[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69623-69625]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (PWC) PT6A-60AG, -65AG, -67AF, and
-67AG turboprop engines. This proposed AD was prompted by incidents of
corrosion and perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward fuel
control units (FCUs). This proposed AD would require removing the
Woodward FCU and installing an FCU that is eligible for installation.
We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the Woodward FCU, which
could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
www.pwc.ca. 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.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3732; 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 proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-3732;
Directorate Identifier

2015-NE-25-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and
energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this NPRM.

Discussion

    The Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canada AD CF-2015-23, dated July 23,
2015 (referred to hereinafter as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been in-service incidents involving corrosion and
perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward Fuel Control
Units (FCU) fitted to PT6A-60, -65 and -67 series engines. In
certain instances, associated bellows leakage has resulted in loss
of engine power, in-flight shutdowns (IFSD) and even accidents.
Engines installed on the aeroplanes that are used for crop dusting,
due to the operational environment, are more susceptible to
corrosion damage to the subject bellows.
    Loss of engine power or shut down in flight by itself usually is
not considered a catastrophic event. However, on an aeroplane with
single engine installation, an engine power loss or IFSD at a
critical phase of flight could adversely affect the safe operation
of the aeroplane.

    This AD affects the PT6A-60AG, PT6A-65AG, PT6A-67AF, and PT6A-67AG
engine models because they have the affected Woodward FCUs installed.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3732.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PWC has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 3,
dated January 27, 2011 and SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated May
26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing
Woodward FCUs. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by Transport Canada Civil Aviation and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This NPRM would require replacing the Woodward
FCU.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 341 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about
1.5 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $1,000 per engine.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $384,478.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (Type Certificate previously held by
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada,
Ltd., and United Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.): Docket No. FAA-2015-
3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 11, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (PWC) PT6A-60AG,
BS919 and BS1048 with pre-SB No. PT6A-72-13402, dated August 12,
2005 configuration; PT6A-65AG, BS708, BS903, BS1101, and BS1102 with
pre-SB PT6A-72-13408, dated July 3, 2006 configuration; PT6A-67AF;
and PT6A-67AG turboprop engines with Woodward fuel control units
(FCUs) installed.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by incidents of corrosion and perforation
of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward FCUs. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the Woodward FCU, which could lead to
failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of
the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For PWC PT6A-67AF and PT6A-67AG engines, within 500 flight
hours (FHs) or one year after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraphs
3.A. and 3.C. of PWC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-14389,
Revision 3, dated January 27, 2011 to replace the FCU.
    (2) For PWC PT6A-60AG BS919 and BS1048 engines with pre-SB No.
PT6A-72-13402 configuration, within 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraph 3.C.(1) and
3.C.(3) of PWC SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015
to replace the FCU.
    (3) For PWC PT6A-65AG BS708, BS903, BS1101, and BS1102 engines
with pre-SB PT6A-72-13408 configuration, within 36 months after the
effective date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraphs
3.A.(1) and 3.A.(3) of PWC SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated
May 26, 2015 to replace the FCU.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph (e) of
this AD if you performed the actions before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with PWC SB No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 2,
dated April 23, 2009; or SB No. PT6A-72-13473, dated March 12, 2015;
or SB No. PT6A-72-13408, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2015; or
earlier versions.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Besian Luga,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2015-23, dated July 23,
2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3732.
    (3) PWC SB No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2011
and SB No. 13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015, can be obtained
from PWC, using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this
proposed AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Pratt & Whitney Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil,
Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web
site: www.pwc.ca.
    (5) 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 4, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28534 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29908-29912]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13407]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86151; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amend Exchange Rule 104 To
Specify Designated Market Maker Requirements for Exchange Traded
Products Listed on the Exchange

June 19, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 7, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 amend Rule 104 to specify Designated
Market Maker (``DMM'') requirements for Exchange Traded Products
(``ETPs'') listed on the Exchange pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those 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 parts 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 amend Rule 104 (Dealings and
Responsibilities of DMMs) to specify DMM requirements for ETPs listed
on the Exchange pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P.
Background
    Currently, the Exchange trades securities, including ETPs, on its
Pillar trading platform on an unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'')
basis, subject to Pillar Platform Rules 1P-13P.\4\ In the next phase of
Pillar, the Exchange proposes to transition trading of Exchange-listed
securities to the Pillar trading platform, which means that DMMs would
be trading on Pillar in their assigned securities.\5\ Once transitioned
to Pillar, such securities

