[Federal Register: September 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 54644]
[DOCID:fr22se08-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, September
17, 2008, at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the
matter will attend the Closed Meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(8) and (9), permit
consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
September 17, 2008, will be: Matters related to the financial markets.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22133 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 39953-39958] [FR Doc No: 2011-16922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64781; File No. SR-BATS-2011-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of

Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, to

Create, on a Six-Month Pilot Basis, a Directed Order Program

June 30, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On March 16, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or

``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a

proposal to establish, on a six-month pilot basis, a directed order

(``Directed Order'') program on its options facility (``BATS

Options''). On March 24, 2011, BATS filed Amendment No. 1 to the

proposed rule filing. The proposed rule change, as modified by

Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on

April 1, 2011.\3\ The Commission received 13 comment letters from 8

commenters on the proposal,\4\ and a letter from BATS responding to the

comment letters.\5\ On June 2, 2011, BATS filed Amendment No. 2 to the

proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from interested persons, and is

approving the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an

accelerated basis, for a six-month pilot period ending January 30,

2012.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64132 (March 28,

2011), 76 FR 18280 (``Notice'').

    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,

from Jennifer M. Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Division,

Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), dated June 29, 2011

(``CBOE II Letter''); Tom Wittman, The NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. and The

NASDAQ Options Market (together ``Nasdaq''), dated June 24, 2011

(``Nasdaq II Letter''); Janet L. McGinness, SVP & Corporate

Secretary, Legal & Government Affairs, NYSE Euronext, dated June 17,

2011 (``NYSE Euronext II Letter''); Michael J. Simon, Secretary,

International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), dated June 17,

2011 (``ISE II Letter''); Anthony D. McCormick, Chief Executive

Officer, BOX Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'')), dated June 13,

2011 (``BOX II Letter''); Angelo Evangelou, Assistant General

Counsel, Legal Division, CBOE, dated April 27, 2011 (``CBOE I

Letter''); John C. Nagel, Managing Director and General Counsel,

Asset Management and Markets, Citadel LLC, dated April 25, 2011

(``Citadel Letter''); Andrew Stevens, Legal Counsel, IMC Chicago,

LLC d/b/a IMC Financial Markets, dated April 21, 2011 (``IMC

Letter''); Janet L. McGinness, SVP & Corporate Secretary, Legal &

Government Affairs, NYSE Euronext, dated April 21, 2011 (``NYSE

Euronext I Letter''); Kurt Eckert, Principal, Wolverine Trading,

LLC, dated April 21, 2011 (``Wolverine Letter''); Tom Wittman,

Nasdaq, dated April 21, 2011 (``Nasdaq I Letter''); Michael J.

Simon, Secretary, ISE, dated April 21, 2011 (``ISE I Letter''); and

Anthony D. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer, BOX, dated March 29,

2011 (``BOX I Letter'').

    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,

from Jeromee Johnson, BATS, dated June 2, 2011 (``BATS Letter'').

    \6\ In response to comments received on the proposed rule

change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, the Exchange filed

Amendment No. 2 to revise the proposed rule change to permit BATS

Options Members to send Directed Orders to more than one BATS

Options market maker.

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

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment

Nos. 1 and 2

    The Exchange proposes to allow members of BATS Options (``Options

Members'') to direct orders to BATS Options market makers under certain

conditions. Specifically, the proposal would establish two new order

types--a ``Directed Order'' and a ``Market Maker Price Improving

Order'' (MMPIO). A Directed Order would be an order directed by an

Options Member to one or more BATS Options market makers for possible

execution against the MMPIO of the BATS Options market maker(s).\7\ To

direct an order to a particular BATS Options market maker, the Options

Member must be on a list of eligible Options Members provided to the

Exchange by the BATS Options market maker.\8\

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

    \7\ As originally proposed, Options Members could only send

Directed orders to one BATS Options market maker. In Amendment No.

2, BATS revised the proposal to permit Options Members to send

Directed Orders to more than one BATS Options market maker.

    \8\ BATS Rule 21.1(d)(14).

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

    To be eligible to receive a Directed Order, a BATS Options market

maker must enter a MMPIO. The MMPIO would contain both a displayed

price, as well as a better non-displayed price at which the market

maker is willing to trade with a Directed Order. The MMPIO would be

ranked on the BATS Options book at its displayed price. The non-

displayed price would not be entered on the BATS Options book, but

instead would be converted to a buy or sell order at the non-displayed

price in response to a Directed Order directed to the market maker, up

to the full displayed size of the MMPIO. Thus, an incoming marketable

non-Directed Order would execute against the market maker's displayed

quote, not its non-displayed better price. To be able to participate in

an execution against a Directed Order: (i) The market maker must be

quoting on BATS with a MMPIO that contains a displayed price at the

NBBO at the time the Directed Order arrives on BATS; (ii) the non-

displayed price of the MMPIO must be at a price better than the NBB

(for sell Directed Orders) or the NBO (for buy Directed Orders) and

marketable against the Directed Order; \9\ and (iii) as noted above,

the Directed Order must have come from an Options Member on the market

maker's list of eligible Options Members.

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

    \9\ The non-displayed price also must be at least one cent

better than the NBB or NBO, as applicable.

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

    If the above conditions in (i), (ii), and (iii) are met, and if

there are no other non-displayed orders at prices equal to or better

than the non-displayed price of the MMPIO, the Directed Order will

trade with the MMPIO up to the full size of the MMPIO. If there are

non-displayed orders on the BATS Options book at prices equal to or

better than the non-displayed price of the MMPIO, those other non-

displayed orders will in all cases have priority over the non-displayed

price of the MMPIO. In such circumstances, the MMPIO may still execute

at its non-displayed price against the Directed Order to the extent of

any remaining contracts of the Directed Order. If a Directed Order is

directed to more than one BATS Options market maker, such Directed

Order will execute in price/time priority based on the non-displayed

price of such orders, to the extent the Directed Order can execute

against any MMPIO.\10\

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

    \10\ See Amendment No. 2.

