[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30913-30914]
[DOCID:fr31my06-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-018-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Essex-Middlesex Project

May 24, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed to be constructed by Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee Gas) in the above-referenced docket.
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of:
     7.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Essex and
Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts;
     One tie-in facility at the northern terminus, milepost
7.83;
     One new pig receiver at the north end, milepost 7.62; and
     One tie-in facility at the southern terminus, milepost
0.0.
    The purpose of the proposed project is to increase its ability to
receive and transport gas into the Northeast natural gas pipeline
network by constructing its facilities in Essex and Middlesex Counties,
Massachusetts, to provide up to 82,300 decatherms per day of
incremental firm transportation capacity.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, state and local
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers,
and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below. Please carefully follow these instructions to

ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
    Send two copies of your comments to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426;
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch
2, PJ11.2.
    Reference Docket No. CP06-018-000; and
    Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC
on or before June 23, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments, you will need to create a free account which can be
created by clicking on ``Sign-up.''
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary helpline can be reached at 1-
866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> or at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC. The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov, click on ``eSubscription''

and then click on ``Sign-up.''

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8342 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 44558]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-56-000]

Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

    Take notice that on July 15, 2013, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. filed
a petition for rate approval pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the
Commission's regulations for approval of a new rate applicable to
interstate natural gas transportation service rendered under its Order
No. 63 blanket certificate and to revise its Statement of Operating
Conditions, as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 31, 2013.

    Dated: July 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17726 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20218]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER15-861-000; EL15-53-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental
Notice Concerning Post Technical Conference Comments

    By order issued in this proceeding on March 16, 2015,\1\ the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directed its staff to convene a
technical conference to develop a record regarding issues related to
imbalance energy price spikes experienced in PacifiCorp's balancing
authority areas subsequent to PacifiCorp's full activation in the
California Independent System Operator Corporation's Energy Imbalance
Market, and to facilitate the development of a long-term solution.
Parties wishing to file post-technical conference comments should do so
on or before April 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 150 FERC ] 61,191 (2015).

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08558 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23301-23303]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0860]

The 13 Carcinogens Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the 13 Carcinogens
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0860, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business
hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0860) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the 13
Carcinogens Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects
that may result from their exposure to the 13 carcinogens. The
following is a brief description of the collection of information
requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard: establishing and
implementing a medical surveillance program for workers assigned to
enter regulated areas; informing workers of their medical examination
results; and providing workers with access to their medical records.
Further, employers must retain worker medical records for specified
time periods and make them available upon request to OSHA and NIOSH.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard (29
CFR 1910.1003). The Agency is requesting an increase of 21 burden hours
to 1,493 hours. The increase is a result of the increased number of
establishments affected by the standard from 95 to 97. The Agency will
summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).
    OMB Number: 1218-0085.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 97.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion; annually.
    Total Responses: 2,195.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from
approximately 5 minutes (for employers to allow employee access to
records) to 2 hours (for worker medical surveillance).
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,493.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $106,720.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0860).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as their social security number
and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 22, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-09699 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16754-16755]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0827; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-26-AD;
Amendment 39-15879; AD 2009-08-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE
CF6-80A series turbofan engines with certain stage 1 high-pressure
turbine (HPT) rotor disks, installed. This AD requires removal from
service of those stage 1 HPT rotor disks within 30 days after the
effective date of the AD. This AD results from the FAA learning that
those disks are susceptible to cracks developing at the aft chamfer of
the blade dovetail slots. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks
developing at the aft chamfer of the blade dovetail slots that could
propagate to a failure of the disk and cause an uncontained engine
failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80A series
turbofan engines with certain stage 1 HPT rotor disks, installed. We
published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on September 4, 2008
(73 FR 51604). That action proposed to require removal from service of
those stage 1 HPT rotor disks within 30 days after the effective date
of the AD.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket 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 AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment received.

