1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR STANDARD FORM 83 I PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) TITLE AND NUMBER OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Modifications to Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Including Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Regarding Previously Certified Gasoline. Current OMB control number is 2060 0277. The EPA number for these modifications is 1591.12.

( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION Section 211( k) of the Clean Air Act (" Act") mandates a complex reformulated gasoline program requiring that reformulated gasoline ( RFG) which meets various requirements be exclusively sold in nine statutory control areas and in other ozone nonattainment areas that " opt in" to the reformulated gasoline program. The Act also requires EPA to regulate the production and sale of conventional gasoline ( non RFG) throughout the rest of the country. Refiners and importers of gasoline are required to demonstrate compliance by conducting sampling and testing of the gasoline and reporting the results to EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The burden and cost estimates in this ICR are those costs associated with modifications to the final rule establishing standards and requirements for reformulated and conventional gasoline pursuant to § 211( k) of the Act. Previous ICRs have covered start up costs and other record keeping, reporting, and testing requirements associated with the final rule.

One of the revisions in today's rule, regarding previously certified gasoline ( PCG), provides industry with greater flexibility regarding certain gasoline processing activities, but necessitates some additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for refiners who avail themselves of this flexibility.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION The basic need and authority for the collection of information have been established in the ICR for the RFG final rule. Section 211( k) of the Act specifically provides that 2 recordkeeping and sampling and testing requirements are among the tools EPA may use in enforcement of the provisions of § 211( k) and also provides that EPA must develop an enforceable scheme. Sections 114 and 208 of the Act authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the Act. The additional information collection required in these revisions to the RFG final rule are necessary to ensure that regulated parties comply with the standards and limitations of the rules for RFG and conventional gasoline.

( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA The practical utility and use of the collection of information under the RFG rule generally has been established in the ICR for the RFG final rule. The information collection requirements associated with the provisions for PCG are necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the increased flexibility allowed by these provisions will not result in any environmental degradation.

The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, will be the governmental users of the information contained in this information collection. In addition, the required information collection is necessary for parties to track their own compliance with applicable standards.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) NONDUPLICATION The information collection is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the Agency and is not available from other sources. The collection activities associated with these revisions are approved under the ICR for the final RFG rule.

( b) CONSULTATIONS Representatives from the affected industry have participated in the development process regarding the revisions in this action. The primary industry contacts are representatives of the National Petrochemical & Refining Association and the American Petroleum Institute.

Public comments on this action will be addressed in the final rulemaking package. 3 ( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION If the relevant information were to be collected less frequently, EPA would not be reasonably assured that the refiner is in compliance with the standards for RFG and conventional gasoline.

( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES The general guidelines for the collection of information pursuant to the RFG rule are approved in the ICR for the final RFG rule.

( e) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ( i) Confidentiality Any information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA regulations at 40 C. F. R. 2.201 et. seq.

( ii) Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable as this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) RESPONDENTS/ SIC CODES Respondents are refiners ( 2911) of RFG and conventional gasoline. There are approximately 230 refiners of RFG and conventional gasoline. Much of the required information collection is generated and currently maintained in the normal course of business. Without the required information, EPA will be unable to ensure compliance with the RFG and conventional gasoline standards.

( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items, Including Record keeping Requirements The provisions providing flexibility with regard to PCG require refiners to maintain documents of test results and documents that reflect the storage and movement of the PCG to the point it is used to produce gasoline, and to report the volume and properties of the PCG to EPA. Requirements for testing batches blended with PCG would be no different than the 4 requirements for testing other batches of gasoline. These provisions, however, will allow industry the flexibility to blend more batches of gasoline.

( ii) Respondent Activities The information collection activities for recordkeeping and reporting are as described in the approved ICR for the RFG final rule.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES The number of batch reports submitted by refiners should increase only slightly, thereby increasing the burden on the Agency to review and analyze additional data to an insignificant degree.

( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT There are no significant changes to the collection methodologies in the ICR for the RFG final rule anticipated as a result of these revisions to the rule.

( c) SMALL BUSINESS FLEXIBILITY This rule will allow all refiners, including small business refiners, to use conventional gasoline to produce RFG and to reclassify RFG with regard to VOC designation, activities which are currently prohibited. Any increase in the information collection requirements necessitated by the increased flexibility associated with the use of PCG will be more than offset by the savings to refiners and importers resulting from this additional flexibility.

( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE The collection schedule contained in the ICR for the RFG final rule would apply to the information collection in these proposed revisions.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN It is unknown to what extent industry will use the option 5 for PCG. However, annual recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessitated by the provision for PCG are estimated to be only slightly more burdensome than the requirements associated with other forms of gasoline blending and refining ( approximately 3 minutes per batch.) It should be noted that there is no requirement to use PCG for blending gasoline. The provision for using PCG is included in the regulations at the request of industry to provide industry with additional flexibility in blending gasoline. The increased recordkeeping/ reporting burden is insignificant when compared to the savings which industry would derive from the increased flexibility that the provisions for PCG provide. The amount of time required to test batches blended with PCG should be no more than the amount of time required to test other batches of gasoline.

( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COST The cost of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the provision for PCG is estimated to be only slightly greater than the burden associated with other forms of gasoline blending ( approximately $ 1.50 per batch, assuming 3 min/ report @ $ 30/ hr.) The extent to which industry will use the provision for PCG is unknown. The estimate in this ICR is based on 50 PCG batch reports per year. As noted in ( a) above, there is no requirement to use PCG for blending gasoline. The provision for PCG is included in this action at the request of industry to provide industry with additional flexibility in blending gasoline. The information collection is insignificant when compared to the savings to industry derived from the increased flexibility that the provisions for PCG provide. The cost to test a batch of gasoline blended with PCG should be no more than the cost to test any other batch of gasoline.

There are no capital/ start up costs and negligible O& M costs associated with this information collection.

( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Insignificant additional Agency costs are anticipated with regard to the provisions for PCG.

( d) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS The bottom line burden hours and costs for the respondents are as given in the table below:

TABLE 1. Refiner/ Importer Information Collection 6 Information Collection Activity Mgr. $ 58/ hr Tech. $ 32/ hr Cler. $ 19/ hr Resp. Hr/ Yr Labor Cost/ Yr Capital Startup Cost O& M Cost No. of Resp. Total Hr/ Yr Total Cost/ Yr PCG Reporting 0 2.10 .40 2.50 $ 75 0 Negl. 230 575 $ 17,250 ( e) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN These changes to the existing ICR for the RFG final rule are to ensure compliance with the RFG regulations and provide adequate enforcement tools. The analysis in previous sections outlines as necessary the changes from the current ICR.

( f) BURDEN STATEMENT The annual reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average:

Two and one half hours ($ 75) for record keeping/ reporting for a refiner who uses the PCG option.

Burden means 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. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, OIC, OEI, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence ( currently valid OMB 2060 0277). Do not send completed forms to the address. 7 The collection of information informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: ( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been collected; ( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the Agency; ( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the Agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); ( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit, or mandatory ( under sections 211( k), 208 and 114 of the Clean Air Act); ( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any, under 40 CFR Part 2; and ( vi) the fact that an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in the data collection associated with the reformulated and anti dumping regulations.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27942-27943]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2067-060]

Tri-Dam Project; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).
    b. Project No: 2067-060.
    c. Date Filed: April 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Tri-Dam Project.
    e. Name of Project: Tulloch Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the main stem of the
Stanislaus River in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Susan Larson, Tri-Dam Project, P.O. Box 1158,
Pinecrest, CA 95364-0158,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: June 11, 2015.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and four copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-2067-060) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Proposal: Tri-Dam filed its proposed SMP pursuant
to article 411 of its license. The proposed SMP provides an inventory
of sensitive environmental resources within the project boundary
(natural and cultural), maps of sensitive zones that should be afforded
extra protection, strategies to protect these areas from inappropriate
encroachment, and provisions for informing private shoreline landowners
about the importance of protecting the zones identified as having
sensitive environmental resources.
    Private property owners hold fee title to real property which is
adjacent to, abuts, and lies underneath portions of Tulloch Reservoir.
Tri-Dam's proposed SMP affects only lands owned or controlled by the
licensee. Property rights on privately-owned land are not being altered
by this proceeding.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2067) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: May 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11772 Filed 5-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3317-3319]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 121113624-2624-01]
RIN 0694-AF82

Removal of Persons From the Entity List Based on Removal Request;
Implementation of Entity List Annual Review Changes; and Implementation
of Modifications and Corrections to the Entity List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
by removing two persons from the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part
744), as the result of a request for removal submitted by these two
persons. In addition, on the basis of the annual review conducted by
the End User Review Committee, this rule amends the Entity List to
remove two entries from the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). Finally,
this rule modifies two existing entries to correct the scope of those
entries, including removing a redundant entry that was inadvertently
added in a final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User
Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export
Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) notifies the public
about entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an
increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported, or transferred
(in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since
its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have
expanded to activities sanctioned by the State Department and
activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy
interests, including terrorism and export control violations involving
abuse of human rights. Certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-
country) to entities identified on the Entity List require licenses
from BIS and are usually subject to a policy of denial. The
availability of license exceptions in such transactions is very
limited. The license review policy for each entity is identified in the
License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the availability of
license exceptions is published in the Federal Register notices adding
persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List
based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and
End-Use Based) of the EAR.
    The End-user Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of
the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where
appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to,
removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes
all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and
all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

ERC Entity List Decisions

Removal From the Entity List

    This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove two persons,
Laurence Mattiucci and Toulouse Air Spares SAS, both located in France,
from the Entity List as a result of a successful request for removal
from the Entity List. Based upon the review of the information provided
in the removal request in accordance with Sec.  744.16 (Procedure for
requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity), and after
review by the ERC's member agencies, the ERC determined that these
persons should be removed from the Entity List.
    The ERC's decision to remove these two persons took into account
their cooperation with the U.S. Government, as well as their assurances
of future compliance with the EAR. In accordance with Sec.  744.16(c),
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent
written notification to these two persons, informing these entities of
the ERC's decision to remove them from the Entity List. This final rule
implements the decision to remove the following two persons from the
Entity List:

France

    (1) Laurence Mattiucci, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel,
Toulouse, France; and
    (2) Toulouse Air Spares SAS, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel,
Toulouse, France.

Annual Review of the Entity List

    This rule also amends the Entity List on the basis of the annual
review of the Entity List conducted by the ERC, in accordance with the
procedures outlined in Supplement No. 5 to part 744 (Procedures for
End-User Review Committee Entity List Decisions). The changes from the
annual review of the Entity List that are approved by the ERC are
implemented in stages as the ERC completes its review of entities
listed under different destinations on the Entity List. This rule
implements the results of the annual review for entities located in the
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). The entities located Armenia, Cyprus,
France, and Iran were also reviewed by the ERC, but no additional
changes are being made to those entries as a result of the annual
review of the Entity List.

