[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24162-24164]
[DOCID:fr02my08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD;
Amendment 39-15499; AD 2008-09-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F series airplanes. This AD requires
you to inspect the wing strut attach fittings for corrosion or cracks
and requires repair or replacement if corrosion or cracks are found.
This AD results from data collected from an accident involving a
Taylorcraft Model BF12-65 airplane. The wing separated from the
airplane after the wing strut attach fitting failed due to corrosion.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the
wing strut attach fittings, which could result in failure of the wing
strut attach fittings and lead to wing separation and loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2008.
    On June 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD,
contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue,
Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2008-0177;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, SAT-
MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On February 12, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F series
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9239).
The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the wing strut attach
fittings for corrosion or cracks and to require repair or replacement
if corrosion or cracks are found.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Additional Wording

    The Experimental Aircraft Association and four other commenters ask
for us to add wording to the final rule to allow repairing the fitting/
fuselage structure in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-
1B. The commenters believe the Taylorcraft fuselage structure,
comprised of welded steel tubing and flat plate fittings, is well
within the scope of repair practice for an Airframe and Powerplant (A &
P) mechanic experienced in maintaining aircraft of that vintage. They
comment that it is reasonable to expect an experienced mechanic to have
sufficient information and means available to rebuild the fitting area
with guidance from AC 43.13-1B.
    We agree that repair of the Taylorcraft fuselage welded structure
is within the scope of repair criteria and guidance provided in AC
43.13-1B. We will add language in paragraph (e)(3) of the AD to allow
for repair of the attach fitting and the associated fuselage structure
in accordance with AC 43.13-1B.

Comment Issue No. 2: Requirements Already Exist

    Marc Fries and four other commenters believe the AD is redundant
and that requirements already exist to accomplish inspections of the
attach fittings. The commenters believe that 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D
already provides sufficient annual/100-hour inspection requirements to
inspect the wing strut attach fittings. Some of the commenters cite
poor maintenance practice as the root cause for the corrosion related
fitting failure in the fatal accident airplane. One commenter
additionally mentioned that AD 47-16-03 already covers inspection of
Taylorcraft wing attach fittings.
    We do not agree with the commenters. AD 47-16-03 only addressed
inspection of wing strut attach fittings for cracks or evidence of poor
welds in Taylorcraft Models BC, BF, and BL series aircraft. The AD was
issued for a potential manufacturing quality issue. The AD did not
address corrosion and required an immediate one-time compliance.
    While 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D requires inspection of wing and
center section components for general condition and security of
attachment, the FAA has heard from Taylorcraft owners that they were
unaware of the existence of drain holes in the bottom of the wing strut
attach fittings. Also, some owners were unaware of the potential
situation where fabric may cover the attach fitting and drain holes on
re-covered airplanes. This condition was a contributing factor in the
fatal accident, as it fostered the corrosion environment that led to
eventual fitting failure. The FAA believes this condition is likely to
exist in other Taylorcraft airplanes of

the same type design and inspection of all affected airplanes is
warranted for continued operational safety.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for the change previously discussed and minor editorial
corrections. We have determined that this change and these minor
corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3,119 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total cost per     Total cost on
                 Labor cost                             Parts cost                airplane       U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $80 per hour = $160..........  Not applicable................             $160          $499,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need
this repair/replacement:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total cost per
       Labor cost per fitting          Parts cost per    airplane  (for
                                           fitting        two fittings)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 work-hours x $80 per hour =                   $200            $5,200
 $2,400.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2008-09-18 Taylorcraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-15499; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all serial numbers of Taylorcraft Models
A, BC,
    BCS12-D, BCS, BC12-D1, BC-65, BCS12-D1, BCS-65, BC12D-85, BC12-
65 (Army L-2H), BCS12D-85, BCS12-65, BC12D-4-85, BC12-D, BCS12D-4-
85, (Army L-2G) BF, BFS, BF-60, BFS-60, BF-65, BFS-65, (Army L-2K)
BF 12-65, BFS-65, BL, BLS, (Army L-2F) BL-65, BLS-65, (Army L-2J)
BL12-65, BLS12-65, 19, F19, F21, F21A, F21B, F22, F22A, F22B, and
F22C airplanes that are certificated in any category.