Claim That Cost of Compliance Is Underestimated

    One commenter, FedEx Express, claims that we greatly underestimated
the actual cost of compliance with the proposed AD. The proposed AD
estimated 1 work-hour of labor. The commenter states that this estimate
is accurate only when the engine is already removed and disassembled to
piece-part exposure of the disk. The commenter states that the true
cost to an airline, both in disruption to the operation and in the
subsequent unplanned engine shop visit, would vastly exceed 1 work-
hour.
    We agree that the cost of compliance should also cover the work-
hours for an unplanned engine shop visit. We do not agree that it
should factor in the cost of disruption to the operation. We are
required to calculate only the direct cost to an operator, of labor and
parts. We changed the cost of compliance paragraph to include an
estimate for an unplanned engine shop visit.

Clarification of Unsafe Condition Statement

    Since we issued the proposed AD, we clarified the unsafe condition
statement as to where potential cracks could occur in the disk. We
changed ``cracks developing in the bottoms of the dovetail slots'' to
``cracks developing at the aft chamfer of the blade dovetail slots.''

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 out of 316 CF6-80A series
turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the
actions if the engine is already removed and disassembled to piece-part
exposure of the disk, and will take about 115 work-hours per engine for
an unplanned engine shop visit. The average labor rate is $80 per work-
hour. Required parts would cost about $300,000 per engine. Based on
these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators
to be $927,600.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2009-08-06 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-15879. Docket No.
FAA-2008-0827; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-26-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 18,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A series
turbofan engines with any of the following stage 1 high-pressure
turbine (HPT) rotor disk part numbers (P/Ns), installed:
    (1) 1380M69G01; 1380M69G02; 1380M69G04; 1380M69G05; or 1380M69G06;
or
    (2) 9234M67G12; 9234M67G13; 9234M67G14; 9234M67G15; or 9234M67G16;
or
    (3) 9362M58G04; or
    (4) 9367M45G01; 9367M45G03; 9367M45G05; 9367M45G06; 9367M45G07; or
9367M45G08.
    (d) These CF6-80A series turbofan engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Airbus A310-200 series and Boeing 767-200 and -300 series
airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from the FAA learning that those disks are
susceptible to cracks developing at the aft chamfer of the blade
dovetail slots. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks developing at
the aft chamfer of the blade dovetail slots that could propagate to a
failure of the disk and cause an uncontained engine failure and damage
to the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, unless
the actions have already been done.
    (g) Remove from service HPT stage 1 rotor disks identified by P/N
in paragraph (c) of this AD.

Prohibition of HPT Stage 1 Rotor Disks

    (h) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any of the
HPT stage 1 rotor disks, listed by P/N in paragraph (c) of this AD into
any engine.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to
approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:
(781) 238-7754, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information about this
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 6, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-8263 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 857-858]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31584]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0774; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-057-AD;
Amendment 39-17302; AD 2012-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350BA helicopters with certain
AERAZUR emergency flotation gear container assemblies installed. This
AD requires replacing each affected emergency flotation gear container
assembly (container assembly) at specified time limits based on the
date of manufacture. This AD was prompted because container assemblies
with an intended operating limitation of 10 years may not have been
replaced because the limit is no longer recorded in the Maintenance
Program. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the
emergency container assembly because of age and subsequent damage to
the helicopter and injury to the occupants after an emergency water
landing.

DATES: This AD is effective February 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket 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 AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 26, 2012, at 77 FR 43734, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model
AS350BA helicopters with AERAZUR left-hand emergency flotation gear
container assembly (container assembly), part number (P/N) 158170 or
158210-1, or right-hand container assembly, P/N 158171 or 158215-1,
installed. That NPRM proposed to require replacing each container
assembly at specified time limits based on the date of manufacture. The
proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the emergency
container assembly because of age and subsequent damage to the
helicopter and injury to the occupants after an emergency water
landing.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No.
2008-0189, dated October 10, 2008, to correct an unsafe condition for
the Eurocopter Model AS350BA helicopters with certain AERAZUR emergency
flotation gear installed. EASA advises that that the container
assemblies have an operating life limit of 10 years from the date of
manufacture. The EASA AD states that ``as of June 2006, this limit is
no longer recorded in the Maintenance Program; therefore, after June
2006, container assemblies having already exceeded the 10-year limit
could have not been replaced yet.'' The EASA AD also states that
``floating performance of a helicopter may prove to be insufficient in
the event of ditching, in case of failure of a container assembly being
operated beyond its operating time limit.''

