[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 91 (Monday, May 11, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27665-27667]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0827; Product Identifier 2019-SW-014-AD; Amendment
39-21120; AD 2020-10-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-12-07
for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model SA-365C, SA-365C1,
SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1
helicopters. AD 2011-12-07 required repetitively inspecting the
adhesive bead between the bushings and the Starflex star (Starflex)
arms and the Starflex arm ends. This new AD retains the requirements of
AD 2011-12-07 while omitting helicopters with an improved Starflex
installed from the applicability. This AD was prompted by the
development of the improved Starflex by Airbus Helicopters. The actions
of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 15, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 15,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0827.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2019-0827; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD,
any service information that is incorporated by reference, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is 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: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to remove AD 2011-12-07, Amendment 39-16714 (76 FR 35346,
June 17, 2011) (``AD 2011-12-07'') and add a new AD. AD 2011-12-07
applied to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model SA-365C,
SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-
366G1 helicopters and required a repetitive inspection of the adhesive
bead between the bushing and the Starflex arm for a crack, a gap, or
loss of the adhesive bead and the Starflex arm ends for delamination.
AD 2011-12-07 was prompted by three cases of deterioration of a
Starflex arm end. In two of these cases, the deterioration caused high
amplitude vibrations in flight, compelling the pilot to make a
precautionary landing.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019 (84
FR 58638). The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2011-12-
07 but omit helicopters with an improved Starflex installed from the
applicability.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2008-0165R1, dated June 30,
2017 (EASA AD 2008-0165R1), issued by EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for Airbus Helicopters Model SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2,
AS 365 N3, SA 365 C, SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 C3 and SA 366 G1
helicopters, except helicopters with MOD 0762C37 installed in
production. EASA advises that the Airbus Helicopters Starflex
manufactured with improved materials make the 10-hour repetitive
inspections specified in the original issue of its AD, EASA AD No.
2008-0165, dated August 28, 2008 (EASA AD 2008-0165), unnecessary. EASA
AD 2008-0165R1 retains the repetitive inspections from EASA AD 2008-
0165 but does not apply to helicopters with the new Starflex installed.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD, but did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters
of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest
require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD uses the word ``check,'' whereas this AD uses the word
``inspect'' instead. In some ADs, the FAA uses the word ``check'' to
designate specific actions that may be performed by the owner/operator
(pilot). An

``inspection'' is a maintenance action that must be performed by a
certificated person as specified in 14 CFR 43.3.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed one document that co-publishes four Airbus
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) identification
numbers: No. 05.00.51 for Model 365N-series helicopters, No. 05.35 for
Model 366G1 helicopters, No. 05.28 for Model 365C-series helicopters,
and No. 05.00.21 for non FAA-type certificated military helicopters,
all Revision 4 and dated November 20, 2014. EASB Nos. 05.00.51, 05.35,
and 05.28 are incorporated by reference in this AD. EASB No. 05.00.21
is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    This service information specifies visually inspecting the adhesive
bead on the bushes of the Starflex arm ends for bonding failure of the
bushes and distortion of the Starflex arm ends. This service
information also specifies inspecting the leading edges and the
trailing edges of the Starflex arm ends for delamination.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Master Servicing Manual (MSM)
AS 365 N for Model SA-365N helicopters, MSM AS 365 N1 for Model SA-
365N1 helicopters, MSM AS 365 N2 for Model AS-365N2 helicopters, and
MSM AS 365 N3 for Model AS 365 N3 helicopters, all Revision 7 and dated
October 9, 2017. This service information provides a schedule of
maintenance tasks for the helicopters.
    The FAA also reviewed one document that co-publishes four
Eurocopter EASB identification numbers: No. 05.00.51 for Model 365N-
series helicopters, No. 05.35 for Model 366G1 helicopters, No. 05.28
for Model 365C-series helicopters, and No. 05.00.21 for non FAA-type
certificated military helicopters, all Revision 3 and dated August 18,
2008. This service information specifies the same Accomplishment
Instructions as Revision 4, which is issued under the name Airbus
Helicopters, although Revision 4 excludes helicopters that have MOD
0762C37 installed.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 35 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Inspecting the Starflex takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated
cost of $21 per helicopter and $735 for the U.S. fleet per inspection
cycle. Replacing the Starflex takes about 10 work-hours and parts cost
about $65,900 for an estimated cost of $66,750.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-12-07, Amendment 39-16714 (76 FR 35346, June 17, 2011), and adding
the following new AD:
2020-10-02 Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-21120; Docket No. FAA-2019-0827;
Product Identifier 2019-SW-014-AD.

 (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
previously held by Eurocopter France) Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-
365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1
helicopters, certificated in any category, without Airbus
Helicopters Modification 0762C37 (Starflex star arm part number (P/
N) 365A31-1212-00 or P/N 365A31-1213-00) installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of the Starflex
star (Starflex) arm. This condition could result in high amplitude
vibrations in flight and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-12-07, Amendment 39-16714 (76 FR 35346,
June 17, 2011).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 15, 2020.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS:
    (1) Visually inspect the adhesive bead between the bushing and
the Starflex arm for a crack, a gap, and loss of the adhesive bead,
and inspect the Starflex arm ends for delamination in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.B.1. and 2.B.2.
of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No.
05.00.51, Revision 4, dated November 20, 2014 (EASB 05.00.51), EASB
No. 05.35, Revision 4, dated November 20, 2014 (EASB 05.35), or EASB
No. 05.28, Revision 4, dated November 20, 2014 (EASB 05.28), as
applicable to your model helicopter.
    (2) If there is a crack in the shockproof paint around the
entire adhesive bead where the Starflex arm joins the bushing (as
shown in Figure 2 of EASB 05.00.51, EASB 05.35, or EASB 05.28, as
applicable to your model