    Note: This AD applies to all Taylorcraft models listed above,
including those models not listed in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC
Service Bulletin No. 2007-002, dated November 8, 2007. If there are
any other differences between this AD and the above service
bulletin, this AD takes precedence.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from data collected from an accident
involving a Taylorcraft Model BF12-65 airplane. The wing separated
from the airplane after the wing strut attach fitting failed due to
corrosion. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion
or cracks in the wing strut attach fittings. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in failure of the wing strut attach fittings
and lead to wing separation and loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:
    (1) Initially inspect the left and right wing lift strut attach
fittings, part number (P/N) A-A11, for corrosion or cracking
following Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-002,
dated November 8, 2007, using the following compliance times:
    (i) For airplanes that have never been equipped with floats or
snow skis: Within the

next 90 days after June 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD).
    (ii) For airplanes equipped with or that have ever been equipped
with floats or snow skis: Within the next 30 days after June 6, 2008
(the effective date of this AD).
    (2) If the airplane is equipped with floats or snow skis at the
time of the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this
AD or at any time after the initial inspection required by paragraph
(e)(1) of this AD, you must repeat the inspection required in
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the following exists:                      Then:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The airplane is equipped with        Inspect no later than 48 months
 floats or snow skis at the time of the   following the initial
 initial inspection required by           inspection and repetitively
 paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.             inspect thereafter at
                                          intervals not to exceed 48
                                          months. Continue these
                                          repetitive inspections until
                                          removal of floats or snow
                                          skis, at which time you must
                                          follow paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of
                                          this AD.
(ii) You remove floats or snow skis at   Inspect no later than 48 months
 any time following the initial           following the last inspection.
 inspection required by paragraph         After the inspection following
 (e)(1) of this AD.                       removal of floats or snow
                                          skis, no further inspections
                                          are required unless floats or
                                          snow skis are re-installed at
                                          a later date, at which time
                                          you must follow paragraph
                                          (e)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(iii) You install floats or snow skis    Inspect no later than 48 months
 at any time since the initial            following the last inspection
 inspection required by paragraph         or before further flight after
 (e)(1) of this AD.                       installation of floats or snow
                                          skis, whichever occurs later,
                                          and repetitively inspect
                                          thereafter at intervals not to
                                          exceed 48 months. Continue
                                          these repetitive inspections
                                          until removal of floats or
                                          snow skis, at which time you
                                          must follow paragraph
                                          (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If you find cracking or material loss due to corrosion
during any of the inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2)
of this AD, before further flight, do the following:
    (i) Contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC at 2124 North Central
Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> to obtain
an FAA-approved repair scheme or replacement procedure; or refer to
FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001;
and
    (ii) Repair or replace the left and/or right wing lift strut
attach fitting(s), P/N A-A11.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andy
McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, SAT-MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite
650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (210)
308-3370. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI)
in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No.
2007-002, dated November 8, 2007, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville,
Texas 78521; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_
of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 23, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-9397 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28912-28917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11636]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69559; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options