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 43734, July 26,
2012).

FAA's Determination

    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, its 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 and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 25.01.02, dated
September 24, 2008 (EASB), which specifies certain times measured from
the date of manufacture to replace the container assemblies. EASA
classified this EASB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2008-0189, dated
October 10, 2008, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 85 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to
comply with this AD.
     It will take minimal time to determine the manufacturing
date of the container and about 1/2 work-hour per helicopter to replace
the container assemblies at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour.

     Required parts will cost about $21,775 for the left
container assembly and $26,690 for the right container assembly per
helicopter.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the AD's total cost impact on
U.S. operators to be $485,075, assuming 10 helicopters require
replacement of the right and left container assemblies.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-26-07 Eurocopter France Helicopters: Amendment 39-17302; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0774; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-057-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AS350BA helicopters with AERAZUR left-
hand emergency flotation gear container assembly (container
assembly), part number (P/N) 158170 or 158210-1, or right-hand
container assembly, P/N 158171 or 158215-1, installed, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of the container
assembly because of age. This condition could result in damage to
the helicopter and injury to the occupants after an emergency water
landing.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 11, 2013.

(d) 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.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Determine the manufacturing date of each part-numbered
container assembly stamped on the cover of the identification plate.
    (2) Replace each container assembly with an airworthy container
assembly as follows:
    (i) For a container assembly with a date of manufacture 12 or
more years before the effective date of this AD, replace within 30
days.
    (ii) For a container assembly with a date of manufacture 10 or
more years and less than 12 years before the effective date of this
AD, replace within 60 days.
    (iii) For a container assembly with a date of manufacture 9 or
more years and less than 10 years before the effective date of this
AD, replace before reaching 10 years and 60 days.
    (iv) For a container assembly with a date of manufacture less
than 9 years before the effective date of this AD, replace before
reaching 10 years.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Aviation Safety Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest 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.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 25.01.02, dated
September 24, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter
Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4005,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review a copy of the service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety (EASA) AD No. 2008-0189, dated October 10, 2008.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212 Emergency
Flotation Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 20, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-31584 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56903-56905]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67813; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-083]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Availability of a Data Product
That Includes Option Valuations Through Market Data Express, LLC, an
Affiliate of CBOE

September 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 28, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to make available, through its affiliate
Market Data Express, LLC (``MDX''), a data product that includes option
valuations. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make available, through MDX, a new market
data product, referred to as the CBOE Customized Option Valuation
Service (the ``Service''). The Service would provide subscribers with
an ``end-of-day'' file \4\ of valuations for Flexible Exchange
(``FLEX'') \5\ options and certain over-the-counter (``OTC'') options
(the ``Data''). The Data would be available for internal use and
distribution by subscribers. MDX would offer the Data for sale to CBOE
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') and non-TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An end of day file refers to data that is distributed prior
to the opening of the next trading day.
    \5\ FLEX options are exchange traded options that provide
investors with the ability to customize basic option features
including size, expiration date, exercise style, and certain
exercise prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Data would consist of indicative \6\ values for three
categories of ``customized'' options. The first category of options is
all open series of FLEX options listed on any exchange that

