[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72204-72207]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23043]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98745; File No. SR-BX-2023-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its GPS
Antenna Fees at General 8, Section 1

October 13, 2023.
    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 29, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc.

(``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's GPS antenna fees at
General 8, Section 1, as described further below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on October 1, 2023.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange offers a GPS antenna, which allows customers to
synchronize their time recording systems to the U.S. Government's
Global Positioning System (``GPS'') network time (the ``Service''). The
Exchange proposes to modify its monthly fees for the Service at General
8, Section 1(d).
    GPS network time is the atomic time scale implemented by the atomic
clocks in the GPS ground control stations and GPS satellites. Each GPS
satellite contains multiple atomic clocks that contribute precise time
data to the GPS signals. GPS receivers decode these signals,
synchronizing the receivers to the atomic clocks. A GPS antenna serves
as a time signal receiver and feeds a primary clock device the GPS
network time using precise time data. Firms can use the precise time
data provided by the GPS antenna to time-stamp transactional
information.
    Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and
utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The
Service is not novel to the securities markets, or to the Exchange.
    The Exchange offers connectivity to a GPS antenna via two options,
over shared infrastructure or a dedicated antenna. If a firm wishes to
connect via a dedicated connection, it must supply the antenna
hardware.
    The Exchange currently charges a monthly fee of $200 for the
Service. The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly fee to $600 for
the Service. As such, the Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule
at General 8, Section 1(d) to reflect the increased monthly fee for the
GPS antenna. The Exchange has not raised such price since the monthly
fee of $200 was adopted in 2010.\3\ In addition, the Exchange charges a
higher monthly fee of $350 for cross-connections to approved
telecommunication carriers in the datacenter and for inter-cabinet
connections to other customers in the datacenter, despite the fact that
the Service not only provides connectivity (like the cross-
connections), but also provides data (i.e., the network time) to
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62396 (June 28,
2010), 75 FR 38585 (July 2, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange's fee schedule at General 8, Section 1(d)
currently states that the installation fee for the GPS antenna is
installation specific. The Exchange proposes to add specific
installation amounts for the Service within the fee schedule, providing
greater transparency to market participants. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to charge an installation fee of $900 for connectivity to a
GPS antenna over shared infrastructure and $1,500 for connectivity to a
GPS antenna over a dedicated antenna.\4\ The difference in installation
costs reflects the differing levels of complexity. For the dedicated
antenna option, installation involves installing an antenna on the roof
whereas the shared option involves extending a cable from a device
located inside the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE provides a similar service for a $3,000 initial charge
plus a $400 monthly charge. See https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/Wireless_Connectivity_Fees_and_Charges.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Service is an optional product available to any firm that
chooses to subscribe. Firms may cancel their subscription at any time.
The Service simply provides time synchronization that may be utilized
by firms to adjust their own time systems and time-stamp transactional
information. The GPS antenna is offered on a completely voluntary
basis. No customer is required to purchase the GPS antenna. Potential
subscribers may subscribe to the Service only if they voluntarily
choose to do so. It is a business decision of each firm whether to
subscribe to the Service or not. Furthermore, firms have an array of
options for time synchronization. Firms may purchase the Service (or
enhanced time synchronization services) from other vendors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, Pico, Guava Tech, and SFTI provide GPS time
synchronization services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed
fees reflect the value of the GPS antenna, customers will not purchase
the product or will seek other options at their disposal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to the pricing schedule is reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which
constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for
order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress directed the Commission to ``rely on `competition,
whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for
overseeing the SROs and the national market system.' '' \10\ As a
result, the Commission has historically relied on competitive forces to
determine whether a fee proposal is equitable, fair, reasonable, and
not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. ``If competitive forces
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \11\
Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition provides a
substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \12\ In its 2019 guidance on fee proposals,
Commission staff indicated that they would look at factors beyond the
competitive environment, such as cost, only if a ``proposal lacks
persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by significant
competitive forces.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534-35; see also H.R. Rep.
No. 94-229 at 92 (1975) (``[I]t is the intent of the conferees that
the national market system evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed.'').
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Staff
Guidance on SRO Rule filings Relating to Fees'' (May 21, 2019),
available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are reasonable and unlikely to burden the market
because the purchase of the Service is optional for all categories of
customers. No firms are required to purchase the Service. Though many
firms use GPS network time to synchronize their internal primary clock
devices, firms can purchase time sync services from third-party
vendors.\14\ Firms are also free to utilize other services that may
assist them in enhanced time synchronization of their systems. Firms
may choose to purchase multiple time synchronization services for
resiliency or otherwise.\15\ In addition to cost, a firm's decision
regarding which, if any, time synchronization option to purchase may
depend, among other factors, on the design of the firm's systems and
whether they use such time information to trigger trading decisions.
The Exchange offers the Service as a convenience to firms to provide
them with the ability to synchronize their own primary clock devices to
the GPS network time and time-stamp transactional information.\16\
Firms that choose to subscribe to the Service may discontinue the use
of the Service at any time if they determine that the time
synchronization services provided via the GPS antenna are no longer
useful. In sum, customers can discontinue the use of the Service at any
time, decide not to subscribe, or use a third-party vendor for time
synchronization services, for any reason, including the fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Approximately 59% of the Exchange's co-location customers
subscribe to the Service, most of which opt for the shared option.
    \15\ Of the Exchange's customers that subscribe to the Service,
approximately 9% of such customers purchase both the dedicated and
the shared options of the Service.
    \16\ In offering the Service as a convenience to firms, the
Exchange incurs certain costs, including costs related to the data
center facility, hardware and equipment, and personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The optional Service is available to all customers that choose to
subscribe. The proposed fees would apply to all customers on a non-
discriminatory basis, and therefore are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to include
specific installation fees promote just and equitable principles of
trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because the proposed rule
changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the public
regarding the Exchange's fees. It is in the public interest for rules
to be accurate and transparent so as to eliminate the potential for
confusion.
    If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed
fees reflect the value of the GPS antenna, customers will not purchase
the product or will seek other options at their disposal.