May 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 30, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend certain Penny Pilot Options \3\ Rebates to Add Liquidity and Non-
Penny Pilot Fees for Adding Liquidity applicable to Firms,\4\ Non-NOM
Market Makers \5\ and Broker Dealers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through June 30, 2013. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April
4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009)(SR-NASDAQ-2009-091) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny Pilot);
60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292 (November 17, 2009)(SR-NASDAQ-
2009-097) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61455 (February 1, 2010), 75
FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-013) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny
Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-053) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 65969 (December 15, 2011), 76
FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness extension and replacement of Penny
Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through December 31, 2012);
and 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136 (January 2, 2013) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through June 30, 2013). See
also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5.
    \4\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
    \5\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \6\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on May 1,
2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. The Exchange proposes to adopt certain tiered
pricing for Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers with
respect to Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity and Non-Penny
Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity.
    Today, the Exchange offers tiered Penny Pilot Options Rebates to
Add Liquidity to Customers,\7\ Professionals \8\ and NOM Market Makers
\9\ and a $0.10 per contract Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers. With
respect to Customers and Professionals, the Exchange pays Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity based on various criteria with rebates
ranging from $0.25 to $0.48 per contract as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional''
(as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)). The
Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity range from [sic].
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately
marked by Participants.
    \9\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' is a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII,
Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all
securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker
in at least one security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Rebate to add
                              Monthly volume              liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1...............  Participant adds Customer                   $0.25
                        and Professional liquidity
                        of up to 0.20% of total
                        industry customer equity
                        and ETF option average
                        daily volume (``ADV'')
                        contracts per day in a
                        month.
Tier 2...............  Participant adds Customer                    0.40
                        and Professional liquidity
                        of 0.21% to 0.30% of total
                        industry customer equity
                        and ETF option ADV
                        contracts per day in a
                        month.
Tier 3...............   Participant adds Customer                   0.43
                        and Professional liquidity
                        of 0.31% to 0.49% of total
                        industry customer equity
                        and ETF option ADV
                        contracts per day in a
                        month.
Tier 4...............  Participant adds Customer                    0.45
                        and Professional liquidity
                        of 0.5% or more of total
                        industry customer equity
                        and ETF option ADV
                        contracts per day in a
                        month.
Tier 5 \a\...........  Participant adds (1)                         0.42
                        Customer and Professional
                        liquidity of 25,000 or
                        more contracts per day in
                        a month, (2) the
                        Participant has certified
                        for the Investor Support
                        Program set forth in Rule
                        7014, and (3) the
                        Participant executed at
                        least one order on
                        NASDAQ's equity market.
Tier 6 \b,c\.........  Participant has Total                        0.45
                        Volume of 130,000 or more
                        contracts per day in a
                        month, of which 25,000 or
                        more contracts per day in
                        a month must be Customer
                        or Professional liquidity.
Tier 7 \b,c\.........  Participant has Total                        0.47
                        Volume of 175,000 or more
                        contracts per day in a
                        month, of which 50,000 or
                        more contracts per day in
                        a month must be Customer
                        or Professional liquidity.
Tier 8 \b,c\.........  Participant (1) Has Total                    0.48
                        Volume of 325,000 or more
                        contracts per day in a
                        month, or (2) adds
                        Customer or Professional
                        liquidity of 1.00% or more
                        of national customer
                        volume in multiply-listed
                        equity and ETF options
                        classes in a month or (3)
                        adds Customer or
                        Professional liquidity of
                        60,000 or more contracts
                        per day in a month and NOM
                        Market Maker liquidity of
                        40,000 or more contracts
                        per day per month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to NOM Market Makers, the Exchange pays Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity based on various criteria in four
tiers with rebates which range from $0.25 to $0.38 per contract as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Monthly volume         Rebate to add liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..........  Participant adds NOM     $0.25
                   Market Maker liquidity
                   in Penny Pilot Options
                   of up to 39,999
                   contracts per day in a
                   month.
Tier 2..........  Participant adds NOM     $0.30
                   Market Maker liquidity
                   in Penny Pilot Options
                   of 40,000 to 89,999
                   contracts per day in a
                   month.
Tier 3..........  Participant and its      $0.37
                   affiliate under Common
                   Ownership qualify for
                   Tier 8 of the Customer
                   and Professional
                   Rebate to Add
                   Liquidity in Penny
                   Pilot Options.
Tier 4..........  Participant adds NOM     $0.28 or $0.38 in the
                   Market Maker liquidity   following symbols BAC, GLD,
                   in Penny Pilot Options   IWM, QQQ and VXX or $0.40 in
                   of 110,000 or more       SPY
                   contracts per day in a
                   month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and
Broker-Dealer Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity to pay a
Participant that adds 15,000 contracts per day or more of Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options or Non-
Penny Pilot Options in a given month a Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity of $0.20 per contract. The Exchange believes that the
proposed Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will encourage
Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers to transact additional
liquidity on NOM.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Non-Penny Pilot Options
Fees for Adding Liquidity for a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-
Dealer. Today, a Customer does not pay a Non-Penny Pilot Options Fee
for Adding Liquidity. Professionals, Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and
Broker-Dealers pay a $0.45 per contract Non-Penny Pilot Options Fee for
Adding Liquidity and a NOM Market Maker pays a $0.35 per contract Non-
Penny Pilot Options Fee for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange proposes to
decrease the Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Non-Penny
Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity from $0.45 to $0.36 per
contract provided a Participant adds 15,000 contracts per day or more
of Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options in a given month. The Exchange
believes that the proposed reduced Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for
Adding Liquidity will encourage Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and
Broker-Dealers to provide additional liquidity on NOM.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new note 2 to describe the rebate
and reduced fee as described herein to Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that they provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which NASDAQ operates or controls as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and Broker-Dealer Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity are
reasonable because a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-Dealer have
the opportunity to obtain an increased rebate, similar to Customers,
Professionals and NOM Market Makers today,\12\ by transacting 15,000
contracts per day or more of Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot
Options liquidity in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Customers and Professionals Penny Pilot Option Rebates to
Add Liquidity are based on various criteria with rebates ranging
from $0.25 to $0.48 per contract. A NOM Market Maker is paid a Penny
Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity based on various criteria in
four tiers with rebates which range from $0.25 to $0.38 per
contract. See Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and Broker-Dealer Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
continue to offer Customers, Professionals and NOM Market Makers an
opportunity to obtain higher rebates. The Exchange believes that
continuing to pay Customers and Professionals tiered Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, as compared to other market
participants, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
Customers are entitled to higher rebates because Customer order flow
brings unique benefits to the market through increased liquidity which
benefits all market participants. The Exchange believes that continuing
to offer Professionals the same Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add
Liquidity as Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange believes that offering Professionals the
opportunity to earn the same rebates as Customers, as is the case
today, and higher rebates as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-
NOM Market Makers, and in some cases NOM Market Makers, is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange does not believe
that the amount of the rebate offered by the Exchange has a material
impact on a Participant's ability to execute orders in Penny Pilot
Options. By offering Professionals, as well as Customers, higher
rebates, the Exchange hopes to simply remain competitive with other
venues so that it remains a choice for market participants when posting
orders and the result may be additional Professional order flow for the
Exchange, in addition to increased Customer order flow.
    In addition, a Participant may not be able to gauge the exact
rebate tier it would qualify for until the end of the month because
Professional volume would be commingled with Customer volume in
calculating tier volume.\13\ A Professional could only otherwise
presume the Tier 1 rebate would be achieved in a month when determining
price.\14\ Further, the Exchange initially established Professional
pricing in order to ``. . . bring additional revenue to the Exchange.''
\15\ The Exchange noted in

