[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55155-55158]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16338]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 276

[Release No. IA-5547]

Supplement to Commission Guidance Regarding Proxy Voting
Responsibilities of Investment Advisers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
publishing supplementary guidance regarding the proxy voting
responsibilities of investment advisers under its regulations issued
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') in
light of the Commission's amendments to the rules governing proxy
solicitations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'').

DATES: Effective: September 3, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thankam A. Varghese, Senior Counsel;
or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment
Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is publishing supplementary
guidance regarding the proxy voting responsibilities of investment
advisers under 17 CFR 275.206(4)-6 [Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers
Act [15 U.S.C. 80b]].\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise noted, when we refer to the Advisers Act,
or any paragraph of the Advisers Act, we are referring to 15 U.S.C.
80b of the United States Code, at which the Advisers Act is
codified, and when we refer to rules under the Advisers Act, or any
paragraph of these rules, we are referring to title 17, part 275 of
the Code of Federal Regulations [17 CFR part 275], in which these
rules are published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    The Commission previously issued guidance discussing how the
fiduciary duty and rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act relate to an
investment adviser's exercise of voting authority on behalf of clients
and also provided examples to help facilitate investment advisers'
compliance with their obligations in connection with proxy voting.\2\
We are supplementing this guidance in light of information gained in
connection with our ongoing review of the proxy voting process and our
related regulations, including the amendments to the proxy solicitation
rules under the Exchange Act that we are issuing at this time.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commission Guidance Regarding Proxy Voting Responsibilities
of Investment Advisers, Release No. IA-5325 (Aug. 21, 2019), 84 FR
47420 (Sept. 10, 2019) (``Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting
Responsibilities'').
    \3\ See Exemptions from the Proxy Rules for Proxy Voting Advice,
Release No. 34-89372 (July 22, 2020) (``Amendments to Proxy
Solicitation Rules''); see also 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(9)(iv); see also
Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities, supra at n. 2.
Proxy advisory firms will not be required to comply with certain of
the amendments we are making to the proxy solicitation rules until
December 1, 2021. This guidance addresses the application of the
fiduciary duty, Form ADV, and rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act
to an investment adviser's proxy voting responsibilities in
connection with current practices, as well as any policies or
procedures that may be implemented by proxy advisory firms under the
final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that the Exchange Act amendments adopted in Release No.
34-89372 will result in improvements in the mix of information that is
available to investors and material to a voting decision. In
particular, we expect issuers will have access to proxy advisory firm
recommendations in a timeframe that will permit those issuers to make
available to shareholders additional information that may be material
to a voting decision in a more systematic and timely manner than they
could previously.\4\ We also expect that the amendments will result in
the availability of that additional information being made known to
proxy advisory firms and their clients in a timely manner, including
because proxy advisory firms, as a condition to the availability of the
exemptions in 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(1) and (b)(3), must adopt policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to provide investment
advisers and other clients with a mechanism by which they can
reasonably be expected to become aware of that additional information
prior to making voting decisions. Accordingly, we are providing
supplementary guidance to assist investment advisers in assessing how
to consider the additional information that may become more readily
available to them as a result of these amendments, including in
circumstances where the investment adviser utilizes a proxy advisory
firm's electronic vote management system that ``pre-populates'' the
adviser's proxies with suggested voting recommendations and/or for
voting execution services. The supplementary guidance also addresses
disclosure obligations and considerations that may arise when
investment advisers use such services for voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See infra at n. 6. While 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b) uses the term
``proxy voting advice business,'' we use the term ``proxy advisory
firm'' in this release. This is consistent with the Commission
Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities, which this release
supplements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Supplemental Guidance Regarding Investment Advisers' Proxy Voting
Responsibilities

    Question 2.1: In some cases, proxy advisory firms assist clients,
including investment advisers, with voting execution, including through
an electronic vote management system that allows the proxy advisory
firm to: (1) Populate each client's votes shown on the proxy advisory
firm's electronic voting platform with the proxy advisory firm's
recommendations based on that client's voting instructions to the firm
(``pre-population''); and/or (2) automatically submit the client's
votes to be counted (``automated voting''). Pre-population and
automated voting generally occur prior to the submission deadline for
proxies to be voted at the shareholder meeting. In various
circumstances, an investment adviser, in the course of conducting a
reasonable investigation into matters on which it votes,\5\ may become
aware that an issuer that is the subject of a voting recommendation
intends to file or has filed additional soliciting materials with the
Commission setting forth the issuer's views regarding the voting
recommendation. These materials may or may not reasonably be expected
to affect the investment adviser's voting