offers FLEX options for trading.\7\ The second category is OTC options
that have the same degree of customization as FLEX options. The third
category includes options with strike prices expressed in percentage
terms. Values for such options would be expressed in percentage terms
and would be theoretical values.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Indicative'' values are indications of potential market
prices only and as such are neither firm nor the basis for a
transaction.
    \7\ Current FLEX options open interest spans over 2,000 series
on over 300 different underlying securities.
    \8\ These values would be theoretical in that they would be
indications of potential market prices for options that have not
traded (i.e. do not yet exist). Market participants sometimes
express option values in percentage terms rather than in dollar
terms because they find it is easier to assess the change, or lack
of change, in the marketplace from one day to the next when values
are expressed in percentage terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A small number of market data vendors produce option value data
that is similar to the Data.\9\ The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') also produces FLEX option value data that is similar to the
FLEX option value data that would be included in the Service.\10\ These
vendors and the OCC use model-driven processes to produce their data.
Instead of using a model-driven process, CBOE would use values produced
by CBOE registered market-makers to produce the Data. Participating
CBOE market-makers would submit values to MDX on options series
specified by MDX on a daily basis. These values would be generated by
the market-maker's internal pricing models. The valuations that MDX
would ultimately publish would be an average of multiple contributions
of values from participating CBOE market-makers. For each value
provided by MDX through the Service, MDX would include a corresponding
indication of the number of market-maker contributors that factored
into that value.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These vendors include SuperDerivatives, Markit, Prism, and
Bloomberg's BVAL service.
    \10\ The OCC makes this data available on its Web site at http://www.theocc.com/webapps/flex-reports.
    \11\ MDX would publish on its Web site a description of the
methodology used for averaging the values submitted by market-makers
to produce a single publishable value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE market-makers that meet the following objective qualification
criteria would be allowed to contribute values to MDX for purposes of
producing Data for the Service. Interested CBOE market-makers must be
approved by the Exchange, have the ability to provide daily valuations
to MDX in a timely manner each day after the close of trading, and sign
a services agreement with CBOE.\12\ Interested CBOE market-makers must
also have the ability to provide valuations on several different types
of options, including (i) Options on all open FLEX series traded on any
exchange that offers FLEX options for trading, (ii) options on any
potential new FLEX options series, (iii) OTC options that have the same
degree of customization as FLEX options, and (iv) customized options
where the strike price is expressed in percentage terms (the valuations
provided to MDX must also be expressed in percentage terms). In
addition, interested CBOE market-makers must participate in a testing
phase with MDX. The values submitted by a market-maker during the
testing phase and in live production must meet MDX's quality control
standards designed to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the Data.
MDX would implement procedures including monthly performance reviews
and removal of outlier values in certain instances to help ensure the
integrity and accuracy of the Data. MDX would not commence the Service
with less than three market-makers committed to provide values for the
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Among other terms, the services agreement will include a
provision that CBOE does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness
of the Data in the Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to help ensure that MDX receives numerous values from
multiple market-makers on a consistent basis, MDX would share revenue
from the sale of the Data with qualifying CBOE market-makers that
participate in this program. The amount of revenue that MDX would share
with participating market-makers would not exceed thirty percent (30%)
of the total revenue received by MDX from the sale of the Data. The
revenue sharing would be based on the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of participating market-   Total revenue    Rev. share per market-
            makers                    share                maker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.............................                21%  7%.
4.............................                24%  6%.
5 or more.....................                30%  30% divided by the
                                                    number of
                                                    participating market-
                                                    makers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If only three market-makers participate, MDX would share 21% of
total revenue with each market-maker receiving a 7% share. If four
market-makers participate, MDX would share 24% of total revenue with
each market-maker receiving a 6% share. If five or more market-makers
participate, MDX would share 30% of total revenue divided equally among
the market-makers.
    In order to help ensure that participating market-makers submit
values to MDX on 100% of the series to be valued, a market-maker's
revenue share would be reduced as follows:
    [cir] There is one ``grace day'' per month, i.e., if a market-maker
does not submit values for 100% of the series on just one day within a
given month, that market-maker will not lose any portion of its revenue
share for that month.
    [cir] If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the
series on any two days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit
10% of its revenue share for that month.
    [cir] If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the
series on any three days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit
25% of its revenue share for that month.
    [cir] If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the
series on any four days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit
50% of its revenue share for that month.
    [cir] If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the
series on any five days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit
75% of its revenue share for that month.
    [cir] If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the
series on any six or more days within a month, that market-maker will
forfeit 100% of its revenue share for that month.
    Subscribers would be able to purchase options daily, weekly,
monthly or quarterly through the MDX Web site. TPHs and non-TPHs would
be charged the same fees for the Data. The Exchange will file a
separate proposed rule change to establish the fees to be charged by
MDX for the Service. The Data would be delivered to subscribers via
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or secure copy shortly after the close of
trading each day. MDX expects to launch the Service during the fourth
quarter of 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')\13\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
proposed rule change would allow the Exchange, through MDX, to
disseminate a new data service on a voluntary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to share revenue from the sale
of the Data with qualifying CBOE market-makers that decide to
contribute values to MDX for purposes of producing the Data is
reasonable in that the Exchange believes it will encourage market-
makers to provide values for the Service, which should enhance the
quality of the Service. The Exchange believes using values produced by
CBOE market-makers would not only differentiate the Service from the
services of competing market data vendors, but would also add validity
to the Data since the Data would be more closely related to tradable
prices. The Exchange believes the proposal is equitable in that the
revenue shared by MDX would be divided equally among participating
market-makers. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal is not
unfairly discriminatory in that CBOE market-makers would be selected to
participate in this program based on objective qualifying criteria.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is pro-competitive in that it would
allow the Exchange, through MDX, to disseminate a new data service on a
voluntary basis. The Service is voluntary on the part of the Exchange,
which is not required to offer such services, and voluntary on the part
of prospective subscribers that are not required to use it. The
Exchange believes that the Service would help attract new users and new
order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving the Exchange's ability to
compete in the market for options order flow and executions.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-083 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-CBOE-2012-083. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-083 and should be
submitted on or before October 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22638 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3509-3511]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61363; File No. PCAOB-2009-02]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Approving
Proposed Rules on Auditing Standard No. 7, Engagement Quality Review,
and Conforming Amendment