the Professional Filing that it believes ``. . . that the increased
revenue from the proposal would assist the Exchange to recoup fixed
costs.'' \16\ The Exchange also noted in that filing that it believes
that establishing separate pricing for a Professional, which ranges
between that of a customer and market maker, accomplishes this
objective.\17\ The Exchange does not believe that providing
Professionals with the opportunity to obtain higher rebates equivalent
to that of a Customer creates a competitive environment where
Professionals would be necessarily advantaged on NOM as compared to NOM
Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers or Non-NOM Market Makers. Also, a
Professional is assessed the same fees as other market participants,
except Customers and NOM Market Makers, as discussed herein.\18\ For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that continuing to offer
Professionals the same rebates as Customers is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Finally, the Exchange believes that NOM Market
Makers should be offered the opportunity to earn higher rebates as
compared to Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers because NOM
Market Makers add value through continuous quoting \19\ and the
commitment of capital. Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers
would continue to be offered the same Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity, as is the case today, except, similar to other market
participants, Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers would
have the opportunity to earn a higher Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity if they transact 15,000 contract per day or more of Penny
Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity in a given month.
The volume requirement for Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-
Dealers to qualify for the higher Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity is less than is required to earn a Tier 1 Customer or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options or a Tier 1
NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Option.\20\ The
proposed Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Penny Pilot
Options Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.20 per contract is the same for
these market participants and would be uniformly applied to all
Participants that qualify for the increased rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Customer and Professional volume is aggregated for purposes
of determining which rebate tier a Participant qualifies for with
respect to the Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.
    \14\ A Professional would be unable to determine the exact
rebate that would be paid on a transaction by transaction basis with
certainty until the end of a given month when all Customer and
Professional volume is aggregated for purposes of determining which
tier the Participant qualified for in a given month.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066). The Exchange
noted in this filing that it believes the role of the retail
customer in the marketplace is distinct from that of the
professional and the Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted
for this distinction by pricing each market participant according to
their roles and obligations.
    \18\ The Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is
$0.48 per contract for all market participants, except Customers and
NOM Market Makers. Customers are assessed $0.45 per contract and NOM
Market Makers would continue to be assessed $0.47 per contract.
    \19\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
    \20\ The 15,000 contract threshold for Firms, Non-NOM Market
Makers and Broker-Dealers to earn the Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity equates to approximately 0.12% of the industry
customer equity and ETF volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and Broker-Dealer Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity
from $0.45 to $0.36 per contract if a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or
Broker-Dealer transacts 15,000 contracts per day or more of Penny Pilot
Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity in a given month is
reasonable because a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-Dealer have
the opportunity to lower their transaction fees by transacting
additional liquidity on NOM.
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and Broker-Dealer Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity
from $0.45 to $0.36 per contract if a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or
Broker-Dealer transacts 15,000 contracts per day or more of Penny Pilot
Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity in a given month is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
continue to assess Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers the
same Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity, as is the case
today, except, similar to other market participants, Firms, Non-NOM
Market Makers and Broker-Dealers would have the opportunity to reduce
Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity if they transact
15,000 contract per day or more of Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny
Pilot Options liquidity in a given month. Today, Customers are not
assessed a Non-Penny Pilot Options Fee for Adding Liquidity because
Customer order flow is unique and benefits all market participants. A
NOM Market Maker would continue to be assessed lower fees as compared
to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers in Non-Penny Pilot
Fees for Adding Liquidity ($0.35 per contract for a NOM Market Maker as
compared to other market participants), even with the proposed reduced
fee of $0.36 per contract, because, as mentioned herein, NOM Market
Makers add value through continuous quoting \21\ and the commitment of
capital. The proposed reduced Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-
Dealer Non-Penny Pilot Options Fee for Adding Liquidity of $0.26 per
contract is the same for Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-
Dealers, and would be uniformly applied to all Participants that
qualify for the reduced fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that not offering Professionals the same
reduction in Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity is
reasonable because Professionals have the opportunity to earn
significantly higher rebates for adding liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options, as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-
Dealers, which should continue to incentivize Professionals to add
liquidity to the Exchange in Penny Pilot Options, which account for
approximately 80% of the industry volume every month. The Exchange
believes that the Penny Pilot Options Professional rebate tiers, which
requires Professionals to add a certain amount of Penny Pilot Options
liquidity per month and liquidity in either Penny Pilot Options or Non-
Penny Pilot Options for purposes of Tiers 6, 7 or 8,\22\ incentivizes
Professionals to add Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity on NOM. Further,
Professionals average effective rate to add liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options has a high probability of being
lower than the average effective rate for a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
or Broker-Dealers to add liquidity in Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny
Pilot Options in any given month, despite the Exchange's decision to
not offer a Professional the opportunity to reduce