Removals From the Entity List on the Basis of Annual Reviews

    This rule removes two entries from the Entity List on the basis of
the annual review of the Entity List. The persons removed were
determined to no longer meet the criteria for inclusion on the Entity
List. Specifically, this rule implements the decision of the ERC to
remove two persons located in the U.A.E., as follows:

United Arab Emirates

    (1) Abubakr Abuelazm, Dubai, U.A.E., 500100; and
    (1) Advanced Technology General Trading Company, a.k.a, Advanced
Technologies Emirates FZ-LLC, Office 124 1st Floor, Building
3, Dell Building, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai Internet City,
Dubai, U.A.E.
    The removal of the above-referenced two entities on the basis of
annual review of the Entity List, and the removal of the two entities
referenced

above on the basis of a Sec.  744.16 removal request that was approved
by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement
No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to
these four entities. However, the removal of these four entities from
the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under
part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the
removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity
List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations
under General Prohibition 5 in Sec.  736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which
provides that, ``you may not, without a license, knowingly export or
reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is
prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.'' Additionally, these removals do
not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport,
or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the
EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the
EAR, ``BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,'' when
persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Modifications and Corrections to the Entity List

    On October 9, 2012, BIS published a final rule, ``Addition of
Certain Persons to the Entity List'' in the Federal Register (77 FR
61249). This rule amends the Entity List by revising one entry added on
October 9 under Finland and by removing one redundant entry under
Russia. Specifically, the spelling of the ``Olkerboy Oy'' entry under
Finland is corrected to ``Olkebor Oy'' and the ``Bolshaya
Semenovskaya'' entry under Russia is removed. This rule revises the
Olkerboy Oy entry under Finland, as follows:

Finland

    (1) Olkebor Oy/Nurminen Oy, 231B Vanha Porvoontie, Vantaa, Finland
01380.
    This rule also removes the Bolshaya Semenovskaya entry under
Russia:

Russia

    (1) Bolshaya Semenovskaya 40/505, Moscow, Russia 107023; and Ulitsa
Metallurgov, 29, Str. 1, Komnata Pravleni, Moscow, Russia 111401.

Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception
or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this
regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of
export or reexport, on January 16, 2013, pursuant to actual orders for
export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that
destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or
export or reexport without a license (NLR).
    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15,
2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16, 2012), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the
Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by the OMB under control numbers 0694-
0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour
estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. This
rule does not alter any information collection requirements; therefore,
total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-
0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may
send comments regarding the collection of information associated with
this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K.
Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment, and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function
of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The U.S. Government's
original basis for adding the entities affected by this rule to the
Entity List was the entities' involvement in activities contrary to
U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. BIS implements this
rule to further protect U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported or
transferred (in-country) to these persons listed on the Entity List and
by ensuring that potential transactions with individuals no longer
listed on the Entity List are not turned away to the detriment of U.S.
economic interests. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and
comment and a 30-day delay in effective date, there is a chance that
certain exporters, reexporters, and persons making transfers (in-
country) to this listed person may inadvertently export, reexport or
transfer (in-country) to Olkebor Oy/Nurminen Oy because the exporter,
reexporter or person making the transfer (in-country) did not realize
the listed person was subject to the Entity List-based license
requirement. There is also a chance an exporter, reexporter, or person
making a transfer (in-country) may turn away a potential export,
reexport, or transfer (in-country) because the customer remained a
listed person on the Entity List after the ERC approved removal,
thereby harming U.S. economic interests. The correction and removals
provided in this rule may make clear that the persons are no longer
subject to Entity List-based license requirements. For these reasons,
there is a public interest that these changes be implemented as a final
action. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed
rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this
rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22

U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179;
E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59
FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of January 19, 2012, 77 FR 3067
(January 20, 2012) Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August
16, 2012); Notice of September 11, 2012, 77 FR 56519 (September, 12,
2012); Notice of November 1, 2012, 77 FR 66513 (November 5, 2012).

0
2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended:
0
a. By removing under Finland the Finnish entity ``Olkerboy Oy/Nurminen
Oy'', and adding in alphabetical order, one Finnish entity for Olkebor
Oy/Nurminen Oy'';
0
b. By removing under France, the two French entities: ``Laurence
Mattiucci, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel, Toulouse, France.''
and ``Toulouse Air Spares SAS, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel,
Toulouse, France.'';
0
c. By removing under Russia, the Russian entity: ``Bolshaya
Semenovskaya, 40/505, Moscow, Russia 107023; and Ulitsa Metallurgov,
29, Str. 1, Komnata Pravleni, Moscow, Russia 111401.''; and
0
d. By removing under United Arab Emirates, the two Emirati entities:
``Abubakr Abuelazm, Dubai, U.A.E., 500100.'' and ``Advanced Technology
General Trading Company, a.k.a, Advanced Technologies Emirates FZ-LLC,
Office 124 1st Floor, Building 3, Dell Building,
Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai Internet City, Dubai, U.A.E.''
    The addition reads as follows:

                                    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            License         License review     Federal Register
            Country                     Entity            requirement           policy             citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
            Finland