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 terms of inter-market competition (the competition among self-
regulatory organizations), the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose
any burden on competition is extremely limited. Approval of the
proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges
to compete. As noted above, time synchronization services are offered
by other vendors and any exchange has the ability to offer such
services if it so chooses.
    Nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition (the
competition among consumers of exchange data) because the GPS antenna
is available to any customer under the same fees as any other customer,
and any market participant that wishes to purchase a GPS antenna can do
so on a non-discriminatory basis.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in

the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii)
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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-BX-2023-025 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-BX-2023-025. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-BX-2023-025 and should be
submitted on or before November 9, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23043 Filed 10-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11518-11519]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-7-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; Comment Request;
Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-587, Land Description
(Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-
Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land States]).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC12-7-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-587, Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public
Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in
Public Land States]).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0145.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-587 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the FERC-587 information
collection to satisfy the requirements of section 24 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA). The Federal Power Act grants the Commission authority
to issue licenses for the development and improvement of navigation and
for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across,
along, from or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over
which Congress has jurisdiction.\1\ The Electric Consumers Protection
Act (ECPA) amends the FPA to allow the Commission the responsibility of
issuing licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric plants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. Section 797d (2010).
    \2\ Public Law 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 24 of the FPA requires that applicants proposing hydropower

projects on (or changes to existing projects located within) lands
owned by the United States to provide a description of the applicable
U.S. land. Additionally, the FPA requires the notification of the
Commission and Secretary of the Interior of the hydropower proposal.
FERC-587 consolidates the information required and identifies
hydropower project boundary maps associated with the applicable U.S.
land.
    The information consolidated by the Form No. 587 verifies the
accuracy of the information provided for the FERC-587 to the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
Moreover, this information ensures that U.S. lands can be reserved as
hydropower sites and withdrawn from other uses.
    Type of Respondents: Applicants proposing hydropower projects on
(or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the
United States.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

