[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5452-5454]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0961; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-22-AD;
Amendment 39-18090; AD 2015-02-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation Turboprop and
Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-14-06 for
certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) 250-C20, -C20B, and -C20R/2
turboshaft engines. AD 2012-14-06 required a one-time visual inspection
and fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) on certain 3rd-stage and
4th-stage turbine wheels for cracks in the turbine blades. This new AD
replaces the one-time visual inspection and FPI with repetitive visual
inspections and FPIs. This AD also adds certain engine models to the
applicability. This AD was prompted by the determination that the one-
time inspections required by AD 2012-14-06 should be changed to
repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheel blades, which could cause engine
failure and damage to the aircraft.

DATES: This AD is effective March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN
46225-1103; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.rolls-royce.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.govby searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2011-
0961; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des
Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2012-14-06, Amendment 39-17120 (77 FR 40479,
July 10, 2012), (``AD 2012-14-06''). AD 2012-14-06 applied to certain
RRC 250-C20, -C20B, and -C20R/2 turboshaft engines. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59463). The NPRM was
prompted by determination that the one-time inspections required by AD
2012-14-06 should be changed to repetitive inspections. The NPRM
proposed to replace the one-time visual inspection and FPI with
repetitive visual inspections and FPIs, and also to require a visual
inspection and FPI after any engine hot start. The NPRM also proposed
to add certain engine models to the applicability. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheel blades,
which could cause engine failure and damage to the aircraft.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 59463, October 2, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Remove a Certain Proposed Inspection Requirement

    RRC requested that we remove the requirement to inspect the 3rd-
stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels after a hot start because they are
already prohibited from further use after a hot start by the
maintenance instructions.
    We agree. Maintenance instructions clearly direct replacement of
3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheels following a hot start. We
removed from this AD the requirement to perform a visual inspection and
an FPI on the affected turbine wheels after any hot start.

Request To Limit Applicability

    RRC requested that we restrict applicability of the AD to only
those affected engines that are installed on MD helicopters because the
majority of failures have occurred on MD helicopters.
    We disagree. Failures have occurred in installations on other than
MD helicopters. Also, the FAA cannot ensure that parts once used on MD
helicopters have not been subsequently installed on other engines or
helicopter models. We did not change this AD.

Request To Delete a Certain Reference

    RRC requested that we remove, from the Actions Since AD 2012-14-06
Was Published paragraph, reference to 3rd-stage turbine wheel failures
by replacing the words ``3rd-stage and'' with the words ``two
additional'' because additional failures only occurred in 4th-stage
turbine wheels.

    We agree. The new failures since AD 2012-14-06 was published were
in 4th-stage turbine wheels. However, the paragraph, Actions Since AD
2012-14-06 was Published, which appeared in the NPRM (October 2, 2014
79 FR 59463), does not appear in this final rule. We did not change
this AD.

Request To Revise a Certain Paragraph

    RRC requested that we add the word ``potential'' before the word
``failures'' in the Actions Since AD 2012-14-06 Was Published
paragraph.
    We agree. However, the paragraph, Actions Since AD 2012-14-06 Was
Published, which appeared in the NPRM (October 2, 2014 79 FR 59463),
does not appear in this final rule. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    RRC requested that we change, in the Costs of Compliance paragraph,
the estimated time to conduct the inspection from one hour to two
hours.
    We agree. We changed our estimate in this AD to reflect two hours
of labor to conduct the inspection.

Request To Revise the Labor Rate

    RRC requested that we change, in the Costs of Compliance paragraph,
the labor rate from $85 per hour to $116 per hour.
    We disagree. The rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office
of Aviation Policy and Plans for us to use when estimating the labor
costs of complying with AD requirements. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    RRC requested that we add the word ``initial'' before the stated
cost in the Costs of Compliance paragraph.
    We partially agree. We did not insert the word ``initial'', but we
clarified that our estimate of costs of compliance are for one
inspection, whether initial or recurring.

Request To Revise a Definition

    RRC requested that we change our definition of a hot start.
    We partially agree. We agree with the suggested changes because
they clarify the definition of a hot start. However, in our reply to a
prior comment, we agreed to remove the inspection requirements
associated with a hot start. Therefore, we have deleted all
requirements in this AD to conduct inspections after hot starts, and
have deleted the Definition paragraph.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 59463, October 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 59463, October 2, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not significantly
increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of
this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3,769 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2
hours per engine to comply with the inspection requirement of this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators for one inspection to be
$640,730.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-14-06, Amendment 39-17120 (77 FR 40479, July 10, 2012), and adding
the following new AD:

2015-02-22 Rolls-Royce Corporation: Amendment 39-18090; Docket No.
FAA-2011-0961; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-22-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 9, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-14-06, Amendment 39-17120 (77 FR
40479, July 10, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) 250-B17, -B17B,
-B17C, -B17D, -B17E, -B17F, -B17F/1, -B17F/2 turboprop engines; and
250-C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/4, -
C20S, and -C20W turboshaft engines; with either a 3rd-stage turbine
wheel, part number (P/N) 23065818, or a 4th-stage turbine wheel, P/N
23055944, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by investigations that revealed that not
all 3rd-stage and 4th-stage turbine wheel blade failures were
identified by the one-time inspections required by AD 2012-14-06,
Amendment 39-17120 (77 FR 40479, July 10, 2012). We determined that
to address the unsafe condition, repetitive inspections are

required, triggered by hours since last inspection (HSLI). We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of 3rd-stage and 4th-stage
turbine wheel blades, which could cause engine failure and damage to
the aircraft.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Within 1,750 HSLI, remove the affected turbine wheels and
perform a visual inspection and a fluorescent-penetrant inspection
(FPI) on the removed turbine wheels for cracks at the trailing edge
of the turbine blades near the fillet at the rim.
    (2) Any time the power turbine is disassembled, perform a visual
inspection and an FPI on the affected turbine wheels for cracks at
the trailing edge of the turbine blades, near the fillet at the rim.
    (3) Thereafter, re-inspect every 1,750 HSLI.
    (4) Do not return to service any turbine wheels that have cracks
detected.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make
your request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact John Tallarovic,
Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300
E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 847-
294-7834; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) RRC Alert Commercial Engine Bulletin (CEB) No. CEB-A-1407,
Revision 3, dated May 19, 2014, and Alert CEB No. CEB-A-72-4098,
Revision 3, dated May 19, 2014 (combined into one document), which
are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from
RRC, using the contact information in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Corporation Customer Support, 450 South Meridian Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46225-1103; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.rolls-
royce.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 20, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-01371 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33073-33074]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

Thursday, June 5, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP08-347-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Substitute
Forty Fifth Revised Sheet 18 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume 1, to become effective 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 06/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080603-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-387-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Submits its Penalty Revenue Credit
Report for 2007-2008.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080523-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-397-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits a discontinued
short-term firm transportation agreement pursuant to Rate Schedule FTS
executed with Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc, to become
effective 5/29/08.
    Filed Date: 06/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080603-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-119-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits compliance
filing to cancel Rate Schedules X-11 and X-85.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-54-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company compliance filing
to cancel Dynegy Marketing and Trade capacity entitlements.
    Accession Number: 20080530-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-55-002.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Seventeenth
Revised Sheet No. 4 et al. for inclusion in FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 2.
    Filed Date: 05/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080603-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic

service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13034 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17515-17517]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0143; Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) on behalf of itself and its
parent company Daimler AG (DAG), has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2016 and 2017 Mercedes-Benz GLE and GLS-Class motor vehicles do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer
load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. MBUSA filed a noncompliance
information report dated December 12, 2016. MBUSA also petitioned NHTSA
on December 22, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2016 and 2017 Mercedes-Benz GLE and GLS-Class
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims and
motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or Less. MBUSA filed a noncompliance information report dated
December 12, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MBUSA also petitioned NHTSA
on December 22, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of MBUSA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 142 of the following Mercedes-
Benz GLE and GLS-Class motor vehicles manufactured on June 14 and June
15, 2016, are potentially involved:
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE300d 4Matic
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE350
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE350 4Matic
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE400 4Matic
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE550e 4Matic
 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE63S AMG 4Matic
 2017 Mercedes-Benz GL450 4Matic
 2017 Mercedes-Benz GL550 4Matic
    III. Noncompliance: MBUSA explains that the noncompliance is that
the tire information placard affixed to the driver's side B-pillar on
the subject vehicles was improperly printed and therefore does not meet
the requirements of paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, the
column identifying whether the tire is front, rear, or spare might not
be completely legible.
    IV. Rule Text: paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. . . . This information shall be in the
English language and conform in color and format, not including the
border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set
forth in Figure 1 in this standard . . .
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires . . .
    (d) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of first purchase for
purposes other than resale . . .