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                 Olkebor Oy/Nurminen  For all items       Presumption of      77 FR 61256, 10/9/
                                  Oy, 231B Vanha       subject to the      denial.             2012. 78 FR
                                  Porvoontie,          EAR. (See Sec.                          [INSERT FR PAGE
                                  Vantaa, Finland      744.11 of the                           NUMBER] 1/16/13.
                                  01380.               EAR).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 10, 2013.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-00767 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68709-68715]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98625; File No. SR-IEX-2023-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rules 11.190(b)(7) and 11.190(g)

September 28, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 27, 2023, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is
filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend IEX Rules
11.190(b)(7) and 11.190(g) to modify the quote instability calculation
used for Discretionary Limit orders. The Exchange has designated this
proposal as non-controversial and provided the Commission with the
notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend IEX Rules
11.190(b)(7) and 11.190(g) to change which proprietary mathematical
calculation is used to make quote instability determinations for
Discretionary Limit (``D-Limit'') \7\ orders (i.e., to assess the
probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB to a
lower price or a Protected NBO to a higher price for a particular
security, also referred to as the ``crumbling quote indicator'' or
``CQI'').\8\ Currently, IEX supports two versions of the CQI--Option 1
Crumbling Quote \9\ (which is based on the CQI in effect when IEX began
operating as a national securities exchange in 2016) (``CQI 1'') and
Option 2 Crumbling Quote \10\ (which was recently adopted \11\) (``CQI
2''). Users \12\ submitting the following types of pegged orders--
Discretionary Peg (``D-Peg'') \13\ orders, primary peg (``P-Peg'') \14\
orders, and Corporate Discretionary Peg (``C-Peg'') \15\ orders
(collectively ``CQI-enhanced pegged orders'')--have the option of
selecting either CQI 1 or CQI 2 to make quote instability
determinations. CQI 1 is used to make quote instability determinations
for D-Limit orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7).
    \8\ A D-Limit order may be a displayed or non-displayed limit
order that upon entry and when posting to the Order Book is priced
to be equal to and ranked at the order's limit price, but will be
adjusted to a less-aggressive price during periods of quote
instability, as defined in IEX Rule 11.190(g).
    \9\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1).
    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96014 (October 11,
2022), 87 FR 62903 (October 17, 2022) (``CQI 2 Proposal'');
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96416 (December 1, 2022), 87 FR
75099 (December 7, 2022) (``CQI 2 Approval Order'') (SR-IEX-2022-
06).
    \12\ See IEX Rule 1.160(qq).
    \13\ See Rule 11.190(b)(10).
    \14\ See Rule 11.190(b)(8).
    \15\ See Rule 11.190(b)(16). Note that C-Peg orders can only be
buy orders, so any discussion of D-Peg sell orders does not apply to
C-Peg orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX proposes to utilize CQI 2, instead of CQI 1, to make quote
instability determinations for D-Limit orders, based on its superior
performance as described herein.
Background
    D-Limit orders are designed to protect liquidity providers from
potential adverse selection by latency arbitrage trading strategies in
a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.\16\ A D-Limit order may be a
displayed or non-displayed limit order that upon entry and when posting
to the Order Book \17\ is priced to be equal to and ranked at the
order's limit price, but will be adjusted to a less-aggressive price
during periods of quote instability, as defined in IEX Rule
11.190(g).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87814 (December 20,
2019), 84 FR 71997, 71998 (December 30, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-15) (``D-
Limit Proposal''); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
89686 (August 26, 2020), 85 FR 54438 (September 1, 2020) (SR-IEX-
2019-15) (``D-Limit Approval Order'').
    \17\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
    \18\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(7)(A) and (B) and 11.190(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, if the System \19\ receives a D-Limit buy (sell)
order during a period of quote instability (i.e., when a quote
instability determination is in effect and the CQI is ``on''), and the
D-Limit order has a limit price equal to or higher (lower) than the
quote instability determination price level (``CQI Price''), the price
of the order will be automatically adjusted by the System to one (1)
MPV \20\ lower (higher) than the CQI Price (the ``effective limit
price''). Similarly, when unexecuted shares of a D-Limit buy (sell)
order are posted to the Order Book, if a quote instability
determination is made and such shares are ranked and displayed (in the
case of a displayed order) by the System at a price equal to or higher
(lower) than the CQI Price, the price of the order will be
automatically adjusted by the System to a price one MPV lower (higher)
than the quote instability price level.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 1.160(nn).
    \20\ See IEX Rule 11.210.
    \21\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the price of a D-Limit order that has been posted to the Order
Book is automatically adjusted by the System, the order will continue
to be ranked and displayed (in the case of a displayed order) at the
adjusted price, unless subject to another automatic adjustment, if the
order is subject to the price sliding provisions of IEX Rule 11.190(h),
or if the User elects that the order will be re-priced if resting at a
price that is less aggressive than the NBB (for a buy order) or NBO
(for a sell order) ten (10) milliseconds after the most recent quote
instability determination pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7)(E)(i).
Otherwise, a D-Limit order operates in the same manner as either a
displayed or non-displayed limit order, as applicable.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the launch of the D-Limit order type in October 2020, IEX has
regularly assessed its performance. This assessment substantiates that
D-Limit orders experience enhanced protection (as compared to regular
limit orders) from unfavorable executions at prices that the Exchange's
probabilistic CQI model predicts are about to become ``stale.'' In the
rule filing proposing to adopt the D-Limit order type, IEX noted that
approximately 25% of displayed volume occurred when the CQI was on, in
aggregate resulting in less favorable markouts \23\ for such executions
than

