[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47047-47051]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21673]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81806; File No. SR-BatsBYX-2017-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.9, Orders and Modifiers, To Add New Optional Functionality to
Minimum Quantity Orders

October 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 26, 2017, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to add new optional functionality to
Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule
11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend
paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-
substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical changes its
affiliate, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), recently filed with and
were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.\5\ The
Exchange

also proposes to add language to the description of Minimum Quantity
Orders to further describe their current operation on BYX and to
harmonize the rule with that of EDGX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EDGX Rules 11.6(h), 11.8(b)(3), and 11.10(e)(3). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81457 (August 22, 2017), 82
FR 40812 (August 28, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-34).
    \6\ See EDGX Rule 11.9(h) (describing the operation of the
Minimum Execution Quantity order instructions, which is functionally
identical to the BYX Minimum Quantity Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality to Minimum
Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9,
Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph
(e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-
substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical to changes
recently filed by Exchange's affiliate EDGX and were published by the
Commission for immediate effectiveness.\7\ The Exchange also proposes
to add language to the description of Minimum Quantity Orders to
further describe their current operation on BYX and to harmonize the
rule with that of EDGX.\8\ The Exchange does not propose to implement
new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the
Commission or is not available on EDGX. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule text is based on BYX rules and is different only to the
extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules. Each of
these changes are described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
    \8\ See EDGX Rule 11.9(h) (describing the operation of the
Minimum Execution Quantity order instructions, which is functionally
identical to the BYX Minimum Quantity Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(5), Proposed Individual Minimum Size and
Harmonization With EDGX Rule 11.6(h)
    A Minimum Quantity Order enables a User \9\ to specify a minimum
share amount at which the order will execute. A Minimum Quantity Order
will not execute unless the volume of contra-side liquidity available
to execute against the order meets or exceeds the designated minimum.
Specifically, a Minimum Quantity Order is a limit order to buy or sell
that will only execute if a specified minimum quantity of shares can be
obtained. Orders with a specified minimum quantity will only execute
against multiple, aggregated orders if such executions would occur
simultaneously.\10\ The Exchange will only honor a specified minimum
quantity on BYX Only Orders \11\ that are non-displayed or Immediate-
or-Cancel (``IOC'') Orders \12\ and will disregard a minimum quantity
on any other order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \10\ Today, the System will aggregate multiple resting orders to
satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity and a User cannot
elect for the incoming order to execute against a single resting
contra-side order.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(4).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that
would enhance the utility of Minimum Quantity Orders by amending
paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9. In sum, the proposal would
permit an incoming Minimum Quantity Order to forego executions where
multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the
order's minimum quantity.
    The Exchange has observed that some market participants avoid
sending large Minimum Quantity Orders to the Exchange out of concern
that such orders may interact with small orders entered by professional
traders, possibly adversely impacting the execution of their larger
order. Institutional orders are often much larger in size than the
average order in the marketplace. To facilitate the liquidation or
acquisition of a large position, market participants tend to submit
multiple orders into the market that may only represent a fraction of
the overall institutional position to be executed. Various strategies
used by institutional market participants to execute large orders are
intended to limit price movement of the security at issue. Executing in
small sizes, even if in the aggregate it meets the order's minimum
quantity, may impact the market for that security such that the
additional orders the market participant has yet to enter into the
market may be more costly to execute. If an institution is able to
execute in larger sizes, the contra-party to the execution is less
likely to be a participant that reacts to short term changes in the
stock price, and as such, the price impact to the stock may be less
acute when larger individual executions are obtained.\13\ As a result,
these orders are often executed away from the Exchange in dark pools or
other exchanges that offer the same functionality as proposed
herein,\14\ or via broker-dealer internalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Commission has long recognized this concern:
``[a]nother type of implicit transaction cost reflected in the price
of a security is short-term price volatility caused by temporary
imbalances in trading interest. For example, a significant implicit
cost for large investors (who often represent the consolidated
investments of many individuals) is the price impact that their
large trades can have on the market. Indeed, disclosure of these
large orders can reduce the likelihood of their being filled.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42450 (February 23, 2000), 65 FR
10577, 10581 (February 28, 2000) (SR-NYSE-99-48).
    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To attract larger Minimum Quantity Orders, the Exchange proposes to
add new optional functionality that would enhance the utility of
Minimum Quantity Orders. In sum, the proposal would permit a User to
elect that its incoming Minimum Quantity Order execute solely against
one or more resting individual orders, each of which must satisfy the
order's minimum quantity condition. In such case, the order would
forego executions where multiple resting orders could otherwise be
aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity, but do not
individually satisfy the minimum quantity condition.\15\ As discussed
above, under the current rule a Minimum Quantity Order will execute
upon entry against any number of smaller contra-side orders that, in
aggregate, meet the minimum quantity set by the User. This default
behavior will remain. For example, assume there are two orders to sell
resting on the BYX Book \16\--the first for 300 shares and a second for
400 shares, with the 300 share order having time priority ahead of the
400 share order. If a User entered a Minimum Quantity Order to buy
1,000 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity of 500 shares, and the
order was marketable against the two resting sell orders for 300 and
400 shares, the