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

    BATS notes that, if an Options Member notifies a BATS Options

market maker of its intention to submit a Directed Order so that the

BATS Options market maker could change its quotation to match the NBB

or NBO immediately prior to submission of the Directed Order, the

parties would be engaging in conduct inconsistent with just and

equitable principles of trade in violation of BATS Rules 3.1 and

18.4(f). In addition, BATS notes that a BATS Options market maker who

becomes aware of a customer order from an affiliated broker-dealer or

desk within the same broker-dealer and acts on such information to

change its quotations to match the NBB or NBO immediately prior to

submission of a Directed Order would be in violation of the BATS Rule

22.10, ``Limitations on Dealings.'' BATS represents that it will

proactively conduct surveillance for such conduct and enforce against

such violations.\11\

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

    \11\ One commenter on the proposal believes that the proposed

rule change does not address whether it would be permissible for a

BATS Options market maker to share the details of its MMPIO, whether

existing or prospective, with an order flow provider (affiliated or

otherwise) so that the order flow provider could make routing

decisions based on this information. See NYSE Euronext I Letter at

5-6. If a BATS Options market maker informs an order entry firm of

its intention to modify its quotation or details about its MMPIO so

that the BATS Options Member could send a Directed Order to the BATS

Options market maker, BATS would view this as pre-arranged trading

and would consider this to be a violation of BATS Rules 3.1 (just

and equitable principles of trade) and 18.4(f) (misuse of material

non-public information). See E-mail to David Hsu, Assistant

Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, from Anders

Franzon, BATS, dated June 27, 2011. If the order entry firm was an

affiliate or a desk within the same firm as the BATS Options market

maker, and the BATS Options market maker shared information

regarding its planned quoting activities or details about the market

maker's MMPIO, then BATS would consider this to be a violation of

BATS Rule 22.10 (Limitation on Dealings). Id.

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

    BATS proposes to establish its Directed Order program on a six-

month pilot basis. BATS represents that, during the pilot period, it

will study the impact of the rules and will provide the Commission with

monthly reports detailing its ongoing review of the pilot. Such reports

would include statistics with respect to:

     The number of Directed Orders submitted to BATS Options;

     The number of MMPIOs submitted to BATS Options;

     Information regarding the types of market participants

that sent Directed Orders;

     The number of Market Makers that participated in the

directed order program;

     The percentage of time that Market Makers participating in

the directed order program were at the NBBO when a Directed Order

arrived at BATS Options;

     The number of orders, excluding MMPIOs, against which an

incoming Directed Order executed;

     The proportion of each Directed Order that was executed

against a MMPIO;

     The percentage of Directed Orders that received price

improvement over the NBBO;

     The average amount of price improvement for Directed

Orders; and

     Data related to the quality of the best bid and offer on

BATS Options.

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received 13 comment letters from 8 commenters

opposing the proposal.\12\ These commenters generally argue that,

because Directed Orders will not be exposed to meaningful competition,

the proposal will disincent market makers from quoting aggressively and

negatively impact the price at which the Directed Orders are

executed.\13\

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

    \12\ See supra note 4. In addition, the Commission notes that in

response to an earlier Directed Order proposal filed and later

withdrawn by the Exchange (SR-BATS-2010-034) that was substantially

similar to the instant proposal (the ``Prior Proposal''), one

commenter had stated that the proposal would be beneficial to retail

investors by providing firms with competitive opportunities to seek

price improvement on client option orders. See Letter to Elizabeth

M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Christopher Nagy, Managing

Director, Order Strategy, TD Ameritrade, dated December 23, 2010

(``Ameritrade Letter'').

    \13\ See BOX I Letter at 1; BOX II Letter at 1-2; CBOE I Letter

at 2; Citadel Letter at 2; IMC Letter at 2; ISE I Letter at 3; ISE

II Letter at 3; Nasdaq I Letter at 3; NYSE Euronext I Letter at 3;

NYSE Euronext II Letter at 4; and Wolverine Letter at 1.

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

    Several commenters argue that the lack of a requirement that the

Directed Order be exposed to all market participants or be subject to a

separate auction mechanism will prevent other market participants from

any opportunity to provide further price improvement to the Directed

Order, and thus harm the Directed Order.\14\ Several commenters argue

that other market participants will not be able to effectively compete

with a BATS Options market maker with a MMPIO because, although other

market participants also can enter orders that have a non-displayed

price on the BATS book at a price equal to or better than the non-

displayed price of the MMPIO,\15\ that non-displayed price would be at

risk to all incoming marketable orders, not just Directed Orders from a

select list of eligible customers.\16\ Commenters further argue that

other market participants are at a further competitive disadvantage

vis-[agrave]-vis BATS options market makers with MMPIOs in one cent MPV

options because BATS Options market makers would be able to enter

MMPIOs with non-displayed prices in penny increments, but other market

participants could not enter orders with non-displayed prices in penny

increments.\17\ Several commenters argue that BATS Options market

makers will be able to enter MMPIOs with better non-displayed prices

than other competing market participants, thus effectively resulting in

100 percent internalization of Directed Orders (assuming the

participating market maker is always willing to provide prices better

than the NBBO) without the opportunity for exposure.\18\ In addition, a

few commenters argue that price discovery will be negatively impacted

by the perpetuation of a two-tiered market for customers--one market

reflecting publicly available prices and sizes, and another market

reflecting a non-public pool of liquidity available for only certain

approved customers.\19\

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

    \14\ See BOX I Letter at 1-2; CBOE I Letter at 2-3; CBOE II

Letter at 3-5; IMC Letter at 2; ISE I Letter at 4; Nasdaq I Letter

at 3; NYSE Euronext I Letter at 4, and NYSE Euronext II Letter at 3-

4. See also BOX II Letter at 2 (arguing that, if BATS Options market

makers receive Directed Orders from only their list of eligible

Options Members, the ``cost of that enjoyment should be the

requirement that directed orders be exposed on the market or subject

to a specific auction mechanism so that customers enjoy the greatest

amount of opportunity for price improvement'') and IMC Letter at 2

(stating that the structure of the BATS Directed Order program

``unduly limits competition as such does not contribute to price

discovery.''). In addition, BOX states that, because the proposal

permits only BATS Options market maker(s) designated by the Options

Member to compete for the Directed Order, and such designation is at

the discretion of the Options Member, a ``substantial conflict of

interest may arise,'' incenting BATS Options market makers to

significantly increase payment for order flow payments so that they

can be the sole destination for the Option Member's customer orders.