determination.\6\ In addition, these materials may become available
after or around the same time that the investment adviser's votes have
been pre-populated but before the submission deadline for proxies to be
voted at the shareholder meeting.\7\ In these circumstances, what steps
should an investment adviser take to demonstrate that it is making
voting determinations in a client's best interest?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities,
text at notes 15 and 37 and in response to Question 4.
    \6\ For example, we expect that 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(A)
will result in issuers being made aware of recommendations by proxy
voting advice businesses (the term used in the rule for what we
refer to here as proxy advisory firms) in a timeframe that will
permit those issuers to make any views regarding those
recommendations available in a more systematic and timely manner
than was previously the case. 17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(B) also
requires that proxy voting advice businesses adopt policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide their clients, including
investment advisers, with a mechanism by which they can reasonably
be expected to become aware of those views. See Amendments to Proxy
Solicitation Rules, supra at n. 3; see also 17 CFR 240.14a-
2(b)(9)(iv) (providing a non-exclusive safe harbor pursuant to which
proxy voting advice businesses will be deemed to satisfy the
principle-based requirement of Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(B)).
    \7\ Unless otherwise indicated, our reference to the term
``meeting'' throughout Question 2.1 is intended to include an
issuer's solicitation of written consents or authorizations in lieu
of a shareholder meeting. For example, if the issuer is seeking the
necessary shareholder approval for a matter through a solicitation
of written consents or authorizations in lieu of a vote at a
shareholder meeting, our guidance addresses the additional
information that may become available after the proxy advisory
firm's recommendations have been pre-populated but before the
written consents or authorizations have been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The Commission in its prior guidance discussed a number
of steps that an investment adviser could take to demonstrate that it
is making voting determinations in a client's best interest.\8\ These
include additional steps when an investment adviser utilizes a proxy
advisory firm, such as assessing pre-populated votes shown on the proxy
advisory firm's electronic voting platform and considering additional
information that may become available before the relevant votes are
cast. Together with those steps, an investment adviser should consider
whether its policies and procedures, including any policies and
procedures with respect to automated voting of proxies, are reasonably
designed to ensure that it exercises voting authority in its client's
best interest. An investment adviser should consider, for example,
whether its policies and procedures address circumstances where the
investment adviser has become aware that an issuer intends to file or
has filed additional soliciting materials with the Commission after the
investment adviser has received the proxy advisory firm's voting
recommendation but before the submission deadline. In such cases, if an
issuer files such additional information sufficiently in advance of the
submission deadline and such information would reasonably be expected
to affect the investment adviser's voting determination, the investment
adviser would likely need to consider such information prior to
exercising voting authority in order to demonstrate that it is voting
in its client's best interest.\9\ In addition, because the timing of
pre-population and automated voting may result in proxy advisory firms
possessing non-public information regarding how an investment adviser
intends to vote a client's securities, the investment adviser should
also consider reviewing its agreements with any proxy advisory firms to
determine whether the agreements would permit the proxy advisory firms
to utilize this information in a manner that would not be in the best
interest of the investment adviser's client.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities, 84
FR 47420, at 47423 (Question No. 2).
    \9\ Whether such information would reasonably be expected to
affect an investment adviser's voting determination for a client may
depend, in part, on the agreed upon scope of the investment
adviser's authority and responsibilities to vote proxies on behalf
of that client, as discussed in response to Question 1 of the
Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities. See Commission
Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities, 84 FR 47420, at 47422
(Question No. 1).
    \10\ For example, the investment adviser may want to consider
the extent to which the proxy advisory firm would be permitted to
share this information (including information on aggregated voting
intentions of the firm's clients) with third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its prior guidance, the Commission also discussed how an
investment adviser and its client may agree on the scope of the
investment adviser's authority and responsibilities to vote proxies on
behalf of that client.\11\ The Commission explained that an investment
adviser may agree with its client to the scope of voting arrangements
but that scoping the relationship requires the investment adviser to
make full and fair disclosure and the client to provide informed
consent. Differences in agreements between investment advisers and
their clients as to the scope of the advisory relationship may result
in a variety of arrangements for voting client securities, which may
address, for example, parameters around the method of voting execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commission Guidance on Proxy Voting Responsibilities,
84 FR 47420, at 47422 (Question No. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An investment adviser also has an obligation, as a result of its
duty of loyalty to clients, to make full and fair disclosure to its
clients of all material facts relating to the advisory
relationship.\12\ These include material facts related to the exercise
of voting authority with respect to client securities. The Commission
recently explained that, ``[i]n order for disclosure to be full and
fair, it should be sufficiently specific so that a client is able to
understand the material fact or conflict of interest and make an
informed decision whether to provide consent.'' \13\ Further, rule
206(4)-6 and Form ADV require an investment adviser to describe to
clients its voting policies and procedures.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct
for Investment Advisers, Release No. IA-5248 (June 5, 2019), 84 FR
33669, at 33675 (July 12, 2019) (``[t]o meet its duty of loyalty, an
adviser must make full and fair disclosure to its clients of all
material facts relating to the advisory relationship.'') (internal
citations omitted).
    \13\ See id., text at note 59.
    \14\ Rule 206(4)-6(c) requires investment advisers to describe
their voting policies and procedures to clients. See also Form ADV,
Part 2A, Item 17 (requiring an adviser to briefly describe voting
policies and procedures where it has, or will accept, authority to
vote client securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above, we believe that an investment adviser that
uses automated voting should consider disclosing: (1) The extent of
that use and under what circumstances it uses automated voting; and (2)
how its policies and procedures address the use of automated voting in
cases where it becomes aware before the submission deadline for proxies
to be voted at the shareholder meeting that an issuer intends to file
or has filed additional soliciting materials with the Commission
regarding a matter to be voted upon. In addition, an investment adviser
should also consider whether its policies and procedures are reasonably
designed to address these disclosures. Depending on the facts and
circumstances, these disclosures may be necessary for the investment
adviser to provide sufficiently specific information so that a client
is able to understand the role of automated voting in the investment
adviser's exercise of voting authority. In those cases, the client may
not, without this disclosure, have sufficiently specific information to
provide informed consent with respect to the use of automated voting as
a means of exercising voting authority either (a) for purposes of
agreeing to the scope of the relationship or (b) as it relates to the
investment adviser's obligation, under its duty of loyalty, to provide
full and fair disclosure relating to the advisory relationship. In this
regard, an investment adviser should also consider its obligations
under rule