System \17\ would aggregate both sell orders for purposes of meeting
the minimum quantity, thus resulting in executions of 300 shares and
then 400 shares respectively with the remaining 300 shares of the
Minimum Quantity Order being posted to the BYX Book with a minimum
quantity restriction of 300 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ If no election is made, the System will aggregate multiple
resting orders to satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity.
    \16\ The term ``BYX Book'' is defined as ``the System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
    \17\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away. See Exchange Rule
1.5(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new optional functionality will not allow aggregation
of smaller executions to satisfy the minimum quantity of an incoming
Minimum Quantity Order. Using the same scenario as above, but with the
proposed new functionality and a minimum quantity requirement of 400
shares selected by the User, the Minimum Quantity Order would not
execute against the two sell orders because the 300 share order with
time priority at the top of the BYX Book is less than the incoming
order's 400 share Minimum Execution Quantity [sic]. The new
functionality will cause the Minimum Quantity Order to be cancelled or
posted to the BYX Book, non-displayed, in accordance with the
characteristics of the underlying order type \18\ when encountering an
order with time priority that is of insufficient size to satisfy the
minimum execution requirement. If posted, the Minimum Quantity Order
will operate as it does currently and will only execute against
individual orders that satisfy its minimum quantity as proposed herein.
The Exchange notes that the User entering the Minimum Quantity Order
has expressed its intention not to execute against liquidity below a
certain minimum size, and therefore, cedes execution priority when it
would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were
not for the minimum execution size restriction. The Exchange proposes
to add language to paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 11.9 to make clear that the
order would cede execution priority in such in [sic] scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 11 and 12 for a description of the
functionality associated with orders that may also be Minimum
Quantity Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, the description of a Minimum Quantity Order under
paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 would set forth the default
behavior of Minimum Quantity Orders that execute upon entry against a
single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. Amended Rule
11.9(c)(5) would set forth the proposed optional functionality where a
User may alternatively specify that the incoming order's minimum
quantity condition be satisfied by each order resting on the BYX Book
that would execute against the order with the minimum quantity
condition. If there are such orders, but there are also orders that do
not satisfy the minimum quantity condition, the incoming Minimum
Quantity Order will execute against orders resting on the BYX Book in
accordance with Rule 11.12, Priority of Orders, until it reaches an
order that does not satisfy the minimum quantity condition at which
point it would be posted to the BYX Book or cancelled in accordance
with the terms of the order. If, upon entry, there are no orders that
satisfy the minimum quantity condition resting on the BYX Book, the
order will either be posted to the BYX Book or cancelled in accordance
with the terms of the order.
    The Exchange also proposes to re-price incoming Minimum Quantity
Orders where that order may cross an order posted on the BYX Book.
Specifically, where there is insufficient size to satisfy an incoming
order's minimum quantity condition and that incoming order, if posted
at its limit price, would cross an order(s) resting on the BYX Book,
the order with the minimum quantity condition will be re-priced to and
ranked at the locking price. For example, an order to buy at $11.00
with a minimum quantity condition of 500 shares is entered and there is
an order resting on the BYX Book to sell 200 shares at $10.99. The
resting order to sell does not contain sufficient size to satisfy the
incoming order's minimum quantity condition of 500 shares. The price of
the incoming buy order, if posted to the BYX Book, would cross the
price of the resting sell order. In such case, to avoid an internally
crossed book, the System will re-price the incoming buy order to
$10.99, the locking price. This behavior is similar to how the Exchange
currently reprices non-displayed orders that cross the Protected
Quotation of an external market.\19\ In addition, both the Investors
Exchange, Inc. (``IEX'') and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
also re-price similar orders to avoid an internally crossed book.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(4).
    \20\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e). See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to add language to the description of
Minimum Quantity Orders to further describe their current operation on
BZX and to harmonize the rule with that of its affiliate, EDGX, as
described in EDGX Rule 11.6(h).\21\ The Exchange does not propose to
implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously
filed with the Commission or is not available on EDGX. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule text is based on BYX rules and is
different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's
current rules. The Exchange notes that, but for the proposed changes
discussed above, the current operation of Minimum Quantity Orders on
the Exchange and the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction on EDGX is
identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See EDGX Rule 11.9(h) describing the operation of the
Minimum Execution Quantity order instructions, which is functionally
identical to the BYX Minimum Quantity Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend the description of the
Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] instruction to clarify its operation
upon order entry and when the order is posted to the BYX Book. The
Exchange proposes to clarify that upon entry, and by default, an order
with a Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] will execute against a single
order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. A User may also
specify that the order only against [sic] orders that individually
satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition, as proposed herein.
Once posted to the BYX Book,\22\ the order may only execute against
individual incoming orders with a size that satisfies the minimum
quantity condition. Any shares remaining after a partial execution will
continue to be executed at a size that is equal to or exceeds the
quantity provided in the instruction. Where the number of shares
remaining after a partial execution are [sic] less than the quantity
provided in the order, the Minimum Quantity Order shall be equal to the
number of shares remaining. The Exchange also proposed to clarify that
a Minimum Quantity Order is not eligible to be routed to another
Trading Center in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.13, Order Execution
and Routing. These proposed changes would provide additional
specificity to the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders and would
harmonize the rule with the description of the Minimum Execution
Quantity instruction under EDX [sic] Rule 11.6(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Orders will only post to the BYX Book if they are
designated with a TIF instruction that allows for posting. For
example, an order with a TIF of IOC or FOK will never post to the
BYX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3), Replace Messages
    The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.9
to make certain clarifying, non-substantive