See BOX II Letter at 1-2. This commenter also argues that, although

the rule would allow an Options Member to submit Directed Orders to

multiple BATS Options Market Makers, competition for the order is

still limited because the order would be exposed to some--but not

all--market participants. See BOX II Letter at 1-2.

    \15\ In options with a five or ten cent minimum price variation

(``MPV''), other market participants would be able to enter a non-

displayed price using a Price Improving Order to compete with MMPIOs

for Directed Orders. A Price Improving Order would receive priority

over MMPIOs at the same non-displayed price. However, the non-

displayed price of a Price Improving Order would be available to all

incoming marketable orders, in contrast to the non-displayed price

of an MMPIO, which would only be available to incoming Directed

Orders.

    \16\ See, e.g., CBOE I Letter at 2; CBOE II Letter at 4; Citadel

Letter at 2; IMC Letter at 2; ISE I Letter at 3; ISE Letter II at 1-

2; Nasdaq I Letter at 2, Nasdaq II Letter at 1, and NYSE Euronext II

Letter at 4.

    \17\ See CBOE I Letter at 2; CBOE II Letter at 2; Citadel Letter

at 2; IMC Letter at 2; and Nasdaq I Letter at 2. These commenters

believe that, because the orders of these market participants would

be displayed in options with a one cent MPV, they would be at

greater risk of being executed against informed order flow. On the

other hand, because MMPIOs may be entered in increments as small as

one cent and are not displayed, BATS Options market makers with

MMPIOs are not subject to the same risk. Id. See also NYSE Euronext

II Letter at 4.

    \18\ See Citadel Letter at 2-3; Nasdaq I Letter at 2-3; and

Nasdaq II Letter at 2.

    \19\ See Citadel Letter at 2; ISE I Letter at 2; and Wolverine

Letter at 2. See also CBOE I Letter at 3 and CBOE II Letter at 2,

wherein CBOE argues that the MMPIO is inconsistent with Rule 602 of

Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.602 (the ``Quote Rule''), because the

BATS proposal would only require the MMPIO to be firm for pre-

selected Directed Order participants (as opposed to all incoming

interest received by BATS).

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

    In response to commenters, BATS countered that certain order flow

sending firms today have order flow, which by its very nature, is more

valuable to some market participants than the flow of other order flow

sending firms.\20\ BATS notes market makers already retain the

discretion to pay certain firms non-transparent payment for order flow

amounts.\21\ BATS asserts that its proposal similarly retains that

existing discretion for market makers, but provides a mechanism for

such payments, or at least a portion of such payments, to be provided

in a transparent fashion to the Directed Order in the form of price

improvement over the NBBO.\22\ According to BATS, the proposal puts in

place a structure by which all members can both compete for that flow

by contributing to price and size discovery for the entire market and

reward that flow with price improvement above and beyond the NBBO.\23\

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

    \20\ See BATS Letter at 6-7.

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 18283.

    \22\ Id.

    \23\ See BATS Letter at 6-7.

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

    Further, BATS notes that BATS Options market makers must enter

orders that assume the risk of trading with all participants at NBBO,

and must commit to price improvement over the NBBO without knowing the

details of the particular order and being guaranteed an allocation.\24\

BATS notes that other directed order programs on other exchanges do not

impose this

requirement to provide price improvement.\25\ In addition, BATS argues

that by not providing allocation guarantees, the proposed Directed

Order program provides incentives to BATS Options market makers as well

as Options Members to aggressively quote, both at the NBBO and at non-

displayed prices better than the NBBO.\26\

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

    \24\ See BATS Letter at 3-4.

    \25\ Id.

    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 18282.

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

    Several commenters state that, because Directed Orders on BATS are

not exposed to all market participants, BATS Options market makers will

not be motivated to offer more than the minimum amount of price

improvement ($0.01) to a customer.\27\ In its response letter, BATS

states that the proposed rule does not cap the price improvement

opportunities available to Options Members in the price-time priority

market of BATS Options; rather the proposed rule merely provides a

minimum amount of price improvement that must be offered to a Directed

Order.\28\ Another commenter, however, argues that although the BATS

proposal does not cap price improvement, the lack of competition at the

non-displayed prices combined with the burden of quoting at the NBBO

will depress the amount of price improvement offered by BATS Options

market makers.\29\

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

    \27\ See BOX I Letter at 2; NYSE Euronext I Letter at 4 and NYSE

Euronext II Letter at 4. See also Citadel Letter at 2.

    \28\ See BATS Letter at 6.

    \29\ See ISE II Letter at 2-3.