will also be subject to the Pillar Platform Rules 1P-13P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``UTP Security'' is defined as a security that is listed on
a national securities exchange other than the Exchange and that
trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. See
Rule 1.1.
    \5\ The Exchange has announced that, subject to rule approvals,
the Exchange will begin transitioning Exchange-listed securities to
Pillar on August 5, 2019, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Revised_Pillar_Migration_Timeline.pdf.
The Exchange will publish by separate Trader Update a complete
symbol migration schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 5P (Securities Traded) and 8P (Trading of Certain Exchange
Traded Products) provide for the listing of certain ETPs \6\ on the
Exchange that (1) meet the applicable requirements set forth in those
rules, and (2) do not have any component NMS Stock \7\ that is listed
on the Exchange or is based on, or represents an interest in, an
underlying index or reference asset that includes an NMS Stock listed
on the Exchange. ETPs listed under Rules 5P and 8P are ``Tape A''
listings and would be traded pursuant to the rules applicable to NYSE-
listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 1.1P(k) defines ``Exchange Traded Product'' as a
security that meets the definition of ``derivative securities
product'' in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.
    \7\ NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not currently list any ETPs and anticipates that
it would not do so until Exchange-listed securities transition to
Pillar. Once an ETP is listed, it will be assigned to a DMM pursuant to
Rule 103B. The DMMs' role with respect to ETPs assigned to them will be
subject to the same DMM rules governing all other listed securities,
including Rules 36, 98, and 104. For example, DMMs will be responsible
for facilitating the opening, reopening, and close of trading for
assigned ETPs as required by Rule 104(a)(2) and (3). To facilitate DMM
trading of Exchange-listed ETPs pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P, with this
proposed change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 relating
specified DMM requirements.
Current Rule 104
    Rule 104 sets forth the obligations of Exchange DMMs. Under Rule
104(a), DMMs registered in one or more securities traded on the
Exchange are required to engage in a course of dealings for their own
account to assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market
insofar as reasonably practicable. Rule 104(a) also enumerates the
specific responsibilities and duties of a DMM, including: (1)
Maintenance of a continuous two-sided quote, which mandates that each
DMM maintain a bid or an offer at the National Best Bid (``NBB'') and
National Best Offer (``NBO'') (together, the ``NBBO'' or ``inside'') at
least 15% of the trading day for securities with a consolidated average
daily volume of less than one million shares, and at least 10% for
securities with a consolidated average daily volume equal to or greater
than one million shares,\8\ and (2) the facilitation of, among other
things, openings, re-openings, and the close of trading for the DMM's
assigned securities, all of which may include supplying liquidity as
needed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 104(a)(1)(A).
    \9\ See Rule 104(a)(2)-(3). Rule 104(e) further provides that
DMM units must provide contra-side liquidity as needed for the
execution of odd-lot quantities eligible to be executed as part of
the opening, reopening, and closing transactions but that remain
unpaired after the DMM has paired all other eligible round lot sized
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 104(f) imposes an affirmative obligation on DMMs to maintain,
insofar as reasonably practicable, a fair and orderly market on the
Exchange in assigned securities, including maintaining price continuity
with reasonable depth and trading for the DMM's own account when lack
of price continuity, lack of depth, or disparity between supply and
demand exists or is reasonably to be anticipated. The Exchange supplies
DMMs with suggested Depth Guidelines for each security in which a DMM
is registered, and DMMs are expected to quote and trade with reference