changes. The proposed change would harmonize the description of Replace
messages under Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3) with EDGX Rule 11.10(e)(3).
Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3) currently states that other than changing a
limit order to a market order, only the price, stop price, the sell
long or sell short indicator, Max Floor \23\ of a Reserve Order [sic],
and quantity terms of the order may be changed with a Replace message.
If a User desires to change any other terms of an existing order, the
existing order must be cancelled and a new order must be entered. As
amended, paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.9 would specify that the Max Floor
is associated with a Reserve Order and to replace the phrase ``and
quantity terms'' with the word ``size''. The Exchange believes these
changes will provide additional specificity to the rule and ensure the
rule uses terminology consistent with the description of Replace
messages and their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule
11.12(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.6(h), Proposed Individual Minimum Size
    The proposed rule change would remove impediments to and promote
just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Users
with optional functionality that enhances the use of the Minimum
Execution Quantity [sic] instruction. These proposed amendments are
identical to changes recently proposed by EDGX that were published by
the Commission for immediate effectiveness.\26\ The proposed change to
the functioning of Minimum Quantity Orders will provide market
participants, including institutional firms who ultimately represent
individual retail investors in many cases, with better control over
their orders, thereby providing them with greater potential to improve
the quality of their order executions. Currently, the rule allows Users
to designate a minimum acceptable quantity on an order that may
aggregate multiple executions to meet the minimum quantity requirement.
Once posted to the book, however, the minimum quantity requirement is
equivalent to a minimum execution size requirement. The Exchange is now
proposing to provide Users with control over the execution of their
Minimum Quantity Orders by allowing them an option to designate the
minimum individual execution size upon entry. The control offered by
the proposed change is consistent with the various types of control
currently provided by exchange order types. For example, the Exchange
and other exchanges offer limit orders, which allow a market
participant control over the price it will pay or receive for a
stock.\27\ Similarly, exchanges offer order types that allow market
participants to structure their trading activity in a manner that is
more likely to avoid certain transaction cost related economic
outcomes.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 5.
    \27\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(1).
    \28\ For example, the BYX Post Only Order. See Exchange Rule
11.9(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the functionality proposed herein would enable
Users to avoid transacting with smaller orders that they believe
ultimately increases the cost of the transaction. Because the Exchange
does not have this functionality, market participants, such as large
institutions that transact a large number of orders on behalf of retail
investors, have avoided sending large orders to the Exchange to avoid
potentially more expensive transactions.\29\ In this regard, the
Exchange notes that the proposed new optional functionality may improve
the Exchange's market by attracting more order flow. Such new order
flow will further enhance the depth and liquidity on the Exchange,
which supports just and equitable principals of trade. Furthermore, the
proposed modification to Minimum Quantity Orders is consistent with
providing market participants with greater control over the nature of
their executions so that they may achieve their trading goals and
improve the quality of their executions. Moreover, the proposed
optional functionality for Minimum Quantity Orders is also
substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and IEX, both of which
have been recently approved by the Commission.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As noted, the proposal is designed to attract liquidity to
the Exchange by allowing market participants to designate a minimum
size of a contra-side order to interact with, thus providing them
with functionality available to them on dark markets.
    \30\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e) (defining Minimum Quantity). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73959 (December 30, 2014),
80 FR 582 (January 6, 2015) (order approving new optional
functionality for Minimum Quantity Orders). See IEX Rule
11.190(b)(11) and Supplementary Material .03 (defining Minimum
Quantity Orders and MinExec with Cancel Remaining and MinExec with
AON Remaining). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101
(June 17, 2016), 81 FR 41141 (June 23, 2016) (order approving the
IEX exchange application, which included IEX's Minimum Quantity
Orders). See also IEX Rule 11.190(d)(3) (allowing the minimum
quantity size of an order to be changed via a replace message).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that re-pricing incoming Minimum
Quantity Orders where they may cross an order posted on the BYX Book
promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it enables the
Exchange to avoid an internally crossed book. The proposed re-pricing
is identical to how EDGX reprices orders with a Minimum Quantity
instruction \31\ and is similar to how BYX reprices non-displayed
orders that cross an external market.\32\ In addition, both IEX and
Nasdaq also re-price minimum quantity orders to avoid an internally
crossed book. In certain circumstances, Nasdaq re-prices buy (sell)
orders to one minimum price increment below (above) the lowest
(highest) price of such orders.\33\ IEX re-prices non-displayed orders,
such as minimum quantity orders, that include a limit price more
aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO to the midpoint of the
NBBO.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 5.
    \32\ See BYX Rule 11.9(g)(4).
    \33\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e).
    \34\ See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the additional proposed changes to the description of
Minimum Quantity Orders would better align Exchange rules and system
functionality with identical functionality and rules on its affiliate,
EDGX. Consistent descriptions of identical functionality between the
Exchange and EDGX will reduce complexity and avoid potential investor
confusion. The proposed rule changes do not propose to implement new or
unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the
Commission or is not available on EDGX. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule text is based on applicable BYX rules; the proposed
language of the Exchange's Rules differs only to extent necessary to
conform to existing Exchange rule text or to account for details or
descriptions included in the Exchange's Rules.
Clarification to Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3)
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to paragraph (e)(3)
of Rule