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

    Commenters further argue that the proposal will disincent market

makers that do not have arrangements with Options Members from

aggressively quoting and posting liquidity.\30\ According to one of

these commenters, BATS Options market makers to whom orders are not

directed would have little to no incentive to quote at the NBBO because

they would not be rewarded with trade executions, as Directed Orders

would execute against non-displayed interest one increment better

rather than the NBBO.\31\ Another commenter also contends that, if the

proposed rule change is approved, market participants that do not

receive Directed Orders would be forced to quote less aggressively to

account for adverse selection because MMPIOs would cherry-pick the most

desirable order flow from the market with private hidden quotes.\32\ As

a result, according to this commenter, market liquidity would be

damaged and average publicly quoted spreads would widen in some options

contracts, particularly those that trade with wider than average

spreads.\33\

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

    \30\ See BOX I Letter at 1 and Wolverine Letter at 1. See also

BOX II Letter at 2 (arguing that the high probability that an

Options Member will designate only one BATS Options market maker to

receive a Directed Order will mean internalization rates are likely

to reach 100 percent and have the ``additional effect of

discouraging competition on the regular order book across all of the

options market, resulting in further degradation of NBBO spreads, to

the detriment of all customers.''); ISE Letter at 6 (stating that

the lack of competition for a Directed Order would result in a 100

percent execution guarantee for BATS Options market makers, which

would be a significant departure from Commission policy that limits

the level of allocation guarantees at 40 percent of the order to

assure that such guarantees do not remove the incentive for other

market participants to compete); NYSE Euronext II Letter at 5

(arguing similarly).

    \31\ See Wolverine Letter at 1.

    \32\ See Citadel Letter at 2.

    \33\ See id.

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

    Some commenters argue that the proposal would result in inferior

executions for customer orders when a BATS Options market maker with a

MMPIO at the best price is not selected by an Options Member to receive

its Directed Order.\34\ One of these commenters argues that the

proposal is inconsistent with the Act because, if two MMPIOs have

different non-displayed prices, a Directed Order could be directed to

the MMPIO with the inferior price, resulting in a trade-through of a

better price that is available to other participants.\35\ BATS

acknowledges that this factual scenario could be the case, but states

that in the same way that the Directed Order proposal empowers BATS

Options market makers to select which order flow providing firms to

whom they wish to offer price improvement for the customers of that

firm, the proposal also empowers Options Members to select which market

making firms they wish to preference.\36\ BATS believes that this is an

important distinction that provides Options Members with competitive

opportunities to seek price improvement on customer orders.\37\

Further, BATS has amended its proposal to clarify that Options Members

can enter into arrangements with, and elect to direct an order to,

multiple market makers.\38\ In such case, the incoming Directed Order

would execute against the Directed Order market maker with the best

non-displayed price (assuming that the Directed Order would execute

against an MMPIO).

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

    \34\ See BOX II Letter at 2; Nasdaq I Letter at 1; Nasdaq Letter

II at 2-3; NYSE Euronext I Letter at 2; and NYSE Euronext II Letter

at 5.

    \35\ See Nasdaq I Letter at 1. See also NYSE Euronext II Letter

at 5.

    \36\ See BATS Letter at 4-5.

    \37\ See id.

    \38\ See Amendment No. 2.

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

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposal and the comments

received, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as

amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange

\39\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\40\

Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as

amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\41\ which

requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities

exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster

cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,

clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and

facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and

perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market

system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest

and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,

issuers, brokers or dealers.

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

    \39\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has

considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is designed to

enhance opportunities in the market for BATS Options market makers to

provide, and Options Members to obtain, price improvement for their

customer orders. Specifically, to be eligible to trade with a Directed

Order, the proposal requires a BATS Options market maker to have

entered a MMPIO with a displayed price equal to the NBB (for sell

Directed Orders) or the NBO (for buy Directed Orders), as well as a

non-displayed price at least one cent better than the NBB or NBO, as

applicable.\42\ Thus, the Directed Order would receive price

improvement over the NBB or NBO, as applicable. However, as discussed

above, commenters expressed concern that the lack of exposure of the

Directed Orders would negatively impact quote competition and deny

other market participants meaningful opportunities to provide further

price improvement to a Directed Order.\43\

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

    \42\ BATS Rule 21.1(d)(13).

    \43\ See supra notes 14-33 and accompanying text.

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

    The Commission has carefully considered the arguments expressed by

commenters and by the Exchange. The Commission recognizes the concerns

expressed and the difficult issues involved. The Commission believes

that order exposure generally is beneficial to options markets in that

it provides an incentive to options market makers to provide liquidity

and therefore plays an important role in ensuring competition in the

options markets.\44\ The Commission also recognizes, however, the

importance of providing effective opportunities for customer order flow

in listed options to receive executions at prices better than the NBBO.

In evaluating the proposal, the Commission has weighed the relative

merits of each for the options markets.

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

    \44\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February 24,

2011), 76 FR 11533 at 11540 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).

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

    On the options markets, specialists and market makers often compete

for order flow by offering cash or non-cash inducements, known as

payment for order flow (``PFOF''),\45\ to brokers to send their orders

to a particular market maker or exchange.\46\ PFOF arrangements are

prevalent in today's market.\47\ These arrangements likely impact the

incentives for market makers (or others) to quote aggressively to trade

with order flow covered by such PFOF arrangements because market

participants know that the market makers will be able to trade with

some or all of the captured order flow as long as they match the NBBO

(whether by displaying quotes that match the NBBO set by others or by

matching better quotes elsewhere pursuant to mechanisms that provide

market makers with the opportunity to step-up and trade with orders

that are exposed for one second).

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

    \45\ The Commission has defined PFOF broadly as ``any monetary

payment, service, property, or other benefit that results in

remuneration, compensation, or consideration to a broker or dealer

from any broker or dealer, national securities exchange, registered

securities association, or exchange member in return for the routing

of customer orders by such broker or dealer to any broker or dealer,

national securities exchange, registered securities association, or

exchange member for execution, including but not limited to:

research, clearance, custody, products or services; reciprocal

agreements for the provision of order flow; adjustment of a broker

or dealer's unfavorable trading errors; offers to participate as

underwriter in public offerings; stock loans or shared interest

accrued thereon; discounts, rebates, or any other reductions of or

credits against any fee to, or expense or other financial obligation

of, the broker or dealer routing a customer order that exceeds that

fee, expense or financial obligation.'' 17 CFR 240.10b-10(d)(9).