Non-Penny Pilot Fees for Adding Liquidity in certain circumstances. By
way of example, if a Professional and a Firm add liquidity volume,
which volume is evenly split between Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny
Pilot Options and both achieve the maximum rebate opportunity
available, the Professional's effective rate to add liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options would be an average
effective rebate of $0.015 per contract, while the Firm's effective
rate would be an average effective fee of $0.08 per contract.
Otherwise, the Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity are
the same for all market participants, except Customers, when a Firm,
Non-NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer does not otherwise qualify for
the reduced fee. The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the
Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Fees for Adding Liquidity
in Non-Penny Pilot Options, only when a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or
Broker-Dealer adds liquidity of 15,000 contracts per day or more of
Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options volume in a given month,
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because of the potential a
Professional has to achieve higher rebates in Penny Pilot Options,
particularly when such volume is aggregated with Customer volume and,
in certain cases, includes liquidity in either Penny Pilot Options or
Non-Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Tiers 6, 7 or 8 of the Professional Penny Pilot Options
Rebate to Add Liquidity permits Participants to add Total Volume
which is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer,
Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or removes
liquidity on NOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    Customers have traditionally been paid the highest rebates offered
by options exchanges. The Exchange does not believe that providing
Professionals with the opportunity to obtain higher rebates equivalent
to that of a Customer creates an undue burden on competition where
Professionals would be necessarily advantaged on NOM as compared to NOM
Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers or Non-NOM Market Makers because
the Exchange does not believe that the amount of the rebate offered by
the Exchange has a material impact on a Participant's ability to
execute orders in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rebate tiers would result in any burden on competition as
between market participants because the remaining market participants,
Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers would continue to earn
uniform rebates today and have the opportunity to earn the same
enhanced rebate. The Exchange believes that incentivizing Firms, Non-
NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers to transact a greater number of
Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options brings greater liquidity
to the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and Broker-Dealer Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding Liquidity,
provided those Participants transacted 15,000 contracts per day or more
of Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity in a given
month, does not misalign the current fees on NOM. These market
participants would continue to pay uniform transaction fees as compared
to other market participants. Customers would not pay such a fee, as is
the case today because of the unique benefits attributed to Customer
order flow, and NOM Market Makers would continue to be assessed a more
favorable fee, despite the fee reduction offered to Firms, Non-NOM
Market Makers and Broker-Dealers because NOM Market Makers have
obligations \23\ to the market which are not borne by other market
participants and therefore the Exchange believes that NOM Market Makers
are entitled to a lower fee as compared to other market participants,
except Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding
Liquidity, the Exchange noted that Professionals have the opportunity
to earn significantly higher Penny Pilot Options Rebates for Adding
Liquidity as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-
Dealers by qualifying for rebate tiers which aggregates Penny Pilot
Options volume and Non-Penny Pilot Options volume, in certain
circusmtances [sic],\24\ as well as volume from Customer executions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding
Liquidity only when a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer adds
liquidity of 15,