206(4)-6 and Form ADV as they relate to the investment adviser's voting
policies and procedures. Accordingly, an investment adviser should
carefully review its disclosures with respect to these matters in order
to ascertain whether it has provided its clients with the disclosure
necessary for the clients to provide informed consent with respect to
the use of automated voting as a means of exercising voting authority
and for the adviser to satisfy its obligations under rule 206(4)-6 and
Form ADV.

III. Other Matters

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,\15\ the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this guidance as not
a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 276

    Securities.

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

    For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending title 17,
chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 276--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT
ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
1. The authority citation for part 276 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b et seq.

0
2. Amend the table by adding an entry for Release No. IA-5547 at the
end of the table to read as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register volume
               Subject                       Release No.                  Date                   and page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Supplement to Commission Guidance      IA-5547................  September 3, 2020......  [Insert FR citation of
 Regarding the Proxy Voting                                                               publication]
 Responsibilities of Investment
 Advisers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the Commission.
    Dated: July 22, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16338 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 22, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-5804

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AERONAVES TSM, S.A. de C.V.
                                Date Filed: March 21, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  April 2, 2002

Applicant representative(s):  Daniel Elizondo,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  April 22, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  April 22, 2003, through April 22,
2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 74 (Thursday, April 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21073-21075]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08002]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0906; Project Identifier 2019-NE-31-AD; Amendment
39-21111; AD 2020-08-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines LLC,
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM,
PW1130G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-
JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM model turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by reports of failures of certain low-pressure turbine (LPT)
3rd-stage blades. This AD requires replacement of the affected LPT 3rd-
stage blades. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact International Aero Engines, LLC, 400 Main Street, East
Hartford, CT, 06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: https://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. 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 https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0906; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain International
Aero Engines, LLC (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1129G-
JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and
PW1122G-JM model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 2019 (84 FR 64441). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of failures of certain LPT 3rd-stage blades. The NPRM proposed
to require replacement of the affected LPT 3rd-stage blades. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify AD Applicability

    An Air Macau commenter asked how the affected engine serial numbers
(ESNs) were selected. The commenter also asked what the criteria was
for compliance times of 90, 180, 270, and 360 days. The commenter asked
how airlines could have confidence in an ESN that is very close to an
ESN affected by this AD, but not incorporated into this AD.
    The FAA interprets this comment as being applicable to a different
published AD; AD 2019-25-01 (84 FR 65666, November 29, 2019). AD 2019-
25-01 references IAE engines by ESN while this AD does not. The FAA
will fully address this comment in our comment disposition to AD 2019-
25-01, which will be posted in Docket No. FAA-2019-0995. In addition,
to clarify that the applicability of this AD does not overlap the
applicability of AD 2019-25-01, the FAA added a note to the
applicability section of this AD to clarify the exclusion of engines
affected by AD 2019-25-01.