January 15, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 4, 2009, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') a notice (the ``Notice'') of proposed
rules (File No. PCAOB-2009-02) on Auditing Standard No. 7, Engagement
Quality Review, and Conforming Amendment to the Board's Interim Quality
Control Standards, pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (the ``Act''). Notice of the proposed rules was published in
the Federal Register on November 5, 2009.\1\ The Commission received
nine comment letters relating to the proposed rules. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rules. As specified by the Board, the rules are

effective for the engagement quality review (``EQR'') of audits and
interim reviews for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See SEC Release No. 34-60903 (October 29, 2009); 74 FR 57357
(November 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    Section 103 of the Act directs the Board, among other things, to
set standards for public company audits, including a requirement for
each registered public accounting firm to ``provide a concurring or
second partner review and approval of [each] audit report (and other
related information), and concurring approval in its issuance * * * .''
According to the Board, the proposed rules would strengthen and expand
the Board's existing requirements for concurring reviews.
    According to the Board, a well-performed EQR can serve as an
important safeguard against erroneous or insufficiently supported audit
opinions and, accordingly, can contribute to audit quality. As
described in the Notice, the engagement quality review will serve as a
meaningful check on the work performed by the engagement team, and the
Board believes this should increase the likelihood that a registered
public accounting firm will identify any significant engagement
deficiencies before it issues its audit report.
    Auditing Standard No. 7 requires the engagement quality reviewer
(or the ``reviewer'') to evaluate the significant judgments made and
related conclusions reached by the engagement team in forming the
overall conclusion on the engagement and in preparing the engagement
report. Auditing Standard No. 7 also requires the engagement quality
reviewer to perform certain procedures designed to focus the reviewer
on those judgments and conclusions. As discussed in the Notice, the
procedures required of an engagement quality reviewer are different in
nature from the procedures required of the engagement team. Unlike the
engagement team, a reviewer does not perform substantive procedures or
obtain sufficient evidence to support an opinion on the financial
statements or internal control over financial reporting. If more audit
work is necessary before the reviewer may provide concurring approval
of issuance, the engagement team--not the reviewer--is responsible
under PCAOB standards for performing the work. In contrast, the
reviewer fulfills the obligation to perform an EQR by holding
discussions with the engagement team, reviewing documentation, and
determining whether to provide concurring approval of issuance.
    The proposed rules also amend the Board's interim quality control
standards by replacing the third sentence of paragraph 18 of QC section
20, ``System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm's Accounting and
Auditing Practice'' with a statement that a firm's quality control
policies and procedures also should address engagement quality reviews
pursuant to PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 7.