helicopter), a gap between the adhesive bead and the bushing (as
shown in Figure 3 of EASB 05.00.51, EASB 05.35, or EASB 05.28, as
applicable to your model helicopter), delamination of a Starflex arm
end (as shown in Figure 4 of EASB 05.00.51, EASB 05.35, or EASB
05.28, as applicable to your model helicopter), or loss of adhesive
bead (as shown in Figure 5 of EASB 05.00.51, EASB 05.35, or EASB
05.28, as applicable to your model helicopter), replace the Starflex
before further flight.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the procedures specified in Eurocopter Emergency
Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 05.00.51, 05.35, or 05.28, all Revision
3 and dated August 18, 2008, as applicable to your model helicopter,
are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD as long as the last
inspection was accomplished within the prior 10 hours TIS.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Master Servicing Manual (MSM) AS 365 N,
MSM AS 365 N1, MSM AS 365 N2, and MSM AS 365 N3, all Revision 7 and
dated October 9, 2017; and Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin Nos. 05.00.51, 05.35, 05.28, and 05.00.21, all Revision 3
and dated August 18, 2008, which are not incorporated by reference,
contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, use the contact
information in paragraphs (k)(3) and (4).
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
No. 2008-0165R1, dated June 30, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2019-
0827.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 05.00.51, Revision 4, dated November 20, 2014.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05.28, Revision 4, dated
November 20, 2014.
    (iii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05.35, Revision 4, dated
November 20, 2014.

    Note 1 to paragraph (k)(2): Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos.
05.00.51, 05.28, 05.35, all Revision 4 and dated November 20, 2014,
are co-published as one document along with Airbus Helicopters EASB
No. 05.00.21, Revision 4, dated November 20, 2014, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 972-
641-3775; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 5, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09947 Filed 5-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


To: SAE Interior Climate Control Standards OEM Committee
Subject January 2011 Orlando meetings

From:  Ward Atkinson				DRAFT

The current activity on SAE documents covering Standards for R-1234yf refrigerant is nearing completion. As of this date all documents have been approved by the ICCSC members. Fifteen documents have been approved by the Motor Vehicle Council. One Standard will complete MVC ballot on Jan 9, and the last two of the R-1234yf documents will be sent to MVC members, and will complete balloting the first part of February. Based upon the current schedule all documents should be published in February 2011.
As an ongoing activity during our ICCSC Meeting: Wed., January 26, 2011 at Orlando, Fl, Ms. Yadi Cancel of EPA staff will present a brief overview of R-1234yf regulatory activity.
It should also be noted that during the MACS Convention Drusilla Hufford, Division Director Stratospheric Protection Division and Yadi Cancel along with EPA's OTAQ and CARB personnel will present information on current regulatory issues and activities. This 90 minute presentation will start at 8:00 am on Saturday morning January 29, 2011.

Should vehicle OEMs or others have an interest to discuss any related subjects with EPA staff on Friday afternoon 28 January, 2011 please let me know and give me a list of topics for discussion by Close Of Business 13 January 2011 and we will attempt to schedule a meeting with Ms. Hufford and Ms.Cancel.
Contact Ward Atkinson<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25599-25601]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-1075]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, U.S. Open Golf Championship, South Puget Sound;
University Place, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
the U.S. Open Golf Championship at Chambers Bay Golf Course in South
Puget Sound, University Place, WA, from June 14, 2015 through June 22,
2015. This action is necessary to ensure the safety and security of
participants, spectators, and event officials at the U.S. Open Golf
Championship, and will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel from
entering or remaining in the security zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from June 14, 2015 through June 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-1075]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and use
``USCG-2014-1075'' as your search term. Click on the link for this
rulemaking and follow the instructions on that Web site for viewing
documents in the docket. You may also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Ryan Griffin, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Pierce County Sheriff Department requested that the Coast Guard
establish a temporary security zone to assist in the security and
safety of the 65,000 potential attendees of the U.S Open Golf
Championship event, set to take place at Chambers Bay Golf Course in
South Puget Sound, University Place, WA, from June 14, 2015 through
June 22, 2015. On February 11, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed to
establish a temporary security zone in connection with this event by
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Security
Zone, U.S. Open Golf Championship, South Puget Sound; University Place,
WA'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 7553). The Coast Guard received no
comments in response to the NPRM, and received no requests for a public
meeting.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C.
191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize
the Coast Guard to establish security zones.
    The Chambers Bay Golf Course, located in the city of University
Place, WA and the County of Pierce, will be the host site for the U.S.
Golf Association 115th Annual U.S. Open Golf Championship from June 15,
2015 through June 21, 2015. This event will have a daily attendance of
approximately 65,000 people and receives international press including
multiple days of live television coverage. Due to the high number of
general public in attendance and press coverage, the U.S. Open Golf
Championship qualifies as a significant special event that requires a
security zone. Based on past incursions at similar events at Chambers
Bay Golf Course, this security zone is necessary for the size detailed
in the regulation section below, 24 hours a day, for the duration of
the event.
    The purpose of this rule is to deter and prevent potential criminal
and terrorist activity against the large gathering of people at the
highly publicized U.S. Open Golf Championship. This action is necessary
to ensure the safety and security of participants, spectators, and
event officials at the U.S. Open Golf Championship, and will do so by
prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the
security

zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated
Representative.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    On February 11, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed to establish a
temporary security zone in connection with the U.S. Open Golf
Championship by publishing an NPRM in the Federal Register (80 FR
7553). The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. As
a result, the Coast Guard is establishing this temporary security zone
as proposed in the NPRM without change.
    This temporary final rule establishes a temporary security zone on
all waters encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]12'50'' N.,
122[deg]35'25'' W.; thence southerly to 47[deg]11'14'' N.,
122[deg]35'50'' W.; thence easterly to the shoreline at 47[deg]11'14''
N., 122[deg]35'03'' W.; thence northerly along the shoreline to
47[deg]12'49'' N., 122[deg]34'39'' W.; thence westerly back to the
point of origin.
    Vessels wishing to enter the security zone must request permission
for entry by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at (206)
217-6001, or the on-scene patrol craft via VHF-FM Ch 13. If permission
for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe
navigation.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The rule is not a
significant regulatory action because the security zone will be in
place for a limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to
transit around the security zone. Maritime traffic may also request
permission to transit through the zone from the Captain of the Port
(COTP), Puget Sound or a Designated Representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators
of vessels intending to operate in the waters covered by the security
zone while it is in effect. The rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
temporary security zone would be in place for a limited period of time
and maritime traffic will be able to transit around the security zone.
Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the
zone from the COTP, Puget Sound or a Designated Representative.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary
security zone near Chambers Bay Golf Course in South Puget Sound,
University Place, WA. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T13-281 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13.281  Security Zone; U.S. Open Golf Championship, South
Puget Sound; University Place, WA.