11.9 are also consistent with the Act in that they will provide
additional specificity to the rules. In particular, the amendments to
paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10 [sic] will ensure the rule uses
terminology consistent with the description of Replace messages and
their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(4).
Also, the Exchange notes that the proposed change would harmonize the
description of Replace messages under Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3) with
EDGX Rule 11.10(e)(3).

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

    The Exchange 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, as amended. On
the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes
competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality
substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and IEX.\35\ In
addition, the proposed amendments to paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10
[sic] would not have any impact on competition as they simply provide
additional details to the rule and do not alter current System
functionality. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule change will result in any burden on intermarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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 \36\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\37\ As required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBYX-2017-24 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-BatsBYX-2017-24. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBYX-2017-24, and should
be submitted on or before October 31, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21673 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50783-50784]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20733]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65087; File No. SR-ISE-2011-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt Tier-Based Rebates for Qualified Contingent Cross
Orders and Solicitation Orders

August 10, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 27, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to adopt tier-based rebates for Qualified
Contingent Cross (QCC) orders and Solicitation orders. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 this proposed rule change is to adopt rebates to
encourage members to submit greater numbers of QCC orders and
Solicitation orders to the Exchange. With this proposed rule change,
once a Member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or
Solicitation orders during a month, the Exchange will provide a rebate
to that Member for all of its QCC and Solicitation traded contracts for
that month. The proposed rebate will be paid to the Member entering a
qualifying order, i.e., a QCC order and/or a Solicitation order.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following thresholds
and corresponding per contract rebate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Rebate per
                 Originating contract sides                    contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1,999,999................................................        $0.00
2,000,000-3,499,999........................................         0.03
3,500,000-3,999,999........................................         0.05
4,000,000+.................................................         0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rebate shall apply to QCC orders and Solicitation
orders in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Additionally, the
proposed threshold levels are based on the originating side so if, for
example, a Member submits a Solicitation order for 1,000 contracts, all
1,000 contracts shall be counted to reach the established threshold
even if the order is broken up and executed with multiple counter
parties.
    Further, the Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction
charges and credits to market participants that add or remove liquidity
from the Exchange (``maker/taker fees'') in a select number of options
classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ For Solicitation orders in the
Select Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.15 to
contracts that do not trade with the contra order in the Solicited
Order Mechanism. The Exchange does not propose any change to that
rebate and that rebate will continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be effective on August
1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the

Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act \5\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes will generally allow
the Exchange and its Members to better compete for order flow and thus
enhance competition. More specifically, the Exchange believes that its
proposal to adopt volume-based rebates is reasonable as it will
encourage Members to direct their QCC and Solicitation orders to the
Exchange instead of to a competing exchange. The Exchange notes that it
has previously adopted other incentive programs to promote and
encourage growth in specific business areas. For example, the Exchange
has lower fees (or no fees) for customer orders; \6\ and tiered pricing
that reduces rates for market makers based on the level of business
they bring to the Exchange.\7\ This proposed rule change targets yet
another segment in which the Exchange seeks to garnish greater order
flow. The Exchange also believes that adopting the proposed rebates is
reasonable because it is designed to give Members who trade a lot on
the Exchange a benefit by way of a lower transaction fee. As noted
above, once a Member reaches the established threshold, all of the
trading activity in the specified order type by that Member will be
subject to the proposed rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ For example, the customer fee is $0.00 per contract for
products other than Singly Listed Indexes, Singly Listed ETFs and FX
Options. For Singly Listed Options, Singly Listed ETFs and FX
Options, the customer fee is $0.18 per contract. The Exchange also
currently has an incentive plan in place for certain specific FX
Options which has its own pricing. See ISE Schedule of Fees.
    \7\ The Exchange currently has a sliding scale fee structure
that ranges from $0.01 per contract to $0.18 per contract depending
on the level of volume a Member trades on the Exchange in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposal to adopt the rebates is
equitable because it would uniformly apply to all Members engaged in
QCC and Solicitation trading in all option classes traded on the
Exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2011-47, and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20733 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59490-59495]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0042]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Consolidated
Child Restraint System Registration for Defect Notifications and
Labeling