    \46\ Under a typical payment for order flow arrangement, a

specialist or market maker offers an order entry firm cash or other

economic inducement to route its customer orders to that

specialist's or market maker's exchange because the specialist or

market maker knows it will be able to trade with a portion of all

incoming orders, including those from firms with which it has

payment for order flow arrangements. For further discussion of PFOF

and its impact on the options markets, see Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 49175 (February 3, 2004), 69 FR 6124 (February 9, 2004).

    \47\ Reports under Rule 606 of Regulation NMS indicate that

nearly all retail broker-dealers participate in PFOF arrangements.

Regulation NMS Rule 606 reports posted by broker-dealers for the

fourth quarter of 2010 indicate PFOF amounts that generally are

around $0.30 per contract and can range up to $0.85 per contract.

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

    The BATS proposal offers an alternative mechanism to enable market

makers to compete for order flow by providing better prices directly to

customers \48\ rather than through payments to the customer's

broker.\49\ The proposal allows market makers to differentiate between

orders from traders that are relatively more informed about the short-

term direction of prices (e.g., professional traders) and orders from

less informed traders (e.g., retail investors). In this way, it may

enable BATS Options market makers to provide better prices to less

informed order flow that they otherwise would not be willing or able to

provide if they had to make those prices available to all incoming

order flow.\50\ The Commission recognizes that other exchanges have

adopted different mechanisms that include an order exposure element to

provide price improvement to customer orders.\51\ The Commission

questions, however, the extent to which these mechanisms are utilized.

In the context of this options market structure, the Commission

believes that the proposal to provide an alternative mechanism for BATS

options market makers to provide executions for customer orders at

prices better than the NBBO is consistent with the Act.\52\

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

    \48\ See also discussion of Ameritrade Letter on the Prior

Proposal, supra note 12.

    \49\ The Commission views the BATS proposal as an alternative

mechanism to PFOF, as it provides a means to benefit customers

directly through price improvement, rather than the customer's

broker through PFOF. The Commission is approving the BATS proposal

in the context of the existence of PFOF arrangements in the options

markets. Should such arrangements no longer be present in the

options market, the Commission expects the Exchange to re-evaluate,

and the Commission may re-evaluate, whether the Directed Order

program is appropriate.

    The Commission acknowledges, however, that the BATS proposal

does not preclude an Options Member from separately entering into a

PFOF arrangement with a BATS Options market maker but believes that,

even if such arrangements occur, executions occurring pursuant to

this proposal would receive prices better than the NBBO, thus

providing a direct benefit to customers in the form of price

improvement.

    \50\ It is well known in academic literature and industry

practice that prices tend to move against market makers after trades

with informed traders, often resulting in losses for market makers.

See Stoll, H. R., ``The supply of dealer services in securities of

markets,'' Journal of Finance 33 (1978), at 1133-51; Glosten, L. and

P. Milgrom, ``Bid ask and transaction prices in a specialist market

with heterogeneously informed agents,'' Journal of Financial

Economics 14 (1985), at 71-100; and Copeland, T., and D. Galai,

``Information effects on the bid-ask spread,'' Journal of Finance 38

(1983), at 1457-69. Thus, there is a strong economic rationale for

market makers not providing informed traders price improvement.

Uninformed investors end up bearing the cost of these market maker

losses through wider spreads that market makers need to quote to

uninformed investors due to informed order flow. Id.

    \51\ The Commission notes that market makers on two other

exchanges are not required to provide price improvement to Directed

Orders using their price improvement auctions, whereas the BATS

Directed Order program requires that a BATS Options market maker

provide price improvement when entering the MMPIO over the NBBO to

be able to trade with the Directed Order. See BOX Rules, Chapters V,

Section 18 (The Price Improvement Period) and VI, Section 5(c)

(Obligations of Market Makers) and ISE Rules 723 (Price Improvement

Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) and 811 (Directed Orders). The

Commission further notes that orders are not exposed for possible

price improvement on other exchanges with ``preferenced'' order

programs. Under the ``preferenced'' order programs on other

exchanges, orders are sent to certain market makers, who, if quoting

at the NBBO at the time the preferenced order is received, are

guaranteed up to 40% of the order at that price, after resting

customer orders at that price, if any, are executed. See, e.g., CBOE

Rule 8.13; ISE Rule 713, Supplementary Material .03; NYSE Amex Rule

964NY and 964.1NY.

    \52\ In response to comments that, because Directed Orders on

BATS are not exposed to all market participants, BATS Options market

makers would not be motivated to offer more than the minimum amount

of price improvement to a customer, the Commission notes that, under

the proposed rule, as amended, an Options Member may encourage

competition for its Directed Orders by submitting them to more than

one BATS Options market maker that has put that member on its

eligible customer list, thereby potentially encouraging such market

makers to provide more than a minimum amount of price improvement.

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

    In response to commenters' concerns that the proposal would

perpetuate a two-tiered market for customers--one market reflecting

publicly available prices and sizes, and another reflecting a non-

public pool of liquidity available for only certain approved customers

\53\--the Commission notes that the Act does not prohibit exchange

members or other broker-dealers from discriminating among customers, so

long as their activities are not otherwise inconsistent with the

federal securities laws.\54\ The Commission also notes that the Act

does not require exchanges to preclude discrimination by broker-

dealers. Indeed, the Commission notes that broker-dealers commonly

differentiate between customers based on the nature

and profitability of their business. Further, in general, investors as

a class tend to have an opinion on the long-term prospects of a

company, and are less informed about the intraday price movements that

affect the profitability of market makers. Thus, market makers often

view less informed order flow as desirable, and there is intense

competition for this order flow. Allowing market makers to

differentiate between customers may further encourage market makers to

provide price improvement to less informed customer order flow, which

would inure to the benefit of investors. One of the core principles of

the Act, and Section 6(b)(5) thereof, is the protection of investors.

Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that it would be

inconsistent with the Act for the Exchange to provide, under the

circumstances and facts set forth in this proposal, BATS Options market

makers the ability to differentiate between customers in providing

price improvement in the form of MMPIOs.\55\

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

    \53\ See supra note 19 and accompanying text.

    \54\ The Commission further notes that it does not agree with

the comment that an MMPIO is inconsistent with the Quote Rule (see

supra note 19). An MMPIO is firm and available to all market makers

at its displayed price. The non-displayed price of a MMPIO, however,

is not communicated to market participants and thus is not a bid or

offer for which a market maker is required to be firm pursuant to

the Quote Rule.

    \55\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64097 (March

18, 2011), 76 FR 16650 (March 24, 2011) (SR-BX-2010-079)

(eliminating the anonymity of Directed Orders on a permanent basis).

In its order approving a proposal to remove anonymity from the BOX

Directed Order process, the Commission stated that it ``does not

believe that it would be inconsistent with the federal securities

laws for the Exchange to provide, under the circumstances set forth

in this proposal, the means for its Market Makers to differentiate

between customers in providing price improvement or other non-

required advantages to certain customers.''

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

    The Exchange has proposed that the Directed Order program operate

on a six-month pilot basis so that the Commission and the Exchange can

monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and

consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary. To help the Commission

and the Exchange evaluate the Directed Order program during the pilot,

the Exchange proposes to provide to the Commission monthly data

regarding price improvement and competition in the Directed Order

program.\56\ In addition, the Exchange has also represented to the

Commission that it will provide a regulatory study regarding how it

tests to determine whether the appropriate information barriers are in

place to protect against an order flow provider giving a market maker

advance notice of an incoming Directed Order or a BATS Options market

maker providing information regarding its planned quoting activities or

details about its MMPIO to an order flow provider. Approving the

proposal on a pilot basis and requiring submission of monthly data will

allow the Commission to analyze the Directed Order program and its

impact, if any, on the marketplace.

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

    \56\ See supra Section II for the statistics to be provided by

the Exchange in monthly reports detailing its ongoing review of the

pilot.

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

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, 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-BATS-2011-009 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-BATS-2011-009. 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 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

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-BATS-2011-009 and should be

submitted on or before July 28, 2011.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    Amendment No. 2 revised the proposed rule change to permit Options

Members to send Directed Orders to more than one BATS Options market

maker. Amendment No. 2 also amended the proposed rule change to state

that if a Directed Order is directed to more than one BATS Options

market maker, such Directed Order will execute in price/time priority

based on the non-displayed price of such orders, to the extent the

Directed Order can execute against any MMPIO. These revisions are

designed to respond to certain of the commenters' concerns regarding

competition in the Directed Order program and clarify aspects of the

proposal. In addition, the Commission notes that the proposed revisions

may encourage an Options Member to submit a Directed Order to more than

one BATS Options market maker, thereby potentially encouraging such

market makers to compete with respect to the amount of price

improvement they provide. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\57\ for approving the proposed

rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the 30th

day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.

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

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

VII. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the

Exchange Act,\58\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2011-009), as

modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved on an

accelerated basis, for a pilot period ending January 30, 2012.

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

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    \59\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,

pursuant to delegated authority.\59\

Cathy H. Ahn,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-16922 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51230-51233]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0661; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00737-Q;
Amendment 39-22510; AD 2023-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Ipeco Pilot and Co-Pilot Seats

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-21-
06, which applied to certain Ipeco Holdings Limited (Ipeco) pilot and
co-pilot seats. AD 2019-21-06 required modification and re-
identification of the affected seats, initial and repetitive
inspections of the affected track lock springs and, depending on the
findings, replacement of the track lock springs with a part eligible
for installation. Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-06, the FAA
determined the need for a mandatory terminating action to the track
lock spring inspections. This AD is prompted by reports of track lock
spring failures occurring on affected seats. This AD retains the
requirements of AD 2019-21-06. This AD also adds a mandatory
terminating action for the initial and repetitive inspections of the
affected track lock springs. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 7, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 7,
2023.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
December 12, 2017 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017); and December 13,
2019 (84 FR 60325, November 8, 2019).

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0661; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Ipeco Holdings Limited, Aviation Way, Southend on Sea, SS2 6UN,
United Kingdom; phone: +44 1702 545118; fax: +44 1702 540782; email:
[email protected].
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0661.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Kung, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781)
238-7244; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84 FR
60325, November 8, 2019) (AD 2019-21-06). AD 2019-21-06 applied to
Ipeco pilot and co-pilot seats with a part number (P/N) listed in
Paragraph 1.A., Planning Information, Tables 1 and 2, of Ipeco Service
Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, and
Ipeco pilot seat P/N 3A063-0099-01-1 and Ipeco co-pilot seat P/N 3A063-
0100-01-1. AD 2019-21-06 was prompted by an MCAI originated by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2018-
0262, dated December 6, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0262), to correct an unsafe
condition identified as reports of track lock spring failures occurring
on affected seats, including those seats already modified by EASA AD
2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0256). AD 2019-21-06
required modification and re-identification of the affected seats,
initial and repetitive inspections of the affected track lock springs
and, depending on the findings, replacement of the track lock springs
with a part eligible for installation. The FAA issued AD 2019-21-06 to
prevent unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and
landing.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2023 (88 FR
21114). The NPRM was prompted by United Kingdom (UK) Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) AD G-2022-0011, dated June 9, 2022 (referred to after
this as the MCAI), issued by UK CAA, which is the aviation authority
for the UK. The MCAI states that occurrences of track lock spring
failures continued to be reported, including seats already modified, as
instructed by EASA AD 2016-0256. Consequently, the manufacturer
published revised service information, which specifies instructions for
inspection and replacement, if necessary, of affected track lock
springs; and EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0262 to supersede EASA AD 2016-
0256, which retained the modification and re-identification; and
introduced new instructions to inspect for damage and incorrect
installation of the track lock springs and, if necessary, replacement
of both track lock springs of the affected seat. The MCAI supersedes
EASA AD 2018-0262; removes the previous instructions for modification
and re-identification; retains the inspection for damage and incorrect
installation of the track lock springs; and introduces new instructions
for replacement of the affected track lock springs and lever, and
installation of a track lock lever control placard (modification and
re-identification) as terminating action.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0661.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all of the requirements of
AD 2019-21-06. The FAA also proposed to add a mandatory terminating
action (modification and re-identification of each affected seat) for
the initial and repetitive inspections of the affected track lock
springs. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent unexpected movement of
pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and landing.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. Except for minor editorial changes this AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Ipeco SB Number 063-25-15, Issue 2; SB Number 063-
25-16, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-17, Issue 2; and SB Number 063-25-18,
Issue 2; all dated March 8, 2022. These SBs provide instructions for
removal and replacement of the track lock levers and springs and
installation of a track lock lever control placard.
    This AD also requires Ipeco SB Number 063-25-08, Revision 00; SB
Number 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00;
all dated May 31, 2016, which the Director of the Federal Register
approved for incorporation by reference as of December 12, 2017 (82 FR
51552, November 7, 2017).
    This AD also requires Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated
August 14, 2018, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of December 13, 2019 (84 FR 60325,
November 8, 2019).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 120 pilot and co-pilot seats
installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates that seats installed on 34 ATR 42 airplanes
and seats installed on 21 ATR 72 airplanes require modification and
inspection.

