1), (j)(1), (k)(1) or (l)(1) of this AD.

(n) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2)
of this AD: After accomplishment of any torque check required by
paragraphs (h), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD, report all inspection
results to Airbus, including no findings, in accordance with the
``Reporting'' section of the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (h), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD.
    (1) If the torque check was done on or after the effective date
of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the torque check.
    (2) If the torque check was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L004-14, dated April
1, 2014 (for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped with PW Engines),
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L005-14, dated
September 29, 2014 (for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped with RR
Trent 700 Engines), which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L008-14, dated
September 29, 2014 (for Airbus Model A340 Airplanes Equipped with RR
Trent 500 Engines), which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(q) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA AD 2015-0082, dated May 11, 2015, for related information. This
MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2015-7533.

(r) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.
    (ii) Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11,
2014.
    (iii) Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.
    (iv) Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18,
2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email airworthiness<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12056 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P