III. Discussion

    The Commission received nine comment letters on the proposed rules.
Seven letters were received from registered public accounting firms,
and two letters were received from professional organizations.\2\ The
commenters generally agreed with the requirements of Auditing Standard
No. 7 and also expressed agreement with the changes made by the PCAOB
in response to its comment process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See comments of Deloitte & Touche LLP (``Deloitte''), Ernst
& Young LLP (``EY''), Grant Thornton LLP (``Grant''), KPMG LLP
(``KPMG''), McGladrey & Pullen LLP (``McGladrey''), Piercy Bowler
Taylor & Kern (``PBTK''), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (``PWC''),
Center for Audit Quality (``CAQ''), and Center for Capital Markets
Competitiveness of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (``CCMC'').
    \3\ One commenter (CCMC) provided comments related to the
PCAOB's standard-setting process in general, including due process
and convergence with international auditing standards. These
comments were similar to comments received by the PCAOB during its
standard-setting process for Auditing Standard No. 7. In response,
the PCAOB stated in its adopting release for Auditing Standard No. 7
that it continuously endeavors to improve its processes, including
the standard-setting process, and is considering comments it
receives. The Commission encourages the Board to continue to
consider comments to improve the Board's standard-setting process.
The Commission will continue to provide oversight as the Board
endeavors to improve all of its processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCAOB Use and Purpose of Release Text

    Many of the comments indicated that there is a lack of clarity
resulting from perceived inconsistencies between Auditing Standard No.
7 and text in the Board's adopting release.\4\ One commenter expressed
a concern whether the release text has the ``same weight'' as the
standard itself.\5\ One commenter expressed a concern that the release
text issued with an adopted standard is not subject to the PCAOB's
comment process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See comments of CAQ, CCMC, Deloitte, EY, Grant, KPMG,
McGladrey, and PWC.
    \5\ See comments of PBTK.
    \6\ See comments of CCMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The release text summarizes issues that the Board considered
significant in reaching the conclusions set forth in the standard,
including responses to comments and the rationale for accepting certain
approaches and rejecting others. The Commission publishes notice of and
approves the ``Rules of the Board'' as defined in Section 2(a)(13) of
the Act, including the auditing standards adopted by the Board. The
release text accompanying the Board's issuance of an auditing standard
is not part of the ``Rules of the Board'' that are approved by the
Commission; rather, it is a statement made by the PCAOB to provide
insight into the Board's decisionmaking process.

Documentation of the EQR

    Commenters generally expressed agreement with the documentation
requirement as set forth in Auditing Standard No. 7.\7\ Many of the
same commenters, however, expressed concerns regarding an example in
the PCAOB's adopting release that describes the documentation
requirement for significant engagement deficiencies identified by the
engagement quality reviewer. The release states that ``the EQR
documentation should contain sufficient information to enable an
experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the engagement,
to understand, e.g., the significant deficiency identified, how the
reviewer communicated the deficiency to the engagement team, why such
matter was important, and how the reviewer evaluated the engagement
team's response.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See comments of CAQ, Deloitte, EY, Grant, KPMG, McGladrey,
and PWC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were concerned that the example in the release could be
read to be inconsistent with the requirement in the standard and could
result in unintended consequences in terms of performance. The primary
concern was that the engagement quality reviewer may be compelled to
document every interaction with the engagement team, not knowing
whether a matter will ultimately be identified as a significant
engagement deficiency. Commenters viewed this as a documentation
requirement for an EQR that is incremental to the requirements of PCAOB
Auditing Standard No. 3, Audit Documentation. Auditing Standard No. 3
does not require the auditor to document each discussion and
preliminary conclusion.
    In addition, one commenter was concerned that the example provided
in the PCAOB's adopting release may disrupt the communication between
the engagement team and the engagement quality reviewer.\8\ The
commenter expressed a view that, if unable to