    (a) Location. This temporary security zone is established in all
waters encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]12'50'' N.,
122[deg]35'25'' W.; thence southerly to 47[deg]11'14'' N.,
122[deg]35'50'' W.; thence easterly to the shoreline at 47[deg]11'14''
N., 122[deg]35'03'' W.; thence northerly along the shoreline to
47[deg]12'49'' N., 122[deg]34'39'' W.; thence westerly back to the
point of origin.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
security zone created by this section without the permission of the
Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative. Designated
Representatives are Coast Guard Personnel authorized by the Captain of
the Port to grant persons or vessels permission to enter or remain in
the security zone created by this section. See 33 CFR part 165, subpart
D, for additional information and requirements. Vessels wishing to
enter the zone must request permission for entry by contacting the
Joint Harbor Operations Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or the on-scene
patrol craft via VHF-FM Ch 13. If permission for entry is granted
vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.
    (c) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. on
June 14, 2015, until 11 p.m. on June 22, 2015, unless canceled sooner
by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: April 22, 2015.
M.W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-10488 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42780-42784]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17713]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67446; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Strike Price Intervals in the
Short Term Option Program

July 16, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 2, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Item II below, which Item has been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to indicate
that the interval between strike prices on STOs \3\ shall be $0.50 or
greater where the strike price is less than $75 and $1 or greater where
the strike price is between $75 and $150; indicate that during the
expiration week of a non-STO \4\ that is selected for the STO Program,
the strike price intervals for the non-STO and the STO shall be the
same; and indicate that during the week before the expiration week of
the non-STO, the non-STO shall be opened for trading in STO intervals
in the same manner as the STO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Short term options are generally known as ``STOs,''
``weeklies,'' or ``weekly options.'' STOs are series in an options
class that are approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in
which the series are opened for trading on any Thursday or Friday
that is a business day and that expire on the Friday of the next
business week. If a Thursday or Friday is not a business day, the
series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day
immediately prior to that Thursday or Friday, respectively. See
Rules 1000(b)(44), 1000A(b)(16), Commentary .11 to Rule 1012 and
Rule 1101A(b)(vi).
    \4\ A non-STO is an option that is in the same option class as
the STO but has a longer expiration cycle (e.g. a SLV monthly option
as compared to a SLV weekly option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, 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 this proposed rule change is to indicate in Rule
1012 and Rule 1101A that the interval between strike prices on STOs
shall be $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $75 and
$1 or greater where the strike price is between $75 and $150 (``STO
intervals''). The purpose is also to indicate that during the
expiration week of a non-STO that is selected for the STO Program, the
strike price intervals for the non-STO and the STO shall be the same;
and that during the week before the expiration week of the non-STO, the
non-STO shall be opened for trading in STO intervals in the same manner
as the STO.
    The STO Program is codified in Commentary .11 to Rule 1012 and Rule
1101A(b)(vi).\5\ These provisions state that after an option class has
been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may
open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day
series of options on that class that expire on the Friday of the
following business week that is a business day. The Exchange may select
up to thirty currently listed option classes on which Short Term Option
Series may be opened. In addition to the thirty-option class
limitation, there is also a limitation that no more than twenty series
for each expiration date in those classes may be opened for trading.\6\
Furthermore, the strike price of each STO has to be fixed with
approximately the same number of strike prices being opened above and
below the value of the underlying security at about the time that the
short term options are initially opened for trading on the Exchange,
and with strike prices being within thirty percent (30%) above or below
the closing price of the underlying security from the preceding day. In
respect of the STO Program, the Exchange does not propose any changes
to these additional program limitations; the Exchange proposes only to
specify that STOs can have interval prices of $0.50 and $1.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62296 (June 15,
2010), 75 FR 35115 (June 21, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-84) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness permanently establishing STO
Program on the Exchange). The STO Program was last expanded in 2011.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65776 (November 17, 2011),
76 FR 72482 (November 23, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-131) (order approving
expansion of STO Program). Like Phlx, other options exchanges have
STO programs. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59824 (April
27, 2009), 74 FR 20518 (May 4, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-018) (approval
order); 62444 (July 2, 2010), 75 FR 39595 (July 9, 2010) (SR-ISE-
2010-72) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness); 62297 (June
15, 2010), 75 FR 35111 (June 21, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-073) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness); 62369 (June 23, 2010), 75 FR
37868 (June 30, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-059) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness); 62370 (June 23, 2010), 75 FR 37870 (June
30, 2010) (SR-Amex-2010-062) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness); 62505 (July 15, 2010), 75 FR 42792 (July 22, 2010)
(SR-BX-2010-047) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness); and
62597 (July 29, 2010), 75 FR 47335 (August 5, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-
020) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness).
    \6\ However, if the Exchange opens less than twenty (20) short
term options for a Short Term Option Expiration Date, additional
series may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange
deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer
demand or when the market price of the underlying security moves
substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened. Any additional strike prices listed by the Exchange
shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the current
price of the underlying security. The Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of Short Term Option Series that are more
than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security
provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series,
as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or
their brokers (market-makers trading for their own account shall not
be considered when determining customer interest under this
provision). See Commentary .11(d) to Rule 1012 and Rule
1101A(b)(vi)(D).
    \7\ Currently, STOs have the same interval prices as the
relevant non-STOs. For example, RUT STOs and RUT non-STOs (that is,
monthly expiration RUT options), which are trading at more than $750
per contract, have strike price intervals that are $2.50 or higher.
This proposal would not impact any high valuation STO products such
as RUT (barring a truly catastrophic market-wide price de-
valuation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal reason for the proposed interval pricing structure is
market demand for weekly options. There is continuing strong customer
demand for having the ability to execute hedging and trading strategies
effectively via STOs,\8\ particularly in the current fast and volatile
multi-faceted trading and investing environment that extends across
numerous markets and platforms.\9\ The Exchange has observed increased
demand for STO classes and/or series, particularly when market moving
events such as significant market volatility, corporate events, or
large market, sector, or individual issue price swings have occurred.
The STO Program is one of the most popular and quickly-expanding
options expiration programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the last STO Program filing, the Exchange noted that it
was seeking an expansion in the number of STO classes to greatly
minimize the fragmented nature of the STO Program and, like the
current proposal, to allow execution of more effective trading and
hedging strategies on the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65776 (November 17, 2011), 76 FR 72482 (November 23,
2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-131) (order approving expansion of STO Program).
    \9\ These include, without limitation, options, equities,
futures, derivatives, indexes, exchange traded funds (``ETFs''),
exchange traded notes (``ETNs''), currencies, and over-the-counter
instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the almost two years since the inception of the STO Program, it
has steadily expanded to the point that as of March 20, 2012, STOs
represent 5.5% of the total options volume on the Exchange and 9.2% of
the total options