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on an extension of a currently
approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. NHTSA is requesting
comments on an extension of the currently approved collection of
information titled ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration
for Defect Notifications and Labeling.'' A Federal Register Notice with
a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following
information collection was published on July 26, 2022 (87 FR 44494).
One comment from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
(NAMIC) was received supporting this information collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information
collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment''
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Cristina Echemendia, U.S. Department
of

Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W43-447, NRM-130, Washington, DC 20590. Cristina Echemendia's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify the relevant collection of
information by referring to its OMB Control Number (2127-0576).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a
Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control
number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
that the following information collection request will be submitted
OMB.
    A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
public comments on the following information collection was published
on July 26, 2022 (87 FR 44494).
    Title: Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration for Defect
Notifications and Labeling
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Form Number: NHTSA 1053 A, NHTSA 1053 B.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years from date of approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    This information collection provides that manufacturers of child
restraint systems (CRSs): (1) produce registration cards, labels and
printed instructions (brochures), (2) collect CRS owner registration
information, and (3) create and keep registration records so that, in
the event of a safety recall, manufacturers can provide direct
notification to owners. Child restraint manufacturers are required to
provide an owner's registration card for purchasers of child safety
seats in accordance with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), part 571--section 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' The
registration card is perforated into two-parts (see Figures 1 and 2).
The top part contains a message and suitable instructions to be
retained by the purchaser. The bottom part is to be returned to the
manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes prepaid return
postage, the pre-printed name/address of the manufacturer, the pre-
printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces for purchasers to
fill in their name and address.
    Optionally, child restraint manufacturers are permitted to add to
the registration form: (a) Specified statements informing child
restraint system (CRS) owners that they may register online; (b) the
internet address for registering with the company; (c) revisions to
statements reflecting use of the internet to register; and (d) a space
for the consumer's email address. For those CRS owners with access to
the internet, online registration may be a preferred method of
registering a CRS.
    In addition to the registration card supplied by the manufacturer,
NHTSA has implemented a CRS registration system to assist those
individuals who have either lost the registration card that came with
the CRS or purchased a previously owned CRS. Upon the owner's request,
NHTSA provides a substitute registration form that can be obtained
either by mail or from the internet \1\ (see Figure 3). When the
completed registration is returned to the agency, it is then submitted
to the CRS manufacturer. In the absence of a substitute registration
system, many owners of child passenger safety seats, especially any
second-hand owners, might not be notified of safety defects and non-
compliances. These owners would be less likely to have the defects and
non-compliances remedied without notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#car-seat-registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Child seat owner registration information is retained in the event
that owners need to be contacted for defect recalls or replacement
campaigns. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code specifies
that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles
or items of motor vehicle equipment contain a defect that relates to
motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, the manufacturer must notify owners and
purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy
without charge. In title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
part 577, defect and noncompliance notification for equipment items,
including child restraint systems, must be sent by first class mail to
the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.
    Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide printed
instructions in a brochure containing step-by-step information on how
the restraint is to be used. Without proper use, the effectiveness of
these systems is greatly diminished. Each child restraint system must
also have a permanent label. A permanently attached label gives ``quick
look'' information on whether the restraint meets the safety
requirements, recommended installation and use, and warnings against
misuse. CRSs equipped with internal harnesses to restrain children, and
with components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, are
also required to be labeled with a child weight limit for using the
lower anchors to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. The child
weight limit depends upon the weight of the CRS.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information:
    CRS manufacturers are required to label each CRS and provide
brochures with safety information and instructions on the proper use of
the restraint. Such information would mitigate the risk of misuse and
consequently reduce injuries to and fatalities of children in crashes.
This collection supports the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
strategic goal for safety, by working towards the elimination of
transportation related deaths and injuries involving children. FMVSS
No. 213 requires that each CRS has an owner registration form attached.
It permits information regarding online product registration to be
included on the owner registration form required under the standard.
This enhances the opportunity for restraint owners to register their
CRSs online, which may increase registration rates and the
effectiveness of recall campaigns. Manufacturers are also permitted to
supplement (but not replace) recall notification via first-class mail
with email notification, which increases the likelihood that owners
learn of a recall. Manufacturers are also required to include a U.S.
telephone number on a CRS label for the purpose of enabling consumers
to register their products by telephone.
    Increasing CRS registrations is an important part to protecting
young children and infants. By registering CRSs, product manufacturers
will to able to directly contact owners in the event of any safety
recalls.
    Affected Public: Businesses, Individual Consumers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 38 Manufacturers, 2,835,200
Consumers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This is the number of registrations filled by consumers and
the information collection by the CRS manufacturers of those
received registrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 109,939 hours.
    The total burden hours for this collection consist of: (1) the
hours spent