  FERC-587 (IC12-7-000): Land Description (Public Land States/Non-Public Land States [Rectangular or Non-Rectangular Survey System Lands in Public Land
                                                                        States])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                           Average burden
                                                               Number of        responses per     Total number of       hours per       Estimated total
                                                              respondents         respondent         responses           response        annual burden
                                                                        (A)                (B)      (A) x (B) = (C)              (D)                  (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydropower Project Applicants............................               250                  1                250                  1                250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $17,252
[250 hours / 2,080 \4\ hours/year = 0.12019 * $143,540/year \5\ =
$17,252].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 2,080 hours = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks (1 year).
    \5\ Average annual salary per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-587 per response is
$69 [$17,252 / 250 responses = $69/response].
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 17, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4418 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48024-48028]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0468; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-147-AD;
Amendment 39-17924; AD 2014-15-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-26-06 for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes
equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. AD 2006-26-06 required repetitive
inspections to detect cracks of the outer V-blades of the thrust
reverser, and corrective action if necessary. AD

2006-26-06 also provided for an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. This new AD adds, for airplanes on which the
optional terminating action is done, repetitive inspections for
cracking in the outer V-blade fittings of the hinge beam and latch beam
ends of each thrust reverser half, and replacement of an affected
thrust reverser half if necessary. This new AD also adds airplanes to
the applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked outer V-
blade fittings at the hinge beam end of Rolls-Royce engine thrust
reversers, on airplanes on which the optional terminating action was
done. We are issuing this AD to prevent separation of a thrust reverser
from the airplane during normal reverse thrust or during a refused
takeoff, which could result in unexpected thrust asymmetry and a
possible runway excursion.

DATES: This AD is effective September 19, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 19,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 11, 2007 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586,
December 27, 2006). AD 2006-26-06 applied to Boeing Model 777-200 and -
300 series airplanes, equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2013 (78 FR 40060). The
NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect
cracks of the outer V-blades of the thrust reverser, and corrective
action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to provide an
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The NPRM
also proposed to require, for airplanes on which the optional
terminating action is done, repetitive inspections for cracking in the
outer V-blade fittings of the hinge beam and latch beam ends of each
thrust reverser half, and replacement of an affected thrust reverser
half if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Incorporate Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-
78-0091, Dated June 18, 2013

    Boeing, American Airlines (AAL), Air New Zealand, Delta Airlines,
and Transaero requested that we allow the modifications and inspections
defined in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0091, dated
June 18, 2013, as an alternative to the inspections specified in
paragraph (j) of the NPRM (78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013). Boeing stated
that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0091, dated June
18, 2013, has been approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) with AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586, December
27, 2006), and is intended as an alternative to the inspections
proposed by the NPRM. Boeing also requested that we provide credit for
actions specified in paragraph (j) of the NPRM that were done before
the effective date of the new AD in accordance with Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0091, dated June 18, 2013.
    We disagree with the request. Boeing is considering revising Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0091, dated June 18, 2013, to
incorporate feedback on the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin that resulted from validation of the service bulletin. The new
revision might include improvements to the L-fitting modification to
eliminate short edge margin, fastener changes to eliminate
interference, and other changes to the installation sequence and other
procedures. We will consider approving the revision of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0091 as an AMOC to the actions
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, once this service bulletin is
approved and is released. We find that delaying this action would be
inappropriate in light of the urgency of the identified unsafe
condition. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Reference Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0064, Revision 2, Dated June 14, 2012

    Boeing requested that we add Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, as a reference
to paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013). Boeing stated
that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2,
dated June 14, 2012, reiterates the repetitive inspection intervals
from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 1,
dated November 30, 2006.
    We agree. The compliance times specified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 1, dated November 30,
2006; and Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012; are the same, except that
Revision 2 states that the compliance times are measured from the
effective date of AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586,
December 27, 2006), rather than the issue date of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 1, dated November 30,
2006. We have revised paragraph (g) of this final rule to add Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June
14, 2012, as a reference for accomplishing the actions.