volume in the United States.\10\ The STO volumes become even more
significant when the volumes of an STO class are compared to the
volumes of the related non-STO options class. As an example, in the
first two months of 2012, on the Exchange there were 3,115,538
contracts of SPY STOs traded and 9,139,908 contracts of SPY monthly
options traded; and 650,997 contracts of AAPL STOs traded and 1,584,184
contracts of AAPL monthly options traded. From the 4th quarter of 2010
to the 4th quarter of 2011, STO volume expanded more than 90%,\11\ and
the Exchange believes that STO volumes will continue to expand in 2012.
The Exchange believes that, as such, while STOs are currently one of
most popular (high volume) expiration lengths of options traded on Phlx
and other options exchanges, the weekly options will only become more
popular as market participants continue to gain knowledge about more
effective uses of these products for trading and hedging purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that, in fact, the volume increase in
STOs since their inception less than two years ago greatly exceeds
the volume increase of any other length option (e.g. monthly,
quarterly, or long term) over the same equivalent time period.
    \11\ During the same time period, monthly options volume
decreased by 8%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission has approved the use of $0.50 and $1
strike price intervals on the Exchange as well as in the options
industry, particularly at lower price levels (e.g. below $150).
Numerous options products are listed (and traded) on the Exchange at
$0.50 and $1 strike price intervals. For example, there are two
individual ETF options listed on the Exchange at $0.50 strike price
intervals.\12\ There are approximately 53 options listed on the
Exchange at $0.50 strike price intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike
Program.\13\ There are more than 1,000 options listed on the Exchange
with $1 strike price intervals: Approximately 272 ETF/ETN options, 7
currency options (FCOs or WCOs), and 812 options pursuant to the $1
Strike Program.\14\ Moreover, the Commission has recently approved
certain products to trade at $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals on the
Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') within exactly
the same strike price points that are proposed by the Exchange in this
filing, namely $75 and $150.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66285 (February 1,
2012), 77 FR 6160 (February 7, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2011-175) (order
granting approval of $0.50 strike price intervals for SLV and USO
options).
    \13\ The Exchange notes, however, that the $0.50 Strike Program
has inherent price limitations that make it unsuitable for STO
options.
    \14\ Like the $0.50 Strike Program, the $1 Strike Program has
inherent limitations that make it unsuitable for STO options. The
Exchange is not aware of any material market surveillance issues
arising because of the $0.50 or $1 strike price intervals.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64189 (April 5,
2011), 76 FR 20066 (April 11, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-008) (order
granting approval of $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals for certain
volatility options where the strike prices are less than $75 and
between $75 and $150, respectively). In approving the CBOE interval
proposal, the Commission stated that the proposal appears to strike
a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider
array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary
proliferation of options series and the corresponding increase in
quotes and market fragmentation. The Exchange notes that other
options exchanges including NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, ISE, NOM, and Phlx
have made similar rule changes. See Phlx Commentary .12 to Rule
1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the benefits of the ability to trade
STOs at $0.50 and $1 intervals at lower price levels cannot be
underestimated. The proposed intervals would clearly allow traders and
investors, and in particular public (retail) investors to more
effectively and with greater precision consummate trading and hedging
strategies on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this precision
is increasingly necessary, and in fact crucial, as traders and
investors engage in trading and hedging strategies across various
investment platforms (e.g. equity and ETF, index, derivatives, futures,
foreign currency, and even commodities products); particularly when
many of these platforms enjoy substantially smaller strike price
differentiations (e.g. as low as $.05).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As an example, per the CME Web site, strike prices for
options on futures may be at an interval of $.05, $.10, and $.25 per
specified parameters. See http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/files/EQUITY_FLEX_Options.pdf (options on S&P 500 and
NASDAQ-100 contracts) and http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/files/S_5734_x11-05-18x_Change_in_Listing_Rules_for_Goldx_Silverx_Copper_Options.pdf (options on metals contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weekly options have characteristics that are attractive for certain
trading and hedging strategies. Thus, weeklies may be attractive for
retail trading strategies that could benefit from the inherent
accelerated time decay of weekly options, such as selling (buying)
vertical or calendar spreads. And weeklies may be particularly
attractive instruments for short-term institutional hedging needs (e.g.
sudden price movements against large option positions during expiration
week; maintenance or adjustment of complex option positions) as well as
for retail hedging needs (e.g. preceding large earnings plays). In
every case, trading and hedging is more effective when it can be
closely tailored.
    The current wider STO price intervals have negatively impacted
investors and traders, particularly retail public customers, who have
on several occasions requested the Exchange for finer, narrower STO
intervals. The proposal would fix this.
    Following are examples of how inadequately narrow STO intervals
negatively impact trading and hedging opportunities.
    If an investor needs to purchase an STO call option in CSCO (03/26/
12 closing price $20.84), the current $1 strike interval would offer
less opportunity and choice for an investor seeking to keep cash
expenditures low. For example, an investor wishing to buy an in-the-
money call option for less than a $2.50 investment per call purchase
has only two strike prices that meet his criteria from which to choose:
The 19 strike and the 20 strike. Such call options with five days until
expiration might offer ``ask prices'' (option premiums) of $1.75 and
$.75. However, if CSCO had $0.50 strike prices as proposed, the same
investor would have a selection of March 18.50, 19.00, 19.50, 20.00,
and the 20.50 strike call options that may have options premiums from
approximately $2.25 down to approximately $.25. This expanded range of
strikes, and commensurate option premiums, offers far more choice and a
considerably lower cost of entry to the investor, thereby garnering the
investor more than a 66% options premium savings. Lower intervals
increase effective liquidity by offering investors and traders more
price points at which they may execute trading and hedging
strategies.\17\ This allows investors and traders the ability to more
effectively execute their strategies at lower cost. Clearly, more
efficient pricing is advantageous to all market participants, from
retail to institutional investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Moreover, lower strike intervals provide additional price
points for liquidity providers. This allows the liquidity providers
to improve theoretical pricing as well as hedging capabilities,
thereby enabling them to increase the size and quality of their
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, on the put side, an investor is interested in purchasing an STO
option in LNKD (03/26/12 closing price $101.38), the current strike
interval rules similarly offer less opportunity and less choice for the
investor seeking to keep cash expenditures low. For example, an
investor wishing to buy an in-the-money put option for less than a
$5.00 investment per put purchase has only one strike price that meets
his criteria from which to choose: The 105 strike. This put option with
five days until expiration may have an option premium of $5.00.
However, if LNKD had $1 strike intervals as proposed, the investor
would have a selection of March 105, 104, 103, 102, and 101 strike