Request To Revise Compliance

    An individual commenter requested that the FAA, to control the risk
effectively, incorporate the following requirements in the AD: (1) At a
specific calendar time, and next shop visit, whichever occurs first,
complete the replacement of affected LPT 3rd-stage blades; and (2)
Perform inspection on specific areas of the LPT 3rd-stage blades at
specific time, and repeat the inspection in a specific interval. If any
defects are found that exceed the limitation, then replace the LPT 3rd-
stage blades before the next flight.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA has not revised this AD because we have
mandated actions for operators that have experienced a greater number
of LPT 3rd-stage blades failures in AD 2019-25-01. The FAA has not
incorporated the use of calendar time for performance of the required
actions on the entire fleet or for general inspections of the LPT 3rd-
stage blades because, based on the current failure rate for the entire
fleet, this action is not required to maintain safety in accordance
with FAA's risk assessment policies. Also, incorporating a general
inspection of the LPT 3rd-stage blades without targeting a specific
root cause will not improve safety and may generate more mistakes and
unnecessary damage to the LPT 3rd-stage blades.

Request To Clarify Compliance Time

    An individual commenter noted that all the PW1100G-JM series
engines with LPT 3rd-stage blades are made from the same material
alloy. The commenter requested that the FAA provide the technical
analysis to clarify why the other engines affected by this AD have a
different compliance time than those affected by FAA AD 2019-25-01.

    The FAA agrees that affected IAE engines will have the same
material alloy unless the engine has either incorporated the new LPT
3rd-stage blades as identified in Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin
(SB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0111-00A-930A-D or the engine was produced since
March 2019. IAE engines affected by AD 2019-25-01 are operated by
operators who have experienced the majority of these LPT 3rd-stage
blade failures. This demonstrates that the operation of the affected
IAE engines can have an effect on the frequency of the LPT 3rd-stage
blade failures. However, the entire airplane fleet will still have a
risk of engine failure until the new blade design is incorporated into
the engine. The required action to remove the affected LPT 3rd-stage
blades from service at the next engine shop visit will address the
unsafe condition for the remaining engines affected by this AD.

Request for Clarification of Definition

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) commented that the definition of engine
shop visit in this AD does not include a definition of ``major mating
engine flange.'' On the other hand, PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0111-00A-
930A-D, (``the PW SB'') indicates that flanges ``E through P'' are
considered ``major mating engine flanges.'' ANA would like to confirm
this AD applies when the engine is inducted into the shop for
maintenance and only major mating engine flanges B or C are separated.
    The definition of ``engine shop visit'' in this AD is accurate. The
term ``major mating engine flanges,'' as used in this AD, is consistent
with the PW SB. The term ``major mating engine flanges'' are flanges E
through P. If only mating engine flanges B or C are separated, then
this is not considered an engine shop visit, per the definition
provided in this AD.

Support for the AD

    The Air Line Pilots Association, an individual commenter, and
anonymous commenters supported the NPRM as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0111-00A-930A-
D, Issue No. 002, dated October 18, 2019. The service information
describes procedures for removal of the affected LPT 3rd-stage blades
and their replacement with parts eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 65 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace set of LPC 3rd-stage        0 work-hours x $85    $750,000 per blade          $750,000      $48,750,000
 blades.                             per hour = $0.        set.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-08-04 International Aero Engines LLC: Amendment 39-21111;
Docket No. FAA-2019-0906; Project Identifier 2019-NE-31-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 21, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE)
PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1127G-JM,
PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM
model turbofan engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT) 3rd-stage
blades, part number (P/N) 5387343, 5387493, 5387473, or 5387503,
installed.

    Note to paragraph (c): This AD does not apply to IAE PW1133G-JM,
PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM,
PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM model turbofan
engines with engine serial numbers

listed in paragraph (g) of AD 2019-25-01 (84 FR 65666, November 29,
2019).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of certain LPT 3rd-
stage blades. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of these
LPT 3rd-stage blades. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in uncontained release of the LPT 3rd-stage blades, failure
of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this
AD, remove from service any LPT 3rd-stage blade, P/N 5387343,
5387493, 5387473, or 5387503, and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance
does not constitute an engine shop visit.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is any LPT 3rd-stage blade that does not have a P/N
5387343, 5387493, 5387473, or 5387503.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, 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
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request
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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on April 10, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08002 Filed 4-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44984-44988]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19059]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83967; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2018-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31-
E Relating To Reserve Orders, To Re-Name Two Order Types, and To Delete
Inoperative Rule Text