to the Depth Guidelines.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 104(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 104(g) provides that transactions on the Exchange by a DMM for
the DMM's account must be effected in a reasonable and orderly manner
in relation to the condition of the general market and the market in
the particular stock. Rule 104(g) also describes certain transactions
on the Exchange by a DMM for the DMM's account must be effected in a
reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the condition of the
general market and the market in the particular stock. In addition, if
a DMM unit engages in an ``Aggressing Transaction,'' i.e., a
transaction that (i) is a purchase (sale) that reaches across the
market to trade as the contra-side to the Exchange published offer
(bid); and (ii) is priced above (below) the last-differently priced
trade on the Exchange and above (below) the last differently-priced
published offer (bid) on the Exchange, such DMM is subject to specified
requirements to re-enter on the opposite side of the Aggressing
Transaction. Rule 104(g) also prohibits DMM Aggressing Transactions in
the last ten minutes of trading if the transaction that create a new
high/low price for the security on the Exchange for the day at the time
of the DMM's transaction, subject to certain exceptions.
Proposed Rule Change
    To reflect the differences in how ETPs trade and the unique role of
exchange market makers in the trading of ETPs, in order to facilitate
DMM trading of Exchange-listed ETPs pursuant to Rules 5P and 8P, the
Exchange proposes certain amendments to Rule 104.
    Unlike operating company securities listed on the Exchange, the
value of ETPs are derived from the underlying assets owned. The end-of-
day net asset value (``NAV'') of an ETP is a daily calculation based
off the most recent closing prices of the underlying assets and an
accounting of the ETP's total cash position at the time of calculation.
The NAV generally is calculated by taking the sum of fund assets,
including any securities and cash, subtracting liabilities, and
dividing by the number of outstanding shares. Additionally, ETPs are
generally subject to a creation and redemption mechanism to ensure that
the ETP's price does not fluctuate too far away from NAV, which
mechanisms mitigate the potential for exchange trading to impact the
price of an ETP.
    Moreover, each business day, ETPs make publicly available a
creation and redemption ``basket'' which may, for example, be in the
form of a portfolio composition file (i.e., a specific list of names
and quantities of securities or other assets designed to track the
performance of the portfolio as a whole). ETP shares are created when
an Authorized Participant, typically a market maker or other large
institutional investor, deposits the daily creation basket or cash with
the issuer. In return for the creation basket or cash (or both), a
``creation unit'' is issued to the Authorized Participant that consists
of a specified number of ETF shares.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, assume a given ETP is designed to track the
performance of a specific index. An Authorized Participant will
generally purchase certain of the constituent securities of that
index, then deliver those shares to the issuer. In exchange, the
issuer gives the Authorized Participant a block of equally valued
ETP shares, on a one-for-one fair value basis. This process also
works in reverse. A redemption is achieved when the Authorized
Participant accumulates a sufficient number of shares to constitute
a creation unit and then exchanges these shares with the issuer,
thereby decreasing the supply of ETP shares in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal, and perhaps most important, feature of ETPs is their
reliance on an ``arbitrage function'' performed by market participants
that influences the supply and demand of shares and, thus, trading
prices relative to NAV. As noted above, new ETP shares can be created
and existing shares redeemed based on investor demand; thus, ETP supply
is generally open-ended. As the Commission has acknowledged, the
arbitrage function helps to keep an ETP's price in line with the value
of its underlying portfolio, i.e.,