put options that may have options premiums from approximately $5 down
to $2. This greatly expanded range of strikes allows the investor more
choice and lower cost of entry, and may save the investor as much as
60% in options premium payout.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This premium savings may be very significant for an
investor that is buying a large number of option contracts. See
supra note 17 and related text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And as yet another example, if an investor is interested in
purchasing a complex option spread, narrow strike intervals would offer
additional cost savings and choice. With the 105 LNKD puts trading at
$5.00, as stated in the example above, the next strike available to
offset the cost of the 105 strike would be the 100 puts trading at an
approximately $1.50 premium. With the current intervals, this would
result in a 105-100 put spread costing approximately $3.50. However, if
strike prices were available in $1 increments, various cheaper spreads
could be obtained within the same 105-100 range of strikes. In that
each $1 incremented put spread might trade at approximately $.30 to
$.80 within this strike range, it is easy to see that $1 strikes as
proposed may result in significant savings for investors trying to
execute complex strategies.
    Furthermore, the inadequate price intervals for STOs, particularly
at the lower price levels proposed by the Exchange, may discourage
retail and other customers from executing STO orders when they could be
the most advantageous for effective execution of trading and hedging
strategies on regulated and transparent exchanges. The Exchange feels
that it is essential that such negative, potentially costly and time-
consuming impacts on retail investors are eliminated by offering
tighter intervals within the STO Program. The changes proposed by the
Exchange should allow execution of more trading and hedging strategies
on the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In addition, there is a competitive impact. First, the
proposal would enable the Exchange to provide market participants
with an opportunity to execute their strategies (e.g. complex option
spreads) wholly on their preferred market, namely the Exchange.
Second, the proposal would diminish the potential for foregone
market opportunities on the Exchange caused by the need to use a
more advantageous (that is, interval-precise) platform than STOs
currently allow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with
trading in the Program at $0.50 or greater where the strike price is
less than $75 and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $75
and $150. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a
capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
    The Exchange also proposes language designed to enable a non-STO
option class (e.g. monthly option) that is selected for the STO to
behave like the STO during the expiration week of the related non-
STO.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange notes that STOs are not listed and traded
during the expiration week of the related non-STOs, which is
generally the third week in the month. During this week, those that
want or need weekly options must buy (sell) the related non-STOs.
The proposal would allow traders and hedgers to have the same
benefits during each week in a month, including the one week when
STOs are not listed and traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes that notwithstanding any other
provision regarding strike prices in the applicable rule (Rule 1012 for
non-index options or Rule 1101A for index options), during the
expiration week of a non-STO that is selected for an STO, the strike
price intervals for the non-STO shall be the same as the strike price
intervals permitted for the STO. Thus, during the non-STO expiration
week, the strike price intervals for the non-STO shall be $0.50 or
greater where the strike price is less than $75 and $1 or greater where
the strike price is between $75 and $150. The Exchange also proposes
that notwithstanding any other provision regarding strike prices in the
applicable rule (Rule 1012 or Rule 1101A), during the week before the
expiration week of a non-STO that is selected for an STO, the Exchange
shall open the non-STO for trading in $0.50 and $1 strike price
intervals in the same manner as permitted for STOs. Thus, a non-STO may
be opened in STO intervals on a Thursday or Friday that is a business
day before the STO expiration week.\21\ If the Exchange is not open for
business on the respective Thursday or Friday, however, the non-STO may
be opened in STO intervals on the first business day immediately prior
to that respective Thursday or Friday.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The proposed opening timing is consistent with the
principle that the Exchange may add a new series of options until
five business days prior to expiration. See Rule 1012 and Rule
1101A.
    \22\ The STO opening process is set forth in Commentary 11 to
Rule 1012 and Rule 1101A(b)(vi):
    After an option class has been approved for listing and trading
on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday
or Friday that is a business day (``Short Term Option Opening
Date'') series of options in that class that expire on the Friday of
the following business week that is a business day (``Short Term
Option Expiration Date''). If the Exchange is not open for business
on the respective Thursday or Friday, the Short Term Option Opening
Date will be the first business day immediately prior to that
respective Thursday or Friday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes are proposed to ensure conformity between STOs and
non-STOs that are in the same options class (e.g. weekly SLV options
and monthly SLV options). The Exchange believes that, as discussed,
these changes are necessary to give investors and traders the ability
to maximize trading and hedging opportunities while minimizing costs;
and that a lack of such conforming changes would be counter-productive
for market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the STO Program has provided investors
with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to
more closely tailor their investment and risk management strategies and
decisions. Furthermore, the Exchange has had to reject trading requests
because of the limitations imposed by the Program. For these reasons,
the Exchange requests an expansion of the strike price intervals in the
Program, as well as conformity of the relevant non-STO process, to
provide investors with better weekly option choices for investment,
trading, and risk management purposes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. This will be effectuated by the following rule changes: STO
strike price intervals of $0.50 or greater where the strike price is
less than $75 and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $75
and $150; during the expiration week of the non-STO, the strike price
intervals for the non-STO will be the same as for the STO; and during
the week before the non-STO expiration week, the timing for opening the
non-STO in STO strike price intervals will be the same as for the STO.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will result in a
continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to
closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions, while ensuring
conformity between STOs and related non-STOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal is pro-competitive.
First, the proposal would enable the Exchange to provide market
participants with an opportunity to execute their strategies wholly on
their preferred market, namely the Exchange. And second, the proposal
would diminish the potential for foregone market opportunities on the
Exchange caused by the need to use a more advantageous (that is,
interval-precise) platform than STOs currently allow.