August 28, 2018.
    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 August 15, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 amend Rule 7.31-E relating to Reserve Orders,
to re-name two order types, and to delete inoperative rule text. 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 7.31-E relating to Reserve
Orders, to re-name two order types, and to delete inoperative rule
text.
Background
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) defines a Reserve Order as a Limit or Inside
Limit Order with a quantity of the size displayed and with a reserve
quantity of the size (``reserve interest'') that is not displayed. The
displayed quantity of a Reserve Order is ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders and the reserve interest is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display
Orders.\4\ Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(A) provides that on entry, the display
quantity of a Reserve Order must be entered in round lots and the
displayed portion of a Reserve Order will be replenished following any
execution. That rule further provides that the Exchange will display
the full size of the Reserve Order when the unfilled quantity is less
than the minimum display size for the order. Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(B)
provides that each time a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve
interest, a new working time is assigned to the replenished quantity of
the Reserve Order, while the reserve interest retains the working time
of original order entry. Pursuant to Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C), a Reserve
Order must be designated Day and may be combined with an Arca Only
Order or a Primary Pegged Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The terms ``Priority 2--Display Orders'' and ``Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders'' are defined in Rule 7.36-E(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.31-E(d)(2) defines a ``Limit Non-Displayed Order,'' which is
a Limit Order that is not displayed and does not route. Rule 7.31-
E(e)(1) defines an ``Arca Only Order,'' which is a Limit Order that
does not route.
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Order Type Names
    The Exchange proposes non-substantive amendments to Rules 7.31-E
and 7.46-E to re-name the ``Arca Only Order'' as the ``Non-Routable
Limit Order.'' This proposed rule change is based on the term used by
the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') for the
same order type.
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to Rules
7.31-E and 7.46-E to re-name the ``Limit Non-Displayed Order'' as the
``Non-Displayed Limit Order.'' The Exchange believes that this proposed
rule change would conform the style of this order type with the name
``Non-Routable Limit Order.'' The Exchange therefore believes that this
proposed rule change would promote clarity and consistency in its
rules.
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Reserve Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) to change the
manner by which the display portion of a Reserve Order would be
replenished. As proposed, rather than replenishing the display quantity
following any execution, the Exchange proposes to replenish the Reserve
Order when the display quantity is decremented to below a round lot.
The changes that the Exchange is proposing to Rule 7.31 relating to
Reserve Orders (and Primary Pegged Orders) are identical to changes
that were recently approved for the Exchange's affiliate, New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\5\ In addition, the proposed changes to
how Reserve Orders would be replenished are consistent with how Reserve
Orders are replenished on other equity exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83768 (August 3,
2018), 83 FR 39488 (August 9, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-26) (Approval
Order).
    \6\ See Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rule 11.9(c)(1);
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 7503(h).