it minimizes deviation from NAV.\12\ Generally, the higher the
liquidity and trading volume of an ETP, the more likely the ETP's price
will not deviate from the value of its underlying portfolio. Market
makers registered in ETPs play a key role in this arbitrage function
and DMMs, along with other market participants, would perform this role
for ETPs listed on the Exchange. In short, the Exchange believes that
the arbitrage mechanism is generally an effective and efficient means
of ensuring that intraday pricing in ETPs closely tracks the value of
the underlying portfolio or reference assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75165, 80 FR 34729,
34733 (June 17, 2015) (S7-11-15) (arbitrage ``generally helps to
prevent the market price of ETP Securities from diverging
significantly from the value of the ETP's underlying or reference
assets''). See also generally id., 80 FR at 34739 (``In the
Commission's experience, the deviation between the daily closing
price of ETP Securities and their NAV, averaged across broad
categories of ETP investment strategies and over time periods of
several months, has been relatively small[,]'' although it had been
``somewhat higher'' in the case of ETPs based on international
indices.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect the role of market makers--including DMMs--in the
trading of ETPs, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 in several
respects. First, the Exchange proposes to exclude ETPs from the
definition of ``Aggressing Transactions'' in Rule 104(g) (Transactions
by DMMs) and, by extension, from the prohibition on Aggressing
Transactions in the last ten minutes prior to the scheduled close of
trading that would result in a new high (low) price for a security on
the Exchange for the day at the time of the DMM's transaction.
    The Exchange believes that because of the unique characteristics of
ETPs--in particular, that ETPs trade at intra-day market prices rather
than at NAV and the existence of arbitrage pricing mechanisms that are
designed to help ensure that secondary market prices of ETP shares do
not vary substantially from the NAV--the DMM obligations set forth in
Rule 104(g) not only are not necessary, but also could impede the
ability of a DMM to effectively make markets in ETPs. For example, a
market maker engaging in the arbitrage function may need to update the
quote for an ETP to bring the price of the security in line with the
underlying assets. If updating the quote consistent with that arbitrage
function were to require the DMM to first to engage in an Aggressing
Transaction (i.e., to trade with the existing BBO in order to post a
new quote), the Exchange believes that the current re-entry obligations
for Aggressing Transactions would defeat the purpose of the DMM
engaging in such Aggressing Transaction to update the quote in the
first place. More specifically, the re-entry obligation could be
inconsistent with the new quote that the DMM is seeking to post as part
of the arbitrage function. Indeed, the Exchange believes that without
the proposed changes, DMMs assigned to ETPs would be at a competitive
disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis registered market makers in the same ETP
on competing exchanges as well as other market participants on the NYSE
and would be impeded in their ability to effectively make competitive
markets in their assigned ETP securities.
    For similar reasons, the Exchange does not believe that DMMs should
be prohibited from engaging in Aggressing Transactions in the last ten
minutes of trading. While DMMs will be responsible for facilitating the
closing transaction pursuant to Rule 104(a)(3), given the nature of
ETPs and how they are priced, the Exchange does not believe that the
DMM will have any unique pricing power either leading into the close or
when facilitating the close. In the ten minutes leading into the close,
to perform its role as market maker, the DMM will continue to price
such securities consistent with the arbitrage functions described
above. And for the close, because an ETP should be priced at or very
close the ETP's NAV, the Exchange believes that this pricing pressure
will mitigate the potential for a DMM to influence the price of the
ETP. In both cases, if a DMM's quotes become inconsistent with the
value of the underlying basket, other market participants can profit by
employing the arbitrage function and re-establishing consistency with
the underlying basket similar to intraday trading of ETPs.
    To maintain the balance between DMM benefits and obligations under
Rule 104, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104 to require heightened
DMM quoting obligations for Exchange-listed ETPs. As proposed, for
listed ETPs, DMMs would be required to maintain a bid or offer at the
NBB and NBO at least 25% of the trading day. Time at the inside for
ETPs would be calculated in the same way as other securities in which
DMM units are registered as the average of the percentage of time the
DMM unit has a bid or offer at the inside. In other words, this would
be a portfolio-based quoting requirement. Orders entered by the DMM in
ETPs that are not displayed would not be included in the inside quote
calculation as is also currently the case for other securities in which
DMM units are registered. Reserve or other non-displayed orders entered
by the DMM in their assigned ETP would not be included in the inside
quote calculations.
    To effectuate this change, Rule 104(a)(1)(A) would be amended as
follows:
     The phrase ``for securities in which the DMM unit is
registered'' would be added following the first sentence in Rule
104(a)(1)(A) and the comma following that initial sentence would be
removed;
     New subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) would be created;
     The phrase ``that are not ETPs'' would be added following
``at least 15% of the trading day for securities'' in new subsection
(i) and ``in which the DMM unit is registered'' would be deleted;
     The phrase ``of the trading day'' \13\ would added after
``at least 10%'' and ``that are not ETPs'' would be added after ``for
securities'' in new subsection (ii). The phrase ``in which the DMM unit
is registered'' would be deleted since it would appear in the first
sentence of the amended rule;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This is a non-substantive conforming change that would
mirror the current rule text for the 15% requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New subdivision (iii) providing that DMM units must
maintain a bid or an offer at the inside ``at least 25% of the trading
day for ETPs'' would be added; and
     The phrase ``respective percentage'' would replace ``15%
and 10%'' in the next to last sentence of Rule 104(a)(1)(A) and ``non-
displayed'' would replace ``hidden'' in the last sentence of the rule.
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to replace
the terms ``stock'' and ``stocks'' in Rule 104(f)(2) (Function of DMMs)