Request To Change Format of the NPRM (78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013)

    Air New Zealand requested that we change the format of the NPRM (78
FR 40060, July 3, 2013) to clarify the requirements. The commenter
requested that we list all repetitive inspection

requirements for all airplane configurations in one paragraph. The
commenter stated that the format of the NPRM was confusing.
    We disagree with changing the format as it is consistent with the
format used for most supersedure ADs. Paragraph (g) of this AD clearly
identifies the affected airplanes that must continue to accomplish the
retained repetitive inspections. Paragraph (j) of this AD clearly
identifies the affected airplanes that must accomplish the new
repetitive inspections. No change has been made to this final rule in
this regard.

Request To Consider AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD
ARC) Recommendations

    AAL requested that, in the spirit of the AD ARC to improve the AD
process, we consider the guidance from the AD ARC when considering its
comments to the proposed AD. AAL provided a general comment noting that
certain service information referenced in the proposed AD is quite
lengthy and contains extremely detailed data, while one of the
referenced service documents is only 29 pages long. AAL does not
consider the lengthy service information to be ``AD-Friendly.''
Further, AAL stated that the instructions in this service information
does not differentiate between critical and non-critical tasks and
figures (i.e., the service information does not incorporate the
``Required for Compliance'' (RC) concept developed by the AD ARC).
    We agree that it is helpful when service information is presented
in a way that meets ``AD-Friendly'' guidelines. The focus of AD-
friendly service information is to ensure that the language (including
compliance times and instructions) in the document is clear and legally
enforceable and, therefore, easier for the FAA to adopt into an AD.
However, this focus does not mean the service information will be
brief. Many service bulletins are necessarily lengthy and complex due,
in part, to multiple actions, multiple airplane groups/configurations,
and multiple or complex compliance times.
    The RC concept is an additional improvement to service information.
The concept was developed between the FAA and industry under the AD ARC
to further enhance service bulletins and, in turn, the AD process. The
RC concept is a new process for annotating which steps in the service
information are ``required for compliance'' with an AD. Differentiating
these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to
improve an owner's/operator's understanding of AD requirements and help
provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. However, the RC concept
does not necessarily result in less lengthy service information.
Details might be necessary to provide clear understanding and accurate
service instructions.
    In response to the AD ARC's recommendations, the FAA released
Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176, dated December 19, 2011 (http://
rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/a78cc91a47b192278625796b0075f419/$FILE/
AC%2020-176.pdf); and Order 8110.117, dated September 12, 2012 (http://
rgl.avs.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/
984bb9eb07cdd86986257a7f0070744c/$FILE/Order%208110.117.pdf); which
discusses the RC concept. The FAA includes this concept in ADs when we
receive service information containing RC steps. While some design
approval holders have implemented the RC concept, the implementation is
voluntary. The FAA does not intend to develop or revise AD requirements
to incorporate the RC concept if it is not included in the service
information.

Request To Add More Detail for Compliance Requirements in AD

    AAL requested that rather than requiring compliance with the
referenced service bulletins, the AD should focus compliance
requirements on identifying detailed inspections by task name,
identifying an optional configuration change by part numbers, and
specifying the corrective action for crack findings. AAL stated that
requiring compliance with the entirety of the referenced service
bulletins would introduce an unnecessary and excessive burden on the
operators, impede progress toward correcting the unsafe condition, and
introduce unintended compliance risks not relevant to correcting the
unsafe condition.
    We disagree with the request. As stated previously, the FAA does
not intend to develop or revise AD requirements to incorporate the RC
concept if it is not included in the service information. This final
rule requires certain repetitive inspections and, as applicable,
certain corrective actions and replacements, which are described in
detail in the service information. No change has been made to this
final rule in this regard.