when CQI was off. This remains the case for displayed volume from
regular limit orders that trade during periods of quote instability.
The D-Limit order type was designed to solve for this issue and has
been successful in this regard. Since its launch, less than 1% of
displayed volume from D-Limit orders occurs when the CQI is on.\24\ As
a result, users of displayed D-Limit orders experience substantially
more favorable markouts than users of regular displayed limit orders,
as shown in the chart below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Markouts measure the direction and degree to which the
market moved after an execution, and are often measured as the
difference between the execution price and the midpoint of the NBBO
at various time intervals after a trade. Markouts are typically used
as a way to measure the ``quality'' of a trade. In particular,
short-term markouts of several milliseconds after the time of
execution, are often used to assess whether an order was subject to
``adverse selection'' that can occur when a liquidity providing
order is executed at a price that was about to become stale as a
result of certain speed-based trading strategies.
    \24\ These executions occur when D-Limit buy (sell) orders are
adjusted 1 MPV lower (higher) than the CQI Price but are still
executed against an Intermarket Sweep Order (ISO), which accesses
multiple price levels at a time, therefore accessing the D-Limit
order at its new, more passive, price.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04OC23.018

Overview of CQI Models
    As noted above, IEX supports two versions of the CQI. Currently, D-
Limit orders utilize the CQI 1 version of the CQI for making quote
instability determinations. In determining whether a crumbling quote
exists, CQI 1 utilizes real time relative quoting activity of eight
exchanges' Protected Quotations \25\ and a proprietary mathematical
calculation (the ``quote instability calculation'') to assess the
probability of an imminent change to the current Protected NBB \26\ to
a lower price or Protected NBO \27\ to a higher price for a particular
security (``quote instability factor'') during the Regular Market
Session.\28\ When the quoting activity meets the predefined objective
conditions specified in IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1) and the quote instability
factor calculated is greater than the Exchange's defined threshold
(``quote instability threshold''), the System treats the NBB or NBO as
not stable (``quote instability'' or a ``crumbling quote''), which
turns the CQI on at that CQI Price. During all other times, the quote
is considered stable (``quote stability'') and the CQI is off. The
System independently assesses the stability of the Protected NBB and
Protected NBO for each security.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Each exchange's Protected Quotation is its best displayed
bid or offer. See Rule 1.160(bb). Current Rule 11.190(g) uses the
following eight exchanges' Protected Quotations: New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``XNYS''), the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``XNGS''),
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCX''), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``XBOS''), Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc. (``BATY''), Cboe Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'').
    \26\ See Rule 1.160(cc).
    \27\ See Rule 1.160(cc).
    \28\ See IEX Rule 1.160(gg). Quote instability assessments are
only made by the Exchange System during the Regular Market Session
because the order types that utilize the assessment, such as D-
Limit, are only eligible to trade during the Regular Market Session.
    \29\ The quote stability variables, fixed coefficients and
formula were developed by the Exchange based on extensive research,
analysis and validation to identify when there is a heightened
probability of an imminent quote change to the NBB or NBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When CQI 1 is on, it remains in effect at the CQI Price for two
milliseconds, unless a new determination is made before the CQI turns
off. Only one determination may be in effect at any given time for a
particular security (i.e., the System will only treat one side of the
Protected NBBO as unstable in a particular security at any given time
and the CQI can only be on at one price level).\30\ A new determination
may be made after at least 200 microseconds have elapsed since the
preceding determination, or a price change on either side of the best
displayed bid or offer of the eight exchanges used for the current
quote instability calculation occurs, whichever is first. If a new
determination is made, the original determination is no longer in
effect. A new determination can be on either side of the best displayed
bid or offer of the eight exchanges used for the current quote
instability calculation and at the same or different price level as the
original determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See IEX Rule 11.190(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CQI 2 was adopted in 2022 \31\ as an alternative for CQI-enhanced
pegged orders, and is designed to incrementally increase the coverage
\32\ of the quote instability calculation in predicting whether a
particular quote is unstable by adjusting the logic underlying the
quote instability calculation and introducing enhanced functionality
designed to increase the number of crumbling quotes identified, while
maintaining the quote instability calculation's accuracy rate \33\ in