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

    As is currently the case, the replenish quantity would be the
minimum display size of the order or the remaining quantity of reserve
interest if it is less than the minimum display quantity. To reflect
this functionality, the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(A)
would be amended as follows (deleted text bracketed; new text italic):
    (A) On entry, the display quantity of a Reserve Order must be
entered in round lots. The displayed portion of a Reserve Order will be
replenished when the display quantity is decremented to below a round
lot. The replenish quantity will be the minimum display quantity of the
order or the remaining quantity of the reserve interest if it is less
than the minimum display quantity [following any execution. The
Exchange will display the full size of the Reserve Order when the
unfilled quantity is less than the minimum display size for the order].
    Under current functionality, because the replenished quantity is
assigned a new working time, it is feasible for a single Reserve Order
to have multiple replenished quantities with separate working times,
each, a ``child'' order. The proposed change to limit when a Reserve
Order would be replenished to when the display quantity is decremented
to below a round lot only would reduce the number of child orders for a
Reserve Order. The Exchange believes that minimizing the number of
child orders for a Reserve Order would reduce the potential for market
participants to detect that a child order displayed on the Exchange's
proprietary market data feeds is associated with a Reserve Order.
    In most cases, the maximum number of child orders for a Reserve
Order would be two. For example, assume a Reserve Order to buy has a
display quantity of 100 shares and an additional 200 shares of reserve
interest. A sell order of 50 shares would trade with the display
quantity of such Reserve Order, which would decrement the display
quantity to 50 shares. As proposed, the Exchange would then replenish
the Reserve Order with 100 shares from the reserve interest, i.e., the
minimum display size for the order. After this second replenishment,
the Reserve Order would have two child orders, one for 50 shares, the
other for 100 shares, each with different working times.
    Generally, when there are two child orders, the older child order
of less than a round lot will be executed before the second child
order. However, there are limited circumstances when a Reserve Order
could have two child orders that equal less than a round lot, which, as
proposed, would trigger a replenishment. For such circumstance, the
Exchange proposes that when a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve
interest and already has two child orders that equal less than a round
lot, the child order with the later working time would be reassigned
the new working time assigned to the next replenished quantity.
    For example, taking the same Reserve Order as above:
     If 100 shares of such order (``A'') are routed on arrival,
it would have a display quantity of 100 shares (``B'') and 100 shares
in reserve interest.
     While ``A'' is routed, a sell order of 50 shares would
trade with ``B,'' decrementing ``B'' to 50 shares and the Reserve Order
would be replenished from reserve interest, creating a second child
order ``C'' of 100 shares.
     Next, the Exchange receives a request to reduce the size
of the Reserve Order from 300 shares to 230 shares. Because ``A'' is
still routed away and there is no reserve interest, and as described in
more detail below, this 70 share reduction in size would be applied
against the most recent child order of ``C,'' which would be reduced to
30 shares. Together with ``B,'' which would still be 50 shares, the two
displayed child orders would equal less than a round lot, but with no
quantity in reserve interest.
     Next, ``A'' is returned unexecuted, and as described
below, becomes reserve interest and is evaluated for replenishment.
Because the total display quantity (``B'' + ``C'') is less than a round
lot, this Reserve Order would be replenished. But because the Reserve
Order already has two child orders, the child order with the later
working time, ``C,'' would be returned to the reserve interest, which
would now have a quantity of 130 shares (``C'' + ``A''), and the
Reserve Order would be replenished with 100 shares from the reserve
interest with a new working time, which would be a new child order
``D.''
     After this replenishment, this Reserve Order would have
two child orders of ``B'' for 50 shares and ``D'' for 100 shares, and a
reserve interest of 30 shares.
    To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to amend current
Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(B) to specify that each display quantity of a Reserve
Order with a different working time would be referred to as a child
order. The Exchange further proposes new Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(B)(i) that
would provide that when a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve
interest and already has two child orders that equal less than a round
lot, the child order with the later working time would rejoin the
reserve interest and be assigned the new working time assigned to the
next replenished quantity.
    The Exchange also proposes new Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(B)(ii) to provide
that if a Reserve Order is not routable (i.e., is combined with either
a Non-Routable Limit Order or a Primary Pegged Order), the replenish
quantity would be assigned a display and working price consistent with
the instructions for the order, which represents current functionality.
For example, for a Non-Routable Limit Reserve Order, if the display
price would lock or cross the contra-side PBBO, the replenished
quantity would be assigned a display price one MPV worse than the PBBO
and a working price equal to the contra-side PBBO, as provided for in
Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(i).\7\ The Exchange believes that this proposed
rule text would provide transparency and clarity to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``PBBO'' is defined in Rule 1.1. The term ``MPV''
is defined in Rule 7.6-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a Primary Pegged Reserve Order, the Exchange proposes that the
replenished quantity would follow Rule 7.31-E(h)(2)(B), which provides
that a Primary Pegged Order would be rejected if the PBBO is locked or
crossed. Because a Primary Pegged Reserve Order would have resting
reserve interest, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(h)(2)(B)
to provide that if the PBBO is locked or crossed when the display
quantity of a Primary Pegged Reserve Order is replenished, the entire
order would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that cancelling the
entire order is consistent with the current rule that provides that the
entire order would be rejected on arrival if the display quantity would
lock or cross the PBBO.
    The Exchange further proposes to add new subsection (D) to Rule
7.31-E(d)(1) to describe when a Reserve Order would be routed. As
proposed, a routable Reserve Order would be evaluated for routing both
on arrival and each time the display quantity is replenished.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(D)(i) would provide that if routing is
required, the Exchange would route from reserve interest before
publishing the display quantity. In addition, if after routing, there
is less than a round lot available to display, the Exchange would wait
until the routed quantity returns (executed or unexecuted) before
publishing the display quantity. In the example described above, the
Exchange would have published the display quantity before the routed
quantity returned because the display quantity was at least a round
lot. If, however, 250