by consumers filling out the registration form, (2) the hours spent
collecting registration information and (3) the hours spent determining
the maximum allowable child weight for lower anchor use and adding the
information to the existing label and instruction manual.
    (1) Annual Burden for filling out registration card. NHTSA
estimates that 16,000,000 CRSs are currently sold each year by 38 CRS
manufacturers. Of the CRSs sold each year, NHTSA estimates that
2,369,660 are registered using registration cards and 465,540 are
    registered online. A consumer spends approximately 60 seconds (1
minute) filling out the registration form. The estimated annual number
of burden hours for consumers to fill out the registration form is
47,253 hours (= 2,835,200 x (60 seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)).
    (2) Annual Burden for Reporting (collecting registration
information). Manufacturers must spend about 90 seconds (1.5 min) to
enter the information from each returned registration card; while,
online registrations are considered to have no burden for the
manufacturer, as the information is entered by the purchaser.
Therefore, the estimated annual number of burden hours for CRS
registration information collection is 59,242 hours (= 2,369,660 x (90
seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)).
    (3) Annual Burden for Reporting (determining maximum allowable
child weight). About 12,400,000 of the CRSs sold each year are equipped
with internal harnesses. About half of the CRSs equipped with internal
harnesses sold annually (6,200,000 = 12,400,000 x 0.5) would require a
label with the maximum allowable child weight for using the lower
anchors. Manufacturers must spend about 2 seconds to determine the
maximum allowable child weight for lower anchor use and to add the
information to the existing label and instruction manual. Therefore,
the total annual burden hours for the information on the maximum
allowable child weight in the existing label and instruction manual is
3,444 hours (= 6,200,000 x (2 seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)).
    The estimated total annual number of burden hours is 109,939 (=
47,253 + 59,242 + 3,444) hours. The total estimated hour burden
increased from 99,330 hours to 109,939 hours (a 10,609--burden hour
increase). The increase in burden is due to an increase in CRS sales.
In 2018, NHTSA estimated that approximately 14,500,000 CRSs are sold
each year while NHTSA's estimate in 2022 increased to 16,000,000 CRSs.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $8,781,987.85.
    The total burden cost for this collection consists of printing and
material costs of labels and registration cards and the mailed-in
registration cards postage costs.

Printing and Material Costs of Labels and Registration Cards, and
Postage Costs

    The total annual printing and material cost to the respondents is
estimated to be $8,000,000. NHTSA estimates that the printing and
material cost of $0.20 per CRS labels and $0.30 per CRS registration
card. The total annual printing and material cost to respondents is
calculated by multiplying the printing and material cost ($0.50 = $0.20
+ $0.30) by the estimated 16,000,000 responses (CRSs produced) per year
($0.50 x 16,000,000). The total estimated annual printing and material
costs are detailed in the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Printing and
                                                                 Printing and    material cost   Annual printing
               Number of CRS produced annually                  material cost      per CRS--       and material
                                                                  per CRS--       registration         cost
                                                                    labels            card
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16,000,000...................................................           $0.20            $0.30    $8,000,000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual postage cost for the mailed in registration cards
is estimated to be $781,987.85. Approximately, 16,000,000 CRSs are sold
each year with an estimated registration rate of 17.72% (2,835,200). Of
the total registrations received, 83.58% (2,369,660) are from mailed in
registration cards. The rests are from online registrations. CRS
manufacturers are required to provide printed mail-in registration
cards with pre-paid postage. The total annual postage cost is
calculated by multiplying the number of mailed in registration cards
(2,349,660) by the postage cost ($0.33). The total estimated postage
cost is detailed in the table below:

                                              Annual Postage Costs
                                         [Mailed-in registration cards]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual number    Registrations
                                              of returned CRS   received from     Registration
      Number of CRS produced each year         registrations     registration     card postage   Annual  postage
                                               (registration    cards (83.58%)        cost             cost
                                              Rate of 17.72%)         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16,000,000..................................       2,835,200        2,369,660            $0.33      $781,987.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total annual cost burden is $8,781,987.85. The total
annual cost burden is calculated by adding the annual printing and
material costs ($8,000,000) and the mailed-in registration card postage
cost ($781,987.85).
    The total estimated burden cost increased from $0 to $8,781,987.85
(a $8,781,987.85 burden cost increase). The increase in burden is due
to the addition of printing and material costs for labels and
registration cards and the mailed-in registration card postage costs
which had not been taken into consideration in the past.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE22.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE22.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE22.011