determine which matters may be significant, the engagement quality
reviewer would need to document every issue and therefore would not
perform any review procedures until the engagement team completed all
audit work and finalized all of its conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See comments of KPMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that there is any inconsistency
between the example in the adopting release and the requirements of
Auditing Standard No. 7. The PCAOB specified in its adopting release
that the example applies ``if a reviewer identified a significant
engagement deficiency to be addressed by the engagement team.'' We
believe that documentation suggested in the example from the adopting
release is appropriate after the engagement quality reviewer has
concluded that he or she has identified a significant engagement
deficiency. However, since several comments were related to this point,
we encourage the PCAOB to provide further implementation guidance on
the documentation requirement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note clarifications have been provided in other contexts.
For example, see PCAOB Staff Q&A at http://www.pcaobus.org/
Standards/Staff_Questions_and_Answers/2009/09-02_FASB_
Codification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard of Care

    Commenters generally expressed agreement with the revisions that
the PCAOB made to the description of due professional care in the
standard in response to comments, including establishing the expected
standard of performance by referring to AU Section 230, Due
Professional Care in the Performance of Work (``AU 230'').\10\ However,
many of the same commenters expressed concern with language in the
adopting release about the concept of due professional care.
Particularly, many commenters pointed to language in the adopting
release that a qualified reviewer who has performed the required review
with due professional care ``will, necessarily, have discovered any
significant engagement deficiencies that could reasonably have been
discovered under the circumstances.'' Certain commenters expressed a
view that the language in the release could be read as requiring
absolute assurance or a ``flawless'' review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See comments of CAQ, Deloitte, EY, Grant, KPMG, and PWC.
    \11\ See comments of Deloitte, Grant, and KPMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the PCAOB adequately responded to
comments in this area during its reproposal process. We do not find any
inconsistency between the PCAOB's adopting release and the requirement
to conduct the EQR with due professional care as described in
paragraphs 12 and 17 of Auditing Standard No. 7. Paragraph 12 of
Auditing Standard No. 7 references AU 230, which is the source of
guidance regarding due professional care in the PCAOB's interim
auditing standards. Moreover, the PCAOB specified in its adopting
release that ``the Board is not redefining due professional care in the
context of the EQR standard.''

Definition of Partner

    One commenter suggested that the PCAOB revise the description of
the qualifications of the engagement quality reviewer in Auditing
Standard No. 7 to specify that equity ownership in the firm is not a
requirement for a reviewer.\12\ The commenter believed Board language
in its adopting release on the distinction between ``partner'' and
``non-partner'' could be considered ``muddying and potentially biasing
(and perhaps unintended) restrictive language.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See comments of PBTK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion of requiring a partner or an individual in an
equivalent position to perform the EQR is consistent with the
Commission's independence rules.\13\ We do not believe that equity
ownership is necessarily inherent in the analysis; rather the analysis
of whether an individual is a partner or in an equivalent position is
based on the organization of the individual firm and other related
facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 210.2-01(f)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed PCAOB Rules on Auditing Standard No. 7, Engagement Quality
Review, and Conforming Amendment (File No. PCAOB-2009-02) are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the securities laws and
are necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 107 of the Act and
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the proposed PCAOB Rules on
Auditing Standard No. 7, Engagement Quality Review, and Conforming
Amendment (File No. PCAOB-2009-02) be and hereby are approved.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1028 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P