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

    Within 45 days of the publication date of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (1) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (2) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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. In addition, the Commission
specifically requests comment on the following:
     As outlined in detail above in Item II.A.1, Phlx has
proposed that the interval between strike prices on STOs shall be $0.50
or greater where the strike price is less than $75 and $1 or greater
where the strike price is between $75 and $150. The International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') has proposed a similar rule change
to its short term option series program (the ``ISE STOS Program'') that
would allow trading at $0.50 strike price intervals for option classes
that trade in $1 increments and are in the ISE STOS Program.\25\ Do
commenters have any views regarding implementation of both the ISE
Proposal and the instant proposal, if approved, that the Commission
should take into consideration? If so, please provide detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Release No. 67083 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR
33543 (June 6, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-33) (the ``ISE Proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Both Phlx and ISE included within their respective filings
a discussion of the anticipated impact of its proposal on capacity and
liquidity.\26\ Do commenters have views on whether, and if so how,
implementation of both the ISE Proposal and the instant proposal, if
approved, would impact liquidity or capacity that the Commission should
take into consideration? If so, please provide detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ISE Proposal, id., at 33545; supra, pp. 8, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-78. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-78 and should be submitted on or before August
10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17713 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19886-19887]
[DOCID:fr18ap06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-432-000]

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice Allowing Post-Technical
Conference Comments

April 11, 2006.
    A technical conference was convened on Monday, April 10, 2006, from
1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The technical
conference addressed the

two issues related to Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s proposed credit
policy, as discussed in the Commission's February 28, 2006 Order.\1\
Specifically, discussion at the technical conference explored SPP's
proposed total debt to total capitalization and debt service coverage
scores and SPP's proposed $50,000 unsecured credit floor for not-for-
profit entities. Prior to the technical conference, a notice was issued
on March 22, 2006, that set forth several questions. The information
submitted in response to the questions was discussed at the technical
conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 114 FERC ] 61,222 at P 32 and 62
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the Commission will accept further comments
pursuant to the discussion at the technical conference. These comments
are due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.
Reply comments are due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May
8, 2006.
    For further information please contact Jignasa Gadani at (202) 502-
8608 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5727 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                                         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

 								 OFFICE OF POLICY

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Transmittal to Docket:  Summary of the March 15, 2011, Public Meeting in Springfield, Missouri, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of Executive Order 13563:  Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

FROM:	Stuart C. Miles-McLean 		Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

TO: 		Public Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156:  Improving Regulations:  General                     As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned."                As part of its retrospective review of regulations, EPA convened public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodically review our regulations.  This Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting held on March 15, 2011, in Springfield, Missouri.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47427-47428]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0008]

Advisory Committee; Blood Products Advisory Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of Federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Blood Products Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that
it is in the public interest to renew the Blood Products Advisory
Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date.
The new charter will be in effect until the May 13, 2024, expiration
date.

DATES: Authority for the Blood Products Advisory Committee will expire
on May 13, 2024, unless the Commissioner formally determines that
renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vert, Division of Scientific
Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
1244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services
Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Blood Products
Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary
Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the
Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in
discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe
and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product
for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the
safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of blood, products derived
from blood and serum or biotechnology which are intended for use in the
diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of human diseases, and, as
required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration
has regulatory responsibility. The Committee also advises the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs of its findings regarding screening and
testing (to determine eligibility) of donors and labeling of the
products, on clinical and laboratory studies involving such products,
on the affirmation or revocation of biological products licenses, and
on the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides
the scientific support for regulating these agents. The Committee will
function at times as a medical device panel under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act Medical Device Amendments of 1976. As such, the
Committee: (1) recommends classification of devices subject to its
review into regulatory categories; (2) recommends the assignment of a
priority for the application of regulatory requirements for devices
classified in the standards or premarket approval category; (3) advises
on formulation of product development protocols and reviews premarket
approval applications for those devices to recommend changes in
classification as appropriate; (4) recommends exemption of certain
devices from the application of portions of the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976; (5) advises on the necessity to ban a device; and
(6) responds to requests from the Agency to review and make
recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety
and effectiveness of devices.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 17 voting members
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of clinical and administrative medicine, hematology, immunology,
blood banking, surgery, internal medicine, biochemistry, engineering,
biological and physical sciences, biotechnology, computer technology,
statistics, epidemiology, sociology/ethics, and other related
professions. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of
up to 4 years. Non-Federal members of this committee will serve as
Special Government Employees, representatives, or Ex-Officio members.
Federal members will serve as Regular Government Employees or Ex-
Officios. The core of voting members may include one technically
qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is
identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a
consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested
persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include
one non-voting representative member who is identified with industry