shares of a Reserve Order of 300 shares had been routed on arrival,
because the unrouted quantity was less than a round lot (50 shares),
the Exchange would wait for the routed quantity to return, either
executed or unexecuted, before publishing the display quantity.
    The Exchange proposes this functionality to reduce the possibility
for a Reserve Order to have more than one child order. If the Exchange
did not wait, and instead displayed the 50 shares when the balance of
the Reserve Order has routed, if the 250 shares returns unexecuted,
such Reserve Order would be replenished and would have two child
orders--one for the 50 shares that was displayed when the order was
entered and a second for the 100 shares that replenished the Reserve
Order from the quantity that returned unexecuted. By contrast, by
waiting for a report on the routed quantity, if the routed quantity was
not executed, the Exchange would display the minimum display quantity
as a single child order. If the routed quantity was executed, the
Exchange would display the 50 shares, but only because that would be
the full remaining quantity of the Reserve Order.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(D)(ii) would provide that any quantity
of a Reserve Order that is returned unexecuted would join the working
time of the reserve interest, which is current functionality. If there
is no quantity of reserve interest to join, the returned quantity would
be assigned a new working time as reserve interest. As further
proposed, in either case, such reserve interest would replenish the
display quantity as provided for in Rules 7.31(d)(1)(A) and (B). The
Exchange believes that this proposed rule text would promote
transparency and clarity in Exchange rules. The Exchange further
believes it is appropriate for a returned quantity of a Reserve Order
to join the reserve interest first because the order may not be
eligible for a replenishment to the display quantity.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(E) would provide that a request to
reduce in size a Reserve Order would cancel the reserve interest before
canceling the display quantity and if there is more than one child
order, the child order with the later working time would be cancelled
first. This represents current functionality and the example set forth
above demonstrates how this would function. The Exchange believes that
canceling reserve interest before a child order would promote the
display of liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange further believes that
canceling a later-timed child order would respect the time priority of
the first child order, and any priority such child order may have for
allocations.
Additional Proposed Rule Changes
    The Exchange proposes additional non-substantive amendments to its
rules to remove inoperative rule text.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35-E (Auctions) to
remove Commentary .02, which sets forth rules that were operative no
later than February 28, 2018. Because the amendments described in that
Commentary .02 have been implemented, Commentary .02 is now moot and
can be deleted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82140 (November 21,
2017), 82 FR 56304 (November 28, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-133)
(Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to add temporary rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.39-E (Adjustment of
Open Orders) to delete the title and text of the rule and designate the
rule ``Reserved.'' Rule 7.39-E relates to the adjustment of open
orders, i.e., orders with a Good Till Cancelled (``GTC'') or Good Till
Date (``GTD'') time-in-force modifier. On Pillar, the Exchange does not
offer GTC or GTD time-in-force modifiers.\9\ When the Exchange deleted
its pre-Pillar order type rules, it inadvertently did not delete Rule
7.39-E.\10\ Because this rule is now inoperative, the Exchange proposes
to delete it as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76267 (October 26,
2015), 80 FR 66951 (October 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-56)
(Approval Order).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79078 (October 11,
2016), 81 FR 71559 (October 17, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-135) (Notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule
changes relating to Reserve Orders, the Exchange will announce by
Trader Update when these changes will be implemented, which the
Exchange anticipates will be in the third quarter of 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\12\ 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to replenish a
Reserve Order only if the display quantity is decremented to below a
round lot would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it would
reduce the number of child orders associated with a single Reserve
Order. By reducing the number of child orders, the Exchange believes it
would reduce the potential for market participants to detect that a
child order is associated with a Reserve Order. The proposed changes to
Reserve Orders and Primary Pegged Orders are identical to recently
approved changes to the rules of its affiliated exchange, NYSE, and how
a Reserve Order would be replenished is also consistent with how
Reserve Orders function on BZX and Nasdaq.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra notes 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the Exchange believes that if a Reserve Order
has two child orders that equal less than a round lot, it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system to assign a new working time to the later
child order so that when such Reserve Order is replenished, it would
have a maximum of only two child orders. The Exchange believes that
this proposed change would streamline the operation of Reserve Orders
and meet the objective to reduce the potential for market participants
to be able to identify that a child order is associated with a Reserve
Order.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change to
evaluate a Reserve Order for routing both on arrival and when
replenishing would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it would
reduce the potential for the display quantity of a Reserve Order to
lock or cross the PBBO of an away market. The Exchange further believes
that routing from reserve interest would promote the display of
liquidity on the Exchange, because if there is at least a round lot
remaining of a Reserve Order that is not routed, the Exchange would
display that quantity. The Exchange also believes that it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system to wait to display a Reserve Order if there is
less than a round lot remaining after routing