predicting the direction and timing of the next price change in the NBB
or NBO, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 11. The Commission received no comments on
IEX's proposed rule change to adopt CQI 2.
    \32\ ``Coverage'' means the percentage of all ``adverse'' NBBO
changes per symbol (lower for bids, higher for offers) that were
predicted by the CQI (meaning the CQI was ``on'' at the time of the
adverse NBBO change).
    \33\ ``Accuracy rate'' means the percentage of time that the CQI
accurately predicted the direction of the next price change (even if
it was more than two milliseconds after the quote instability
determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, CQI 1 utilizes a logistic regression model with
multiple coefficients and variables that must exceed a pre-defined
threshold in order for the System to treat the quote as unstable. CQI
2, by contrast, utilizes a quote instability calculation in which nine
separate rules--each with specific conditions based on either the
price, size, or price and size of the Signal Exchanges'\34\ Protected
Quotations--can trigger a quote instability determination for either
the NBB or the NBO of a particular security.\35\ Specifically, CQI 2
expands the sources and types of market data used, utilizes a more
plain English rules-based approach, modifies the minimum time period
between quote instability determinations, and includes activation
thresholds to enable real-time accuracy assessment of each rule with
the effect of deactivating a rule that is not meeting specified
metrics.\36\ In addition, CQI-enhanced pegged orders are restricted
from exercising price discretion when the CQI is on, regardless of
whether the current NBB or NBO (as applicable) is the same as the CQI
Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For CQI 2, the Signal Exchanges include the eight exchanges
used in CQI 1, with the addition of MIAX PEARL, LLC (``EPRL''), MEMX
LLC (``MEMX''), and Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``XPHL'').
    \35\ See supra note 11.
    \36\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CQI 2 quote instability rules include four categories of
Protected Quotation changes (each comprised of one or more rules) as
follows:
     Disappearing bids (or offers)--This category includes four
rules that focus on whether one or more of the Signal Exchanges is no
longer disseminating a bid or offer at the Signal Best Bid \37\ or
Signal Best Offer \38\ as applicable; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ``Signal Best Bid'' means the highest Protected Bid of the
Signal Exchanges. See proposed IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2)(B)(i).
    \38\ ``Signal Best Offer'' means the lowest Protected Offer of
the Signal Exchanges. See proposed IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2)(B)(v).
    \39\ The disappearing bid/offers rules are closely related to
the Option 1 Crumbling Quote approach to the quote instability
calculation, in that both approaches share the Delta quote
instability variable, which is heavily weighted in the current quote
instability calculation. See the Option 2 Crumbling Quote Proposal,
supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Recent changes in quote size--This category includes two
rules that focus on whether there is an imbalance in the size of bids
and offers at the Signal Best Bid or Signal Best Offer;
     Locked or crossed market--This category includes one rule
that focuses on situations where the Signal Best Bid and Signal Best
Offer are locked or crossed; and
     Quotation Changes--This category includes two rules that
focus on changes to the Signal Best Bid or Signal Best Offer.
    On a security-by-security basis, if the specified conditions of any
of the quote instability rules are met, then the rule is deemed to be
True for that security. A rule must also be active (in addition to
True) before it can trigger a quote instability determination. When one
or more quote instability rules is deemed to be True and any of such
rules are active, the System will trigger a quote instability
determination and treat the quote as unstable. This approach is
designed to enable broader coverage while controlling for overall
accuracy of the quote instability determinations by providing a
mechanism to turn off a particular rule when market conditions are such
that it is relatively less accurate in predicting a crumbling quote.
Based upon market data analysis, IEX believes that utilizing activation
thresholds is a useful innovation because it enables the use of rules
that can be highly predictive in certain market conditions but not in
others.
    CQI 2 also differs from CQI 1 with respect to three different time
and direction constraints, which are designed to provide a more dynamic
methodology for quote instability determinations, thereby incrementally
increasing the coverage of the formula in predicting a crumbling quote
by expanding the scope of the model to additional situations where the
Exchange's probabilistic model predicts that the NBB or NBO is in the
process of moving to a less aggressive price and is about to become
stale.
    First, for CQI 2, the quote instability calculation can turn on
concurrently on both sides of the market (i.e., the NBB and NBO) and
always remains on for the full two millisecond period each time it
turns on. In CQI 1, the quote instability calculation independently
assesses the stability of the Protected NBB and Protected NBO for each
security, but it can only turn on for one side of the market for each
security at a time. Second, when CQI 2 turns on, it is not constrained
to a specific price level, as compared to CQI 1 which turns on at a
specific CQI Price. Thus, if the NBB or NBO (as applicable) changes
during the time CQI 1 is on, CQI-enhanced pegged orders (that have
elected CQI 1) are not constrained from exercising discretion since the
CQI Price is no longer equal to the current NBB or NBO (as
applicable).\40\ In contrast, for CQI-enhanced pegged orders (that have
elected CQI 2), the CQI continues to turn on at a specific price (the
quote instability determination price level), but CQI-enhanced pegged
orders are constrained from exercising discretion past their resting
price when the CQI is on for the same side of the market as such orders
regardless of whether the price at which it turned on is currently
equal to the NBB or NBO (as applicable). Third, for CQI 2, the System
can make a new quote instability determination 250 microseconds after a
prior determination, rather than 200 microseconds for CQI 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See IEX Rules 11.190(b)(8)(K)(i) and (ii), (b)(10)(K)(i)
and (ii), (b)(16)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX introduced CQI 2 into its System on March 31, 2023 (i.e., it
began generating quote instability determinations for informational and
planning purposes) and it became available for CQI-enhanced pegged
orders on May 16, 2023.\41\ Consistent with the Exchange's market data
analysis prior to proposing CQI 2, data analysis for April through July
of 2023 substantiates that CQI 2 provides incrementally more protection
(i.e., increased coverage and accuracy) than CQI 1 while still being
``on'' for only several seconds a day per symbol, as set forth in the
chart below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See IEX Trading Alert # 2023-008, available at https://iextrading.com/alerts/#/215.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Metric                      CQI 1               CQI 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time on \a\ (average of   1.9 seconds.......  3.1 seconds.
 all symbols).
Average time on (volume           18.0 seconds......  32.1 seconds.
 weighted).
Coverage (volume weighted) \b\..  46.9%.............  63.2%.
Accuracy Rate (volume weighted)   78%...............  80%.
 \c\.
% of the Day CQI is ``On''        0.077%............  0.137%.
 (volume-weighted).
% of the day D-Limit is           99.923%...........  99.863%.
 available at specified limit
 price.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``Time on'' means the average time the CQI is on during a day per
  symbol.