interests. There may also be an alternate industry representative.
    The Commissioner or designee shall have the authority to select
members of other scientific and technical FDA advisory committees
(normally not to exceed 10 members) to serve temporarily as voting
members and to designate consultants to serve temporarily as voting
members when: (1) expertise is required that is not available among
current voting standing members of the Committee (when additional
voting members are added to the Committee to provide needed expertise,
a quorum will be based on the combined total of regular and added
members); or (2) to comprise a quorum when, because of unforeseen
circumstances, a quorum is or will be lacking. Because of the size of
the Committee and the variety in the types of issues that it will
consider, FDA may, in connection with a particular committee meeting,
specify a quorum that is less than most of the current voting members.
The Agency's regulations (21 CFR 14.22(d)) authorize a committee
charter to specify quorum requirements.
    If functioning as a medical device panel, an additional non-voting
representative member of consumer interests and an additional non-
voting representative member of industry interests will be included in
addition to the voting members.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/blood-vaccines-and-other-biologics/blood-products-advisory-committee or
by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made
to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be
made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: July 28, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-16577 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70046-70051]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1158; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-018-AD;
Amendment 39-16847; AD 2011-22-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS350B, B1, B2,
B3, BA, C, D, and D1; and AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for the Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3,
BA, C, D, and D1 helicopters; and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N
helicopters with certain tail rotor pitch control rods installed. That
AD requires a daily check of the tail rotor (T/R) pitch control rod
(control rod) outboard spherical bearing (bearing) for play. If play
exists, that AD requires measuring the bearing's radial and axial play.
Since that AD was issued, an incident occurred where the pilot of a
Model AS350 helicopter felt vibrations in the anti-torque pedal in
flight, resulting in a precautionary landing. An investigation
determined that the control rod showed extensive wear on the ball-
joint. This superseding AD maintains the requirements of the existing
AD, and expands the applicability to include the Model AS355NP
helicopter and additional part-numbered control rods. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of a control rod,
loss of T/R control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective November 25, 2011.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before January 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from American
Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Grigg, Manager, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
TX 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 22, 2003, the FAA issued AD 2003-22-06, Amendment 39-
13354 (68 FR 61608, October 29, 2003), Docket 2000-SW-12-AD (AD 2003-
22-06), for Eurocopter Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, C, D, and D1; and
Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters with control rods, part-
number (P/N) 350A33-2145-00 or 350A33-2145-01, which superseded AD 98-
24-35, Amendment 39-10921 (63 FR 66418, December 2, 1998), Docket 98-
SW-41-AD, issued November 19, 1998 (AD 98-24-35). AD 98-24-35 required
a recurring inspection to measure the control rod bearing for radial
and axial play. That action was prompted by an accident and separate
incident involving Model AS350B2 helicopters, and investigations
revealed a broken control rod on the helicopter that was involved in
the accident, and a severely worn control rod on the helicopter
involved in the incident. There were two other unconfirmed incidents
cited by the National Transportation Safety Board (based on the
manufacturer's reports) involving the same control rod, P/N 350A33-
2145-01. AD 2003-22-06 superseded AD 98-24-35, and requires a daily
check of the control rod bearing, allows a larger axial play limit, and
requires a more frequent inspection interval once play is found in the
control rod bearing during a daily check. AD 2003-22-06 also added the
Eurocopter Model AS350B3 helicopter and another part-numbered control
rod to the applicability. AD 2003-22-06 was prompted by a review of
additional service information and public comments regarding the
requirements of AD 98-24-35. The actions specified by AD 2003-22-06 are
intended to prevent separation of the bearing ball from its outer race,
rubbing of the body of the control rod against the tail rotor blade
pitch horn clevis, failure of a control rod, loss of T/R control, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since Issuing Previous AD