because it would reduce the potential for such Reserve Order to have
more than one child order. Finally, the Exchange believes that joining
any quantity of a Reserve Order that is returned unexecuted with
reserve interest first would be consistent with the proposed
replenishment logic that a Reserve Order would be replenished only if
the display quantity is decremented to below a round lot.
    The Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system to apply a request to reduce in size a Reserve Order to the
reserve interest first, and then next to the child order with the later
working time, because such functionality would promote the display of
liquidity on the Exchange and honor the priority of the first child
order with the earlier working time. The Exchange believes that
including this existing functionality in Rule 7.31-E would promote
transparency and clarity in Exchange rules.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Primary Pegged
Reserve Orders would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system because similar to
how a Primary Pegged Order would function on arrival, if the replenish
quantity of a Primary Pegged Reserve Order would lock or cross the
PBBO, the entire Reserve Order would be cancelled. The Exchange
believes that by cancelling the entire order, the Exchange would reduce
the potential for such order to be displayed at a price that would lock
or cross the PBBO.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive amendments
to rename the ``Limit Non-Displayed Order'' as the ``Non-Displayed
Limit Order'' and to rename the ``Arca Only Order'' as the ``Non-
Routable Limit Order'' would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed changes are designed to promote clarity and
consistency in Exchange rules by moving the modifier describing the
function of the order type before the term ``Limit Order'' and using
order type names that are used on NYSE American.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that removing inoperative rule text
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because these proposed rule
changes would promote clarity in Exchange rules.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed
rule change to Reserve Orders is designed to reduce the potential for
market participants to identify that a child order is related to a
Reserve Order. The additional proposed rule changes are non-substantive
and are designed to promote clarity and consistency in Exchange rules.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) Impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2018-61 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-NYSEArca-2018-61. 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-NYSEArca-2018-61 and should
be submitted on or before September 25, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19059 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"Jeff Hannapel"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>10/12/2007 03:31 PM	To Rhonda Minnick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA cc Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Jeet Radia"  <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Christian Richter"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>bcc

Subject Mercury Switch Removal Requirement for Foundry Area Source Rule 	 	 	History:	 This message has been replied to.

Rhonda & Conrad,

Thank you very much for taking the time to discuss the mercury switch removal program and its applicability in the iron and steel foundry area source rule.  We certainly appreciate your willingness to address this  issue and would like to get acknowledgement from OSW that there is an appropriate and constructive rationale for a phase-in for the mercury switch removal requirement in the foundry area source rule. Our view is that additional implementation time would not diminish the value and effectiveness of the national mercury switch removal program.  Because the public comment period does end on November 1, 2007, anything that you can do to resolve this  issue within the next two weeks would be appreciated

As we noted on the call, the American Foundry Society (AFS) supports the efforts to remove mercury switches from the scrap metal supply chain, the currently proposed provisions in the area source rule may end up being inadvertently and unnecessarily onerous on the foundry industry, particularly small operations.  It is our understanding that this same provision is included in proposed area source rules for much larger steel producing facilities that have substantially great market power as  customers in the scrap supply chain.  As more scrap suppliers implement this new regulatory requirement to meet the demands of larger steel producers, foundries will have more options to purchase scrap from EPA-approved scrap suppliers.

We look forward to working with you and thank you again for your attention to this matter.  If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Christian or me.  Thanks.

Jeff

Jeffery S. Hannapel

The Policy Group

202-457-0630 (Washington Office)

240-499-8105 (Maryland Office)

202-257-3756 (Mobile)


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43627]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J.
Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kevin L. Hannes as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-15821 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77469-77470]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC15-52-000.
    Applicants: Badger Creek Limited, Double C Generation Limited
Partnership, High Sierra Limited, Kern Front Limited.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Badger
Creek Limited, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20141212-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG15-27-000.
    Applicants: KMC Thermo, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status for KMC Thermo, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20141212-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER13-1139-008; ER14-2630-001.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC, Regulus Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of
Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC and Regulus Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2154-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2014-12-15_RPU Compliance
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-567-001.
    Applicants: NiGen, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 10, 2014 NiGen, LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 12/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20141212-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-624-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Modifications to San Juan Project Participation Agreement to be
effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-625-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Termination of
Rate Schedule Designation of Rate Schedule 171 to be effective 7/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-626-000.
    Applicants: North Energy Power, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Baseline new to be
effective 12/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-627-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Pleasant Hill SGIA Third Amendment to be effective 11/30/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-628-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and
Distribution Service Agmt with Wind Stream Operations, LLC to be
effective 12/9/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-629-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 4055; Queue No. Z2-082 to be effective
11/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-630-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revisions to Attachment AE (MPL) Section 4.1 to be effective 2/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-631-000.
    Applicants: Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Market Based Rate Tariff
to be effective 2/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-632-000.
    Applicants: CID Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Baseline--CID Solar,
LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 12/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES13-49-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to July 30, 2014 Application to amend
existing FPA Section 204 authority of Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20141212-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-2-000.
    Applicants: National Grid USA, Nantucket Electric Company, The
Narragansett Electric Company, New England Power Company, Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation, New England Hydro-Transmission Electric,
National Grid Generation LLC.
    Description: Amendment to October 31, 2014 Application of National
Grid USA, on behalf of Nantucket Electric Company, et al., for
Authority to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 12/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20141212-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 15, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30205 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P