\b\ See supra note 29.
\c\ ``Accuracy'' means the percent of time that following the CQI being
  ``on'' the NBB or NBO (as applicable) moves in the predicted direction
  on the next price change.

Proposal
    Based on its assessment (as described above) that CQI 2 provides
incrementally greater coverage and accuracy in predicting a crumbling
quote than CQI 1, IEX proposes to amend IEX Rules 11.190(b)(7) and
11.190(g)(2) to provide that quote instability determinations for D-
Limit orders will utilize CQI 2. Thus, as proposed, if a D-Limit order
is resting at a price at or more aggressive than the price of a
crumbling quote determination price level in effect, it will be
adjusted to a price one MPV less aggressive than such crumbling quote
determination price level. Similarly, an incoming D-Limit order priced
at or more aggressive than the price of a crumbling quote determination
price level in effect will be adjusted to a price one MPV less
aggressive than the crumbling quote determination price level. Note
that, as distinct from CQI-enhanced pegged orders, a D-Limit order
would only be subject to a price adjustment if it is priced at or more
aggressive than the crumbling quote determination price level in
effect, while CQI-enhanced pegged orders subject to CQI 2 are
restricted from exercising price discretion past their resting price
when the CQI is on for the same side of the market as such orders
regardless of whether the price at which it turned on is currently
equal to the NBB or NBO (as applicable). IEX believes that the
difference in approach is appropriate because once the price of a D-
Limit order is adjusted it remains at that price indefinitely, unless
the Member entering the order elected to have the order re-priced after
ten (10) milliseconds if the order is resting at a price less
aggressive than the NBB or NBO (as applicable) pursuant to IEX Rule
11.190(b)(7)(E)(i) or if subject to another automatic price adjustment.
In contrast, CQI-enhanced pegged orders are only restricted from
exercising price discretion for up to two (2) milliseconds. Thus, IEX
believes that D-Limit orders should only be price adjusted relative to
the price that was actually the subject of a crumbling quote
determination.
    IEX believes that using CQI 2 will incrementally enhance the
existing protection provided by D-Limit orders by providing greater
coverage (i.e., identifying more potentially crumbling quotes) with
comparable accuracy. IEX estimated the impact of CQI 1 and CQI 2 on
standard limit order executions by simulating the markouts had the
orders been subject to the protection of CQI 1 or CQI 2. Assessment of
these executions is designed to simulate differences in adverse
selection protection from CQI 1 and CQI 2. As shown in the chart below,
both CQI 1 and CQI 2 result in improved markouts over executions
without CQI protection, but CQI 2 would have provided incrementally
enhanced protection compared to CQI 1 (as measured by markouts) because
it is better at identifying situations when adverse selection is most
likely:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04OC23.019

Specific Rule Changes
    Accordingly, IEX proposes to amend IEX Rules 11.190(b)(7)(A) and
(B) to reference to IEX Rule 11.190(g)(2) (which describes CQI 2)
rather than Rule 11.190(g)(1) (which describes CQI 1) to thereby
specify and describe that quote instability determinations for D-Limit
orders will be made by CQI 2.
    Additionally, IEX proposes to amend the first sentence of Rule
l1.190(g)(2) to add the words ``at that price level'' after the word
``effect'' and before the word ``for'' to specify that a CQI 2
determination is at a particular price level. This change is necessary
so that the price of a D-Limit will only be adjusted if at or more
aggressive than the CQI 2 quote instability determination price level,
as is currently the case with CQI 1 and as discussed above.