    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew    0.25 work-hours x $85                 $0          $21.25          $2,550
 seats.                                  per hour = $21.25.
Modify ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew     2 work-hours x $85 per                56             226          27,120
 seats.                                  hour = $170.
Report results of ATR 42 or ATR 72      1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          10,200
 inspection.                             hour = $85.
Modify ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew     2.5 work-hours x $85 per              56          268.50          32,220
 seats per mandatory terminating         hour = $212.50.
 action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove seat and replace ATR 42 track lock       1.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $28         $155.50
 spring.                                         $127.50.
Remove seat and replace ATR 72 track lock       1.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =               28          155.50
 spring.                                         $127.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 currently 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 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84
FR 60325, November 8, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-14-10 Ipeco Holdings Limited: Amendment 39-22510; Docket No.
FAA-2023-0661; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00737-Q.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 7,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84 FR 60325,
November 8, 2019); (AD 2019-21-06).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to:
    (i) Ipeco Holdings Limited (Ipeco) pilot and co-pilot seats with
a part number (P/N) listed in Paragraph 1.A., Planning Information,
Tables 1 and 2, of Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-14,
Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, and
    (ii) Ipeco pilot seat P/N 3A063-0099-01-1 and Ipeco co-pilot
seat P/N 3A063-0100-01-1.
    (2) These seats are installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2510, Flight
Compartment Equipment.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of track lock spring failures
occurring on affected seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and
landing. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification and Re-Identification of Seats, Inspections
and Replacement of Track Lock Spring, and Reporting With No Changes

    This paragraph retains the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-21-06, with no changes.
    (1) For seats that have not installed the track lock spring
modification kit, within two years after December 12, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2017-22-02, Amendment 39-19082 (82 FR 51552,
November 7, 2017)), modify and re-identify each affected pilot and
co-pilot seat using the Accomplishment Instructions of Ipeco SB
Number 063-25-08, Revision 00; Ipeco SB Number 063-25-09, Revision
00; or Ipeco SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00; all dated May 31,
2016, as applicable to each affected seat.
    (2) For all affected seats:
    (i) Within 750 flight hours (FHs) after December 13, 2019 (the
effective date of AD 2019-21-06), and, thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 750 FHs, inspect the track lock spring of each seat in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.2, of
Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (ii) If, during any inspection as required by paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD, any damage on, or incorrect installation of,
any track lock spring is found on the pilot or co-pilot seat, before
further flight, replace both track lock springs of the affected seat
with a part eligible for installation using the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> or <IP_ADDRESS>, as applicable, of Ipeco
SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (3) Within 30 days after the initial and repetitive inspections,
and thereafter for two years after December 13, 2019 (the effective
date of AD 2019-21-06), send the inspection results, including no
findings, to Ipeco at [email protected].

(h) New Mandatory Terminating Action

    As a mandatory terminating action to the inspections required by
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, or at the next Base Maintenance check, whichever
occurs later, modify and re-identify each affected seat in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Ipeco SB Number
063-25-15, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-16, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-
17, Issue 2; or SB Number 063-25-18, Issue 2; all dated March 8,
2022, as applicable to each affected seat.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any pilot or
co-pilot seat identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this AD unless
the seat is modified and re-identified as specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD.

(j) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, ``damage'' includes cracks,
breaks, corrosion, or deformation of the track lock spring.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``incorrect installation'' is an
installed track lock spring that is at an angle or position
different from the angle or position shown in Figures 6 and 7 of
Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is:
    (i) A modified seat provided, before installation, it has passed
an inspection (no damage is found); and
    (ii) A track lock spring provided that it passed an inspection
(no damage is found).

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD if the actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using ATR SB No. ATR42-25-0191, Original
Issue, dated July 4, 2016; ATR SB No. ATR42-25-0191, Revision No.
01, dated July 20, 2016; or ATR SB No. ATR72-25-1157, Revision No.
02, dated March 9, 2017.