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-21309 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58621-58622]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0345]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Data To Support Drug
Product Communications as Used by the Food and Drug Administration

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0695.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed

collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Data To Support Drug Product Communications as Used by the Food and
Drug Administration

OMB Control Number 0910-0695--Extension

    This information collection supports Agency outreach efforts.
Testing of communication messages in advance of a communication
campaign provides an important role in improving FDA communications as
they allow for an in-depth understanding of individuals' attitudes,
beliefs, motivations, and feelings. The methods to be employed include
individual in-depth interviews, general public focus group interviews,
intercept interviews, self-administered surveys, gatekeeper surveys,
and professional clinician focus group interviews, all on a voluntary
basis. The methods to be used serve the narrowly defined need for
direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and, as a qualitative
research tool, have two major purposes: To obtain information that is
useful for developing variables and measures for formulating the basic
objectives of risk communication campaigns, and to assess the potential
effectiveness of messages and materials in reaching and successfully
communicating with their intended audiences.
    FDA will use these methods to test and refine its ideas and to help
develop messages and other communications but will generally conduct
further research before making important decisions, such as adopting
new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to
support these policies. FDA will use this mechanism to test messages
about regulated drug products on a variety of subjects related to
consumer, patient, or health care professional perceptions and about
use of drug products and related materials, including but not limited
to, direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion, physician labeling
of prescription drugs, medication guides, over-the-counter drug
labeling, emerging risk communications, patient labeling, online sale
of medical products, and consumer and professional education. Annually,
FDA projects about 45 communication studies using the variety of test
methods listed in this document. FDA is requesting an extension of
these burden hours so as not to restrict the Agency's ability to gather
information on public sentiment for its proposals in its regulatory and
communications programs.
    In the Federal Register of June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27840), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
extension of the collection of information. One comment was received
requesting that FDA publish an annual list of its planned drug product
communication studies and strive to reflect an overall work plan. The
comment also noted the rather broad topic areas included in the
information collection and suggested that perhaps additional notice
regarding individual studies would allow for more meaningful feedback
on whether that particular study would be necessary. FDA appreciates
this comment. In determining which drug product communications it will
undertake, we first consider those we believe will best address current
or immediate public health issues. We also note that, in accordance
with the PRA, any proposed study under this information collection
request must first be submitted to and approved by OMB to determine
whether it falls within the scope of the collection. At the same time,
as resources are available, we will make every effort to communicate to
our stakeholders anticipated studies so that ongoing or related
research can be coordinated.
    We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information
as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                   Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual     Average burden per response (in hours)     Total hours
                                                 respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviews/Surveys...........................          19,822               1          19,822  0.24 (14 minutes)........................           4,757
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: December 5, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-26795 Filed 12-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5467-5469]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33332]

========================================================================
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.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1011; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-047-AD;
Amendment 39-16571; AD 2011-01-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-
6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1,
PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:

    The current Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) of PC-6 B2-H2 and
B2-H4 models does not include a Chapter 04 in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS). For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-
H4, no ALS at all is included in the AMM.
    With the latest Revision 12 of the AMM, a new Chapter 04 has
been introduced in the AMM for PC-6 B2-H2 and B2-H4 models.
    For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-H4, a new ALS document
has been implemented as well.
    These documents include the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) which are maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations developed by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd and
approved by EASA. Failure to comply with these MCAI constitutes an
unsafe condition.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 8, 2011.
    On March 8, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland;
telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 01; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65 76; Internet:
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, ACE-112 Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 7, 2010 (75
FR 62002), and proposed to supersede AD 2005-17-01, Amendment 39-14221
(70 FR 47716; August 15, 2005). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

    The current Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) of PC-6 B2-H2 and
B2-H4 models does not include a Chapter 04 in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS). For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-
H4, no ALS at all is included in the AMM.
    With the latest Revision 12 of the AMM, a new Chapter 04 has
been introduced in the AMM for PC-6 B2-H2 and B2-H4 models.
    For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-H4, a new ALS document
has been implemented as well.
    These documents include the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) which are maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations developed by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd and
approved by EASA. Failure to comply with these MCAI constitutes an
unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this MCAI requires the
implementation and the compliance with these new maintenance
requirements and/or airworthiness limitations documents.

Since we issued AD 2005-17-01 concerning the inspection of the
stabilizer-trim attachment components, Pilatus has updated their
maintenance programs with new requirements and limitations. Since we
are now mandating the new AMM, we are completely superseding AD 2005-
17-01. Additionally, the AMM revisions in this AD action also include
the new repetitive inspections for the wing strut fittings and
spherical bearings currently included in AD 2009-18-03 (74 FR 43636;
August 27, 2009). We are also removing those repetitive inspections
from AD 2009-18-03. 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 considered the comments received.