    Since issuing AD 2003-22-06 (68 FR 61608, October 29, 2003), the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No.
2010-0006, dated January 7, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition for
the Eurocopter Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, BB, and D helicopters; and
Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N, and NP helicopters with control rods,
P/N 350A33-2100-00, -01, -02, -03, or -04; P/N 350A33-2121-00, -01, or
-02; P/N 350A33-2143-00; or P/N 350A33-2145-00 or -01. EASA advises
that a pilot of a Eurocopter Model AS350 helicopter felt slight
vibrations in the pedal unit in flight. A few minutes later, the
vibration level increased and the pilot carried out a precautionary
autorotation landing. After landing, it was discovered that one TR
pitch-change link was damaged, the tailboom cone was missing, and there
was an impact mark on the tailboom. Further investigation revealed the
affected TR pitch-change link showed extensive wear on the ball-joint.
EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could
lead to loss of the anti-torque function and possible loss of control
of the helicopter.
    In addition, after further review of the language used to describe
the unsafe condition addressed in AD 2003-22-06 (68 FR 61608, October
29, 2003), it has been determined that changes are needed in
terminology to more accurately describe the unsafe condition that this
AD is intending to correct.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.60 for
the Model AS350 series helicopters, and ASB No. 05.00.56 for the Model
AS355 series helicopters, both dated December 9, 2009. These ASBs
specify performing an initial and recurring check for play in the
pitch-change links. If axial play in the ball-joint is detectable, the
ASBs specify removing the pitch-change link and measuring the bearing
wear using a dial indicator. The EASA classified these ASBs as
mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 2010-0006 to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of
a control rod, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter. This AD requires the following actions:
     Before the first flight of each day, check the control rod
bearing for play on the helicopter, by observation and feel, by
slightly moving the TR blade in the flapping axis while monitoring the
bearing for movement. This action may be performed by an owner/operator
(pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate, and must be
entered into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14
CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check
because it involves only a visual and physical check of the control rod
for play, and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic.
If play is detected, a mechanic must remove the control rod from the
helicopter, and using a dial indicator, measure the control rod bearing
wear. If the radial play exceeds 0.008 inch or axial play exceeds 0.016
inch, the control rod must be replaced with an airworthy control rod
before further flight.
     Thereafter, at recurring intervals not to exceed 30 hours
time-in-service (TIS), remove the control rod and measure the bearing
wear using a dial indicator. If the radial play exceeds 0.008 inch or
axial play exceeds 0.016 inch, replace the control rod with an
airworthy control rod before further flight.
    The short compliance time involved, before the first flight of each
day, is required because the previously described critical unsafe
condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter.
Therefore, this AD must be issued immediately. Since a situation exists
that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found
that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are
impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD differs from the EASA AD as follows:
     This AD includes the Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters,
as they may have the same control rod; this AD does not include the
Model AS350BB because it does not have an FAA-issued type certificate.
     This AD uses the term ``T/R pitch control rod'' and the
EASA AD uses the term ``T/R pitch change link'' to describe the same
part.
     This AD uses the term ``loss of T/R control'' to describe
the unsafe condition, and the EASA AD uses the term ``loss of anti-
torque control.''

     This AD uses the term ``hours TIS'' to describe compliance
times, and the EASA AD uses the term ``flight hours.''
     This AD requires either a pilot/operator or mechanic,
before the first flight of each day, to perform a check or inspection
of the bearing for play. If play is found, a mechanic must, before
further flight, measure the bearing play, and thereafter measure the
bearing play at intervals not to exceed 30 hours TIS. The EASA AD
requires a mechanic, within 30 flight hours, to perform an initial
inspection to measure the bearing play, and thereafter, at intervals
not to exceed 30 flight hours. The EASA AD does not require a daily
check.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 733 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We estimate, per helicopter, it will take minimal work-hours
to do the daily check, 1 work-hour to do the recurring inspection, and
1 work-hour to replace 1 control rod. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,724 to replace a control
rod per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators is $1,949,047 per year, assuming 10 recurring
inspections per year per helicopter, and assuming 1 control rod is
replaced per year per helicopter.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect
flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for
public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data,
views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1158; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-018-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You
may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476).

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

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 removing Amendment 39-13354 (68 FR
61608; October 29, 2003), and adding the following new Airworthiness
Directive (AD):

2011-22-05 EUROCOPTER FRANCE (EUROCOPTER): Amendment 39-16847;
Docket No. FAA-2011-1158; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-018-AD;
supersedes AD 2003-22-06, issued October 22, 2003 (68 FR 61608;
October 29, 2003), Amendment 39-13354, Docket No. 2000-SW-12-AD.

    Applicability: Eurocopter Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, C, D,
D1; and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters; with tail
rotor (T/R) pitch control rod (control rod), part number (P/N)
350A33-2100-00, -01, -02, -03, -04; P/N 350A33-2121-00, -01, -02; P/
N 350A33-2143-00; or P/N 350A33-2145-00 or -01, installed;
certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated.
    To prevent failure of a T/R control rod, loss of T/R control,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the
following:
    (a) Before the first flight of each day, place the T/R pedals in
the neutral position. If the helicopter is fitted with a T/R load
compensator, discharge the accumulator as described in the
rotorcraft flight manual. Check the control rod bearing (bearing)
for play on the helicopter, by observation and feel, by slightly
moving the T/R blade in the flapping axis while monitoring the
bearing for movement. See the following Figure 1 of this AD. The
actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/
operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate, and
must be entered into the helicopter maintenance records showing
compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and
14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by
14 CFR 91.173, 121.380, or 135.439.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO11.019

    (b) If the Teflon cloth is coming out of its normal position
within the bearing, totally or partially, or if there is
discoloration or scoring on the bearing, before further flight,
replace the control rod with an airworthy control rod.
    (c) If a pilot or mechanic detects play, a mechanic must remove
the control rod from the helicopter, and using a dial indicator,
measure the bearing wear according to the following and as shown in
Figures 2 and 3 of this AD:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO11.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10NO11.021

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (1) Remove the control rod from the helicopter.
    (2) Mount the control rod in a vise as shown in Figure 2 of this
AD.
    (3) Using a dial indicator, take axial play readings by moving
the spherical bearing in the direction F (up and down) as shown in
Figure 2 of this AD.
    (4) Install a bolt through the bearing and secure it with a
washer and nut to provide a clamping surface when the bearing is
clamped in a vise.
    (5) Mount the control rod and bearing in a vise as shown in
Figure 3 of this AD.
    (6) Using a dial indicator, take radial play measurements by
moving the control rod in the direction F as shown in Figure 3 of
this AD.
    (7) Record the hours of operation on each control rod.
    (8) If the radial play exceeds 0.008 inch or axial play exceeds
0.016 inch, replace the control rod with an airworthy control rod
before further flight.
    (9) If the radial and axial play are within limits, reinstall
the control rod.
    (10) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 30 hours time-in-
service, remove the control rod and measure the bearing play with a
dial indicator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.
    (d) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, DOT/FAA, ATTN: Jim
Grigg, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
information about previously approved alternative methods of
compliance.
    (e) The Joint Aircraft System/Component Code is 6720: Tail rotor
control system.
    (f) This amendment becomes effective on November 25, 2011.

    Note:  The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (France) AD No. 2010-0006, dated January 7, 2010.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 12, 2011.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27774 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P