with the terms ``security'' and ``securities,'' respectively. The
Exchange would also add a new subsection (5) to Rule 104(f) providing
that, for those ETPs in which they are registered, DMM units will be
responsible for the affirmative obligation of maintaining a fair and
orderly market, including maintaining price continuity with reasonable
depth for their registered ETPs in accordance with Depth Guidelines
published by the Exchange. To provide the Exchange time to collect
trading data adequate to calculate appropriate Depth Guidelines for
listed ETPs, the Exchange proposes that these provisions would not be
operative until 18 weeks after the approval of the proposed rule change
by the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62479 (July
9, 2010), 75 FR 41264, 41265 (July 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-31)
(providing for a delayed implementation of Depth Guidelines to
enable the collection of trading data adequate to calculate the
guidelines in connection with the Floor-based DMM trading of Nasdaq
securities on a UTP basis). Such an approach is necessary so that
appropriate Depth Guidelines may be calculated based on actual
trading data on the Exchange. Accordingly, following implementation
and roll-out of the pilot program, the Exchange proposes to collect
60 trading days of trade data before implementing Depth Guidelines
for trading ETPs securities on the Exchange within 30 calendar days
of the collection of the trade data. See generally id., 75 FR at
41267 & n. 19.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed requirements for
DMM trading of ETPs would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
facilitating market making by DMMs in listed ETPs and maintaining the
Exchange's current structure to trade listed securities. The Exchange
believes that the proposed exclusion of listed ETPs from the
requirements of Rule 104(g) would not be inconsistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors because the unique
characteristics of ETPs, including that ETPs trade at intra-day market
prices rather than end-of-day NAV and are constrained by arbitrage
pricing mechanisms that are designed to ensure that secondary market
prices of ETP shares do not vary substantially from the NAV, render
those obligations unnecessary or potentially even harmful. As discussed
above, the Exchange also believes the DMM obligations set forth in Rule
104(g) could impede the ability of a DMM to effectively make markets in
ETPs. For similar reasons, excluding listed ETPs from the prohibition
on Aggressing Transactions in the last ten minutes of trading would not
be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of
investors because, given the nature of ETPs and how they are priced,
DMMs will not have any unique pricing power either leading into the
close or when facilitating the close and these restrictions could end
up impeding the alignment of ETP price with the underlying basket.
Rather, in the ten minutes leading into the close, DMM will continue to
price such securities consistent with the arbitrage functions described
above and, because an ETP should be priced at NAV, the Exchange
believes that this pricing pressure will reduce the potential for a DMM
to potentially manipulate the price of ETPs going into the close.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed heightened quoting
obligations for DMMs in listed ETPs requiring maintenance of a bid or
offer at the inside of at least 25% of the trading day would maintain
the balance of benefits and obligations under Rule 104 because
exclusion of listed ETPs from the requirements of Rule 104(g) would be
offset by the heightened DMM quoting obligations for listed ETPs. DMMs
would also be required to facilitate the opening, reopening, and
closing of listed ETPs assigned to them, as required by Rule 104(a)(2)
and (3), which is an obligation unique to the Exchange. As noted,
listed ETPs would also be subject to the requirement that DMM
transactions be effected in a reasonable and orderly manner in relation
to the condition of the general market and the market in the particular
stock. These safeguards are designed to ensure that DMM transactions in
listed ETPs bear a reasonable relationship to overall market conditions
and that DMMs cannot destabilize, inappropriately influence or
manipulate a security going into the close. For the same reasons, the
proposed prohibition would not alter or disrupt the balance between DMM
benefits and obligations of being an Exchange DMM.
    The proposed heightened quoting obligation for listed ETPs assigned
to a DMM would also encourage additional stable displayed liquidity on
the Exchange in listed securities, thereby promoting price discovery
and transparency. The Exchange further believes that by establishing
distinct requirements for DMMs, the proposal is also designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote
just and equitable principles of trade.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors. As noted, the
proposal would subject DMMs to the Exchange's current structure for
trading listed securities and the responsibilities and duties of DMMs
set forth in Rule 104, including facilitating openings, reopenings, and
closings and adding a heightened quoting obligation at the inside. In
addition, the proposed rule would subject listed ETPs to the
requirement that all DMM transactions be effected in a reasonable and
orderly manner in relation to the condition of the general market and
the market in the particular stock. Although the implementation of
Depth Guidelines will be delayed, DMM units will still have the
obligation once ETPs are listed and begin trading to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The Exchange believes that the delayed
implementation of Depth Guidelines will allow it to develop guidelines
that are appropriately tailored for how ETPs will trade on the
Exchange, which should improve the DMM units' ability to maintain a
fair and orderly market and also the broader market for those
securities here on the Exchange and on other markets.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
would promote competition by facilitating the listing and trading of
ETPs on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that without this proposed
change, DMMs assigned to ETPs would be at a competitive disadvantage
vis-[agrave]-vis registered market makers in the same ETP on competing
exchanges or other market participants on the NYSE because if they were
required to comply with requirements relating to Aggressing
Transactions in Rule 104(g), they would be impeded in their ability to
effectively make markets in their assigned ETP securities. The Exchange
believes that the proposed heightened DMM quoting obligations in listed
ETPs would promote competition by promoting the display of liquidity on
an exchange, which would benefit all market participants. These
proposed rule changes would facilitate the trading of Exchange-listed
ETPs by DMMs on Pillar, which would enable the Exchange to further
compete with