    Finally, IEX proposes to make a clarifying amendment to the last
sentence of the second paragraph of IEX Rule 11.190(g) to add the words
``paragraph (g)(1) of'' after the second word of the sentence to better
clarify that the limitations on the referenced terms specified therein
are applicable only to paragraph (g)(1) of IEX Rule 11.190 rather than
to the entire rule wherein such references are as defined in IEX Rule
1.160; and
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trading Alert at least ten business days in advance of
such implementation date and within ninety (90) days of effectiveness
of this rule filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \42\ of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\43\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. Specifically, and as discussed in the Purpose section,
the proposal is designed to enhance the existing protections provided
by D-Limit orders by using the SEC approved CQI 2 to make quote
instability determinations, which is designed to incrementally increase
the coverage of the quote instability calculation in predicting whether
a particular quote is unstable while maintaining the quote instability
calculation's accuracy rate in predicting the direction and timing of
the next price change in the NBB or NBO, as applicable. Because D-Limit
orders are subject to a price adjustment to one MPV less aggressive
than the CQI Price if priced at or more aggressive than the CQI Price
when the Exchange's probabilistic model identifies that such price
appears to be stale, increasing the coverage of the quote instability
calculation is designed to provide additional protection to D-Limit
orders from adverse selection associated with latency arbitrage during
those times. Moreover, IEX's market data analysis, as described in the
Purpose section evidences that, as with CQI 1, CQI 2 is ``on'' for only
a small portion of the trading day while providing robust protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may result in
more and larger sized displayed and non-displayed D-Limit orders being
entered on IEX as a result of the improved coverage and continued
accuracy of CQI 2. To the extent more orders are entered, the increased
liquidity would benefit all IEX members and their customers.
    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that all Members are eligible to
use D-Limit orders, and therefore all Members are eligible to benefit
from the proposed enhanced D-Limit's protections against adverse
selection. Thus, the Exchange believes that application of the rule
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that CQI 2 is a fixed formula
specified transparently in IEX's rules, that was previously approved by
the SEC.\44\ The Exchange is not proposing to add any new
functionality, but merely to utilize an SEC approved quote instability
calculation for D-Limit orders that is designed to increase its
coverage in predicting a crumbling quote. Thus, IEX does not believe
that the proposal raises any new or novel issues that have not already
been considered by the Commission, in that IEX's rule filings to adopt
both the D-Limit order type and CQI 2 were previously approved by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to add the
words ``paragraph (g)(1) of'' after the second word of the sentence to
better clarify that the limitations on the referenced terms specified
therein are applicable only to paragraph (g)(1) of IEX Rule 11.190
rather than to the entire rule wherein such references are as defined
in IEX Rule 1.160. This proposed change is designed to avoid any
potential confusion as to the applicability of the referenced terms.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to
amend the first sentence of Rule l11.190(g)(2) to add the words ``at
that price level'' after the word ``effect'' and before the word
``for'' to specify that an CQI 2 determination is at a particular price
level. As discussed in the Purpose section, with the proposed use of
CQI 2 to make quote instability determinations for D-Limit orders, it
is necessary to specify that each such determination will be at a
particular price.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, as discussed
in the Statutory Basis section, the proposal is designed to enhance
IEX's competitiveness by incentivizing the entry of increased
liquidity.
    With regard to intra-market competition, the proposed changes to
the quote instability calculation will apply equally to all Members on
a fair, impartial and nondiscriminatory basis without imposing any new
burdens on the Members. The Commission has already approved the
Exchange's D-Limit order type and CQI 2.\45\ As discussed in the
Purpose and Statutory Basis sections, the proposed rule change is
designed to merely utilize an SEC approved enhanced quote instability
calculation; therefore, no new burdens are being proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra notes 11 and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to inter-market competition, other exchanges are free
to adopt similar quote instability calculations. In this regard, the
Exchange notes that that NYSE American LLC has adopted a rule copying
an earlier iteration of the Exchange's Discretionary Peg Order type and
quote instability calculation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See NYSE American LLC Rule 7.31E(h)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \47\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \48\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets the
criteria

of subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 \49\ because it would not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to benefit
investors and the public interest by enhancing the existing protections
provided by D-Limit orders by using the SEC approved CQI 2 to make
quote instability determinations, as discussed in the Purpose and
Statutory Basis sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX notes (as discussed in the Statutory Basis section) that the D-
Limit order type and CQI 2 were each approved by the Commission, and
this proposed rule change merely combines these two aspects of IEX's
rules. Consistent with ``Commission Guidance and Amendment to the Rule
Relating to Organization and Program Management Concerning Proposed
Rule Changes by Self-Regulatory Organizations,'' \50\ each policy issue
raised by this proposed rule change has been previously considered by
the Commission when IEX's D-Limit order type and CQI 2 were approved
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, and the proposed rule change
resolves each such policy issue in a manner consistent with such prior
approvals. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is noncontroversial and satisfies the requirements of Rule 19b-
4(f)(6).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58092 (July 3,
2008), 73 FR 40144, 40147 (July 11, 2008).
    \51\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory
organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
    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.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \52\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-IEX-2023-10 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-IEX-2023-10. 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-IEX-2023-10 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21955 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2799-2801]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-219-AD;
Amendment 39-15332; AD 2008-02-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial
Reference Units (IRU) on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in
certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle (FPA)
indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the
flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as
important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes.

The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control
the flight path of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
 or in person at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2007 (72
FR 60599). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial
Reference Units (IRU) on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in
certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle (FPA)
indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the
flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as
important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes.

The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control
the flight path of the airplane. The corrective action is removal of
certain wiring connections in the electrical connectors of both IRUs.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Revision to Final Rule for New Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued a revision to a service bulletin identified in
the NPRM as an appropriate source of service information for the AD.
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9,
2007, incorporates an existing information notice that revises the
wiring manual reference, and adds a serial number to the effectivity of
the in-production airplanes that have an equivalent modification. We
have changed paragraphs (c) and (f) of this AD accordingly, and added a
statement in paragraph (f) giving credit for work performed in
accordance with the original version of the service bulletin.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 108 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $62 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $58,536, or $542 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2008-02-02 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-15332. Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-219-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February
20, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -
100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; and Model ERJ 190-100
STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes;
certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34:
Navigation.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial
Reference Units (IRU) on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in
certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle (FPA)
indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the
flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as
important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes.

The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control
the flight path of the airplane. The corrective action is removal of
certain wiring connections in the electrical connectors of both
IRUs.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, remove the wiring connections from pins 51 and 52 in
the electrical connectors of both IRUs, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-34-0019,
dated February 26, 2007; or 190-34-0009, Revision 01, dated October
9, 2007; as applicable. Actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-34-0009,
dated February 26, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State

of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to
assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-08-03
and 2007-08-04, both effective August 27, 2007, and to EMBRAER
Service Bulletins 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; and 190-34-
0009, Revision 01, dated October 9, 2007; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343-CEP
12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos-SP, Brazil.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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
.

                                  Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EMBRAER
 Service             Revision level                           Date
Bulletin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-34-0  Original............................  February 26, 2007.
   019
190-34-0  01..................................  October 9, 2007.
   009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 4, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-469 Filed 1-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P