(l) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(n) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to United Kingdom (UK) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
AD G-2022-0011, dated June 9, 2022, for related information. This UK
CAA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA-2023-0661.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Kung,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 7, 2023.
    (i) Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-15, Issue 2, dated
March 8, 2022.
    (ii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-16, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (iii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-17, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (iv) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-18, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 13, 2019 (84 FR 60325, November 8, 2019).
    (i) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14,
2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 12, 2017 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017).
    (i) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-08, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
    (ii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-09, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
    (iii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00, dated May 31,
2016.
    (6) For Ipeco service information identified in this AD, contact
Ipeco Holdings Limited, Aviation Way, Southend On Sea, SS2 6UN,
United Kingdom; phone: +44 1702 545118; email:
[email protected].
    (7) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (8) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 13, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16540 Filed 8-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28683-28684]
[FR Doc No: E9-14209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No 1.

June 10, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-757-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Third Revised Sheet No 4B
et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090609-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-758-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc submits Fourth
Revised Sheet 1 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 7/10/09.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090609-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-759-000.
    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.
    Description: Egan Hub Storage, LLC submits Sixth Revised Sheet No
201 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090609-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-760-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Second Revised
Sheet 80B to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 7/10/09.
    Filed Date: 06/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090609-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 22, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14209 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22044-22045]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80610; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Add New MSRB
Rule G-49, on Transactions Below the Minimum Denomination of an Issue,
to the Rules of the MSRB, and To Rescind Paragraph (f), on Minimum
Denominations, From MSRB Rule G-15

May 5, 2017.
    On January 24, 2017, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to add new MSRB Rule G-49,
on transactions below the minimum denomination of an issue, to the
rules of the MSRB, and, in MSRB Rule G-15, on confirmation, clearance,
settlement, and other uniform practice requirements with respect to
transactions with customers, to rescind paragraph (f), on minimum
denominations. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 9, 2017.\3\ The Commission received
four comment letters on the proposal.\4\ On March 21, 2017, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\5\ the MSRB

granted an extension of time for the Commission to act on this filing
until May 10, 2017. On May 1, 2017, the MSRB withdrew the proposed rule
change (SR-MSRB-2017-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79978 (February 6,
2017), 82 FR 10123.
    \4\ See letters from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated March 2, 2017; Mike Nichols, Chief Executive
Officer, Bond Dealers of America, dated March 2, 2017; Paige W.
Pierce, President and Chief Executive Officer, RW Smith, dated March
3, 2017; and James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance,
Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, dated March 7,
2017.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09526 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5690]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-145-000]

Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

January 30, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 25, 2007, Stingray Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Original Sheet No. 208, with an
effective date of January 21, 2007.
    Stingray states that it is filing this supplement to add two
potentially non-conforming agreements to the December 22, 2006 filing
with the Commission and to request approval of the additional
potentially non-conforming agreements.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1916 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 5544]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01966]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94068; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Enhance Capital Requirements and
Make Other Changes

January 26, 2022.
    On December 13, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2021-016 (the ``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed
Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2021,\3\ and the Commission has received comments
regarding the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93856 (December 22,
2021), 86 FR 74185 (December 29, 2021) (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-016).
    \4\ Comments are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2021-016/srnscc2021016.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change
is February 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day period for Commission action
on the Proposed Rule Change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates March 29, 2022 as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule
change SR-NSCC-2021-016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01966 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63638-63639]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26733]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0066; FRL-9986-51-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production:
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Ferroalloys
Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (EPA ICR No. 1831.07,
OMB Control No. 2060-0391), to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through December 31, 2018. Public comments were
previously requested, via the Federal Register, on June 29, 2017 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 10,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0066, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public

docket without change, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese applies to new and existing ferroalloy production
facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and silicomanganese, and
that are either major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions or are co-located at major sources of HAPs. The following
affected facilities at ferroalloy production plants are subject to this
NESHAP rule: Submerged arc furnaces; metal oxygen refining processes;
crushing and screening operations; and fugitive dust sources. New
facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction
after the date of proposal.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXX.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Ferroalloy production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 2 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,170 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $133,000 (per year); there are no annualized
capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently-approved by
OMB. The adjustment increase in burden is due to more accurate
estimates of existing and anticipated new sources, as identified during
the development of the final rule amendments.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-26733 Filed 12-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44535-44536]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15988]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10012-74-OA]

Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Chartered
Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the
chartered SAB to review the scientific and technical basis of the
proposed rule ``Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering
Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.''

DATES: The public teleconferences of the chartered Science Advisory
Board will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. (Eastern Time) and Tuesday, September 15, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.
Please refer to the SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab for
information on how to access the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the public teleconferences may contact
Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science
Advisory Board via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the SAB can be
found on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The SAB was established pursuant
to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide
independent scientific and technical advice to the EPA Administrator on
the scientific and technical basis for agency positions and
regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB
will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff
Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is
hereby given that the SAB will hold two public teleconferences to
review the scientific and technical basis of the proposed rule
``Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and
Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process'' described in 85 FR
35612-35627. Under the SAB's authorizing statute, the SAB ``may make
available to the Administrator, within the time specified by the
Administrator, its advice and comments on the adequacy of the
scientific and technical basis'' of proposed rules. The SAB will hold
two public teleconferences to receive briefings from the EPA on the
proposed rule and discuss its scientific and technical basis.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the teleconferences,
the agenda and other meeting materials for each teleconference will be
placed on the SAB website at http://epa.gov/sab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
committee's charge or meeting materials. Input from the public to the
SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or
technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three
minutes. Persons interested in providing oral statements should contact
Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the
contact information noted above by August 4, 2020, to be placed on the
list of registered speakers for the August 11, 2020, teleconference and
by September 8, 2020, for the September 15, 2020, teleconference.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by SAB members,
statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by August 4,
2020, for consideration at the public teleconference on August 11,
2020. Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by
September 8, 2020, for consideration at the public teleconference on
September 15, 2020. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at
the contact information above via email with original signature.
Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned version of
each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents
with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should be aware
that their personal contact information, if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will
not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Armitage at the phone
number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior
to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: July 20, 2020.
Thomas Brennan,
Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2020-15988 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P