unaffiliated exchange competitors that also trade ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. 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-NYSE-2019-34 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-NYSE-2019-34. 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 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. 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-NYSE-2019-34 and should be submitted on
or before July 16, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13407 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6634-6636]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26490; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-075-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type
Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS
PIERRE ROBIN) Model R2160 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    To prevent failure of the wing structure and assembly components
due to undetected fatigue and corrosion * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2006-
26490; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-075-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the
specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2007 (72 FR 57896). That earlier NPRM proposed to require
actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products
listed above.
    Since that NPRM was issued, public comments have resulted in
changes to the preamble and body of the proposed AD. The changes to the
body of the proposed AD add a burden that necessitates a supplemental
NPRM and re-opening of the comment period.

Relevant Service Information

    AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN (recent type certificate responsibility was
with APEX Aircraft and current responsibility is with Alpha Aviation
Design Limited) has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 123, revision
3, dated December 23, 1999.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments received on the earlier
NPRM.

Comment Issue No. 1: The AD Action Reflects Current FAA Registry
Numbers of Affected Aircraft

    Mr. Richard Martindale states that there are 9 airplanes of the
affected model on the U.S. registry. However, he states that 1 of these
9 airplanes was destroyed in an accident. He also believes that 1
airplane has been exported to Central America. Mr. Martindale concludes
that only 7 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by the proposed
AD. He recommends that we revise the estimated number of airplanes
affected to 7 or 8 airplanes.
    Since the U.S. registry includes 9 airplanes, we will identify this
as the affected number of aircraft in the Cost of Compliance section.

Comment Issue No. 2: Remove Reference to Avions Pierre Robin Service
Bulletin No. 123, Revision 2

    Mr. Martindale states that the MCAI references Robin Aviation
Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999, and that
this service bulletin refers to actions in Avions Pierre Robin Service
Bulletin No. 123, revision 2, dated November 14, 1995, which has been
superseded and is unavailable. He recommends that the AD action rely
only on Robin Aviation Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated
December 23, 1999.
    We agree with the commenter and will remove reference to Avions
Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 2, dated November 14,
1995, for repair of any defects.
    The reference will remain in certain areas of the Actions and
Compliance section because previous accomplishment of certain actions
in revision 2 determines what actions in revision 3 actions should be
done. Evidence of revision 2 accomplishment should be determinable from
the records of the affected airplanes.

Comment Issue No. 3: Clarify Inspection Requirements for This Proposed
AD and the Requirements of AD 99-10-01

    Mr. Martindale requests that we clarify the inspection requirements
of this proposed AD with the requirements of AD 99-10-01. He also
states that the 750-hour repetitive inspection is missing from the
proposed AD.
    We agree that there is a need to clarify the inspection
requirements of this proposed AD with the requirements of AD 99-10-01.
The FAA will explain that the 3,500-hour inspection is 3,500

hours time-in-service (TIS) of new bolts, and thereafter, repetitively
inspect every 750 hours. We will add a periodic 750 hours TIS
inspection to paragraph (f)(2) of the proposed AD.

Comment Issue No. 4: Revise the Labor Rate

    Mr. Martindale states that labor rates in the southern California
area are $100 per work-hour or more and not the estimated $80 per work-
hour used in the NPRM. He also notes that the majority of currently
registered aircraft are located in California; thus, the estimated cost
of compliance is understated. Mr. Martindale recommends that we use a
rate of at least $100 per work-hour.
    We are not allowed to accept this recommendation. The U.S. Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) established the average labor rates based
on an average of the national rate. The rate of $80 per work-hour is
the current rate provided by OPM and is the rate the FAA must use for
all AD actions.
    We are not changing the cost of compliance as a result of this
comment.