    V. Summary of MBUSA's Petition: MBUSA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MBUSA submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The row names ``front/rear/spare'' might not be completely
legible, but the tire dimensions and pressure values are legible and
correct.
    2. The data, including the ``front/rear/spare'' designations, is
also available on the tank flap to the gas tank (also referred to as
the ``filler flap'').
    3. After identifying the potentially noncompliant B-pillar tire
information placards, DAG analyzed potential technical implications,
specifically with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 110, and did
not identify any technical implications since the label remains
substantially legible and the same information is provided elsewhere on
the vehicle.
    4. MBUSA has received neither customer complaints nor information
about any accidents or injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of
this noncompliance.
    5. DAG has correct labels in production as of June 15, 2016.
    MBUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view MBUSA's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this
petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to

exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a
defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject
vehicles that MBUSA no longer controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does
not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after MBUSA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-07167 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50718-50720]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21783]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84340; File No. SR-BOX-2018-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule
7600(a)(4) (Qualified Open Outcry Orders--Floor Crossing)

October 2, 2018.
    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 September 20, 2018, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7600(a)(4) (Qualified Open
Outcry Orders--Floor Crossing). The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxoptions.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7600(a)(4) to provide the
ability for the Exchange to determine the applicable number of legs for
a Complex Qualified Open Outcry Orders (``Complex QOO Order'').\3\
Currently, Complex QOO Orders are limited to a maximum of four (4) legs
on the BOX Trading Floor. The Exchange proposes to have the applicable
number of legs now be determined by the Exchange.\4\ The Exchange notes
that only orders that meet the definition of a Complex Order \5\ are
allowed to trade on the BOX Trading Floor.\6\ Any orders that are
entered into the system as a Complex Order on the BOX Trading Floor
that do not meet the definition of a Complex Order will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A QOO Order is a two-sided order that is used by Floor
Brokers to execute transactions from the Trading Floor. See Rule
7600.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that the number of legs determined by the
Exchange will apply to all classes. The Exchange also notes that the
proposal discussed herein is not making any changes to the priority
rules for Complex Orders.
    \5\ The term ``Complex Order'' means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. See BOX Rule 7240(a)(7).
    \6\ On the Trading Floor, a Floor Broker or such Floor Broker's
employee shall, contemporaneously upon receipt of an order, and
prior to announcement of such an order in the trading crowd, record
all options orders represented by such Floor Broker onto the Floor
Broker's order entry mechanism. See Rule 7580(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will inform Participants in advance of any change to
the number of legs via Informational Circular. The Exchange notes that
another exchange in the industry has similar rules in place which
provide flexibility in determining the maximum number of legs for
complex orders at their respective exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') Rule 6.53.02. Cboe's rule
states that ``[c]omplex orders of twelve (12) or less must be
entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If
permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by
Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more than twelve (12) legs
may be split across multiple order tickets . . .'' BOX believes that
this is similar to the proposal discussed herein. BOX's reading of
Cboe's rule suggests that Cboe may determine the applicable number
of legs for complex orders on their respective trading floor. As
such, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is similar to
the Cboe rule cited above. BOX does note, however, that [sic] is not
proposing a twelve leg maximum but rather that the Exchange be
responsible for determining the applicable number of legs for
Complex Orders on the BOX Trading Floor. Further, the Exchange will
communicate to Participants in advance of any change to the
applicable number of legs via Informational Circular. See also EDGX
Exchange, Inc (``EDGX'') Rule 21.20(a)(5). The Exchange notes that
EDGX is an electronic exchange and as such, its rules apply to
electronic trading only.

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

    The Exchange also proposes to correct the location of a misplaced
comma in Rule 7600(a)(4). Rule 7600(a)(4), as amended, will make clear
that the cross reference to Rule 7240(a)(5) applies to Complex QOO
Orders and not multi-leg orders. The Exchange believes that this
correction will add clarity with regard to Complex QOO Orders traded on
the BOX Trading Floor.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change,
which provides the Exchange with greater flexibility in determining the
maximum number of legs for Complex QOO Orders, will benefit Floor
Brokers and their customers by providing the potential for increased
opportunities for executions on the BOX Trading Floor. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change will provide the potential
for greater liquidity which should, in turn, benefit and protect
investors and the public interest through the potential for greater
volume of orders and executions on the BOX Trading Floor. As discussed
above, the Exchange notes that another exchange has a similar rule
which allows for the maximum number of legs for complex orders to be
determined by the exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra, note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to correct
the inadvertent error in Rule 7600(a)(4) is reasonable as it will
provide clarity with respect to QOO Orders on the Exchange.

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. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to
the rules of another exchange.\11\ The Exchange does not believe the
proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as the
proposed rule will allow BOX to compete with other options exchanges in
the industry. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality. Lastly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose a burden
on intramarket competition as the proposal will apply to all
Participants that wish to submit Complex Orders on the BOX Trading
Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has 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 proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative 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) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit

personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-30, and should be
submitted on or before October 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21783 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P