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 and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 40060, July 3, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently
developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition
identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved,
and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                    Labor cost        Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [retained actions     16 work-hours x $85  $1,360 per           $74,800 per inspection cycle.
 from AD 2006-26-06, Amendment     per hour = $1,360    inspection cycle.
 39-14864 (71 FR 77586, December   per inspection
 27, 2006)].                       cycle.
Repetitive inspections outer      82 work-hours x $85  $6,970 per           $383,350 per inspection cycle.
 V[dash]blade [new action] \1\.    per hour = $6,970    inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition
  actions specified in this AD.

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)
2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-15-21 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17924; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0468; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-147-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 19, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR
77586, December 27, 2006).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Rolls-
Royce engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked outer V-blade
fittings at the hinge beam end of Rolls-Royce engine thrust
reversers, on airplanes on which the optional terminating action was
done. We are issuing this AD to prevent separation of a thrust
reverser from the airplane during normal reverse thrust or during a
refused takeoff, which could result in unexpected thrust asymmetry
and a possible runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006),
with new service information. For Group 1, Configuration 1,
airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012: Do the
detailed inspections to detect cracks in the outer V-blade of the
thrust reversers. Do the inspections in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 1, dated November 30, 2006; or Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated
June 14, 2012. Do the inspections at the applicable times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 1, dated November 30, 2006;
except where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064,
Revision 1, dated November 30, 2006, specifies an initial compliance
time after the date on that service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified time after January 11, 2007 (the
effective date of AD 2006-26-06). Do applicable corrective actions
before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0064, Revision 1, dated November 30, 2006; or Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14,
2012; or paragraph (m) of this AD. As of the effective date of this
AD, use only Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064,
Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, to accomplish the actions required
by this paragraph.

(h) Retained Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the credit provisions for the actions
specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71
FR 77586, December 27, 2006). For Group 1, Configuration 1,
airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012. This paragraph
provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, if those actions were performed before January 11, 2007 (the
effective date of AD 2006-26-06), using Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, dated August 7, 2006.

(i) Retained Optional Terminating Action With New Requirements and New
Service Information

    This paragraph restates the optional terminating action
specified in paragraph (i) of AD 2006-26-06, Amendment 39-14864 (71
FR 77586, December 27, 2006), with new service information.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD. For airplanes on which this terminating action has been
accomplished, operators must do the inspection required by paragraph
(j) of this AD.
    (1) Accomplishment of the applicable inspections and related
investigative/corrective actions before the effective date of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0061, dated July 6, 2006;
except, where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0061,
dated July 6, 2006, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
appropriate action, repair before further flight using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.
    (2) Accomplishment of the applicable modification, inspections,
and related investigative/corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0061, Revision 1, dated August 28, 2007; except,
where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0061,
Revision 1, dated August 28, 2007, specifies to contact the
manufacturer for appropriate action, repair before further flight
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(j) New Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2, and Groups 2 and 3,
as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-

0064, Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012: At the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14,
2012, except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, do a detailed
inspection for cracking of the outer V-blade fittings at the latch
beam end and hinge beam end of each thrust reverser half, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14,
2012.
    (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter
at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated
June 14, 2012.
    (2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, replace the
affected thrust reverser half with a serviceable thrust reverser
half, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated
June 14, 2012. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064, Revision 2, dated June 14,
2012.

(k) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064,
Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, specifies an initial compliance
time ``after the date on Revision 2 of this service bulletin,'' this
AD requires compliance within the specified time after the effective
date of this AD.

(l) Reporting Not Required

    Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064,
Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012, specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-26-06,
Amendment 39-14864 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006), are not
approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Narinder Luthra,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (o)(5) and (o)(6) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 19, 2014.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0061,
Revision 1, dated August 28, 2007.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0064,
Revision 2, dated June 14, 2012.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 11, 2007 (71 FR 77586, December 27, 2006).
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0061, dated
July 6, 2006.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2014.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18313 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P