Comment Issue No. 5: Costs of Compliance Are Understated

    Mr. Martindale states that the costs of compliance do not consider
other factors that drive up the costs to do the proposed AD actions. He
recommends that we revise the estimated cost of compliance to include
not only parts and labor costs but to also include the estimated cost
of procuring or fabricating ground support equipment that enable the
required work to be performed in a safe manner. The AD should also
address in the estimated cost of compliance the financial risk to
operators due to the unavailability of required ground support
equipment and/or to the unavailability of mechanics with sufficient
experience on the affected aircraft model to perform the required
tasks.
    The FAA estimates the cost of the AD action based on approximate
work-hours and cost of parts. We have no way of determining the cost an
individual operator would incur in obtaining proper tooling.
    We are not changing the cost of compliance as a result of this
comment.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 9 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 15 work-hours per
product to comply with basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$1,326 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to
the U.S. operators to be $22,734 or $2,526 per product.
    We have no way to determine what aircraft will need replacement
parts that may be required based on the results of any inspection.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU previously
held by Apex Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN): Docket No. FAA-2006-
26490; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-075-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001
through 378, certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    To prevent failure of the wing structure and assembly components
due to undetected fatigue and corrosion * * *

The MCAI requires that you inspect the wing structure and fuselage
attachment and repair any defects that you find.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Disassemble the wings from the fuselage and inspect the wing
structure and assembly components using instruction No. 1 in Robin
Aviation Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated December 23,
1999. If any defects are found, repair following Robin Aviation
Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999. Use
the following compliance times for the inspection:
    (i) For airplanes with less than 4,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS): When the airplane reaches a total of 3,500 hours TIS or
within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
750 hours TIS.
    (ii) For airplanes with 4,000 hours TIS or more that have not
complied with the special instruction in paragraph E of Avions
Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 2, dated November
14, 1995: Within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 hours TIS.
    (iii) For airplanes with 4,000 hours TIS or more that have
complied with the special instruction in paragraph E of Avions
Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 123, revision 2, dated November
14, 1995: Within the next 750 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 hours TIS.
    (2) When the airplane reaches a total of 3,500 hours TIS with
original wing-to-fuselage bolts installed or 3,500 hours TIS of an
airplane since new bolts have been installed or within the next 100
hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, do a non-destructive inspection of the wing-to-fuselage
retaining bolts and replace any bolts that do not pass this
inspection following instruction No. 2 in Robin Aviation Service
Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999. Thereafter,
repetitively inspect wing-to-fuselage retaining bolts and replace
any bolts that do not pass this inspection every 750 hours TIS
following instruction No. 2 in Robin Aviation Service Bulletin No.
123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999.

    Note 1: The requirement for a 3,500-hour inspection is a time
since new or time since installation (that is, the TIS of new
bolts).

    (3) Within the next 50 hours TIS after re-assembling the wing
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the
wing-to-fuselage retaining bolts for correct torque settings
following instruction No. 3 in Robin Aviation Service Bulletin No.
123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999. The required torque value
is 22 ft-lb with nut part number <IP_ADDRESS>. Tighten to 16 ft-lb
(pre-loading) and then torque from 16 to 22 ft-lb.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD DCA/R2000/28,
dated September 28, 2006, and Robin Aviation Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 123, revision 3, dated December 23, 1999, for related
information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 30, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-2047 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Decision XVI/ 12. Essential use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol for controlled substances for 2005 and 2006 Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Technical Options Committee,

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFCs for metered dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as specified in the annex to this decision, subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its decision VII/ 28 and subject to a second review of the 2006 levels consistent with decision XV/ 5;

2. To urge the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to specify in the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations that a nominating Party may submit in its nomination data aggregated by region and product group for CFC containing metered dose inhalers intended for sale in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 when more specific data are not available;

3. That, in the light of the fact that Aerosol Technical Options Committee's recommendations for future essential use exemptions are based on past stock level information, Parties, when preparing essential use nominations for CFCs, should give due consideration to existing stocks, whether owned or agreed to be acquired from a metereddose inhaler manufacturer, of banked or recycled controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 ( b) of decision IV/ 25, with the objective of maintaining no more than one year's operational supply;

Annex Essential use nominations for 2005 and 2006 of CFCs for metered dose inhalers approved by the Parties at the Sixteenth Meeting ( metric tonnes)

Party 2005 2006 Amount nominated Amount approved Amount nominated Amount approved and subject to a second review in 2005 European Community     a 550 550 Russian Federation     a 286 b Ukraine 53.1 53.1

United States of America     a 1900 1900 Total 53.1 53.1 2736 2450 a As approved by the Parties at their fifteenth meeting ( document UNEP/ OzL. Pro/ 15/ 9, decision XV/ 4 and annex I).

b The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will review the nomination in 2005.