Request for Clarification on Applicability

    Pilatus Aircraft commented that there is no consistency between
2010-CE-047-AD and 2009-CE-034-AD (AD 2009-18-03 (R1); 76 FR 1990;
January 12, 2011) regarding the applicability of airplanes in regards
to the manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) on the Fairchild PC-6
airplanes.
    The FAA agrees that the applicability of airplanes needs corrected.
We changed the applicability to clarify that some specific MSNs can
also be identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes,
Fairchild Industries PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6
airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.

Discussion Section Contains Confusing Reference to ADs

    Pilatus Aircraft commented that the Discussion section contains
confusing references to other ADs. They

commented that FAA AD 2005-17-01 refers to Pilatus SB 53-001/FOCA AD
HB-2005-263. That Service Bulletin (SB) involves ``Stabilizer-Trim
Attachment Components,'' whereas FAA AD 2009-18-03 mentioned later in
the NPRM involves wing strut fittings. The new CH4/ALS documents for
the PC-6 contain the repetitive inspection requirements of both AD
2005-17-01 and AD 2009-18-03. Because the Discussion section references
various FAA ADs and service bulletins, it is difficult to follow which
service information corresponds with which AD.
    The FAA agrees that the discussion paragraph could be more concise.
We changed the information in the discussion paragraph to make it
easier to understand how this AD action affects both AD 2005-17-01 and
AD 2009-18-03.

Actions and Compliance Section States Both Documents Required

    The Actions and Compliance section indicates that both AMM Doc.
01975 Rev 12 and ALS Doc. 02334 are applicable for each model airplane.
Only one document should be applicable for each model airplane, not
both.
    The FAA agrees because both manuals are not required for each model
of airplane, only the one that is appropriate. We changed paragraph (f)
to specify which of the above documents apply to which airplanes.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
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 FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 50 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $4,250, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions based
on maintenance requirements for the wing strut fittings and the
spherical bearings following the Aircraft Maintenance Manual and the
Airworthiness Limitations Section would take about 40 work-hours and
require parts costing $12,000, for a cost of $15,400 per product. We
have no way of determining the number of products that may need these
actions.

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 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 Management Facility
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 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

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14221 (70 FR
47716; August 15, 2005) and adding the following new AD:

2011-01-14 Pilatus Aircraft Limited: Amendment 39-16571; Docket No.
FAA-2010-1011; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-047-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 8,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2005-17-01, Amendment 39-14221.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-
H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1,
PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all manufacturer serial number (MSN) 101
through 999, and MSN 2001 through 2092, certificated in any
category.

    Note 1: For MSN 2001-2092, these airplanes are also identified
as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild

Industries PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6 airplanes, or
Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time
Limits.

Reason

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

    The current Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) of PC-6 B2-H2 and
B2-H4 models does not include a Chapter 04 in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS). For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-
H4, no ALS at all is included in the AMM.
    With the latest Revision 12 of the AMM, a new Chapter 04 has
been introduced in the AMM for PC-6 B2-H2 and B2-H4 models.
    For PC-6 models other than B2-H2 and B2-H4, a new ALS document
has been implemented as well.
    These documents include the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) which are maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations developed by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd and
approved by EASA. Failure to comply with these MCAI constitutes an
unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this MCAI requires the
implementation and the compliance with these new maintenance
requirements and/or airworthiness limitations documents.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For all affected Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4; Before
further flight after March 8, 2011 (the effective date of this AD),
incorporate the maintenance requirements as specified in Pilatus PC-
6 AMM Chapter 04-00-00, Revision 12, Document Number 01975, dated
May 14, 2010, into your FAA-accepted maintenance program.
    (2) For all affected PC-6 models other than the Models PC-6/B2-
H2 and PC-6/B2-H4; Before further flight after March 8, 2011 (the
effective date of this AD), incorporate the maintenance requirements
as specified in Pilatus PC-6 AMM ALS Document Number 02334, Revision
1, dated May 14, 2010, into your FAA-accepted maintenance program.

    Note 2:  The AMM revisions in this AD action include the
repetitive inspections for the wing strut fittings and the spherical
bearings currently included in AD 2009-18-03. AD 2009-18-03 (R1),
Amendment 39-16570 has been revised to remove these repetitive
inspections.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2010-0176, dated August 20, 2010;
and Pilatus PC-6 AMM Chapter 04-00-00, Revision 12, Document Number
01975, Revision 12, dated May 14, 2010; or in the Pilatus PC-6 ALS
Document Number 02334, Revision 1, dated May 14, 2010, for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Pilatus PC-6 AMM Chapter 04-00-00, Revision 12,
Document Number 01975, dated May 14, 2010; and incorporate the
Pilatus PC-6 ALS Document Number 02334, Revision 1, dated May 14,
2010, 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
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS,
Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 01; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65
76; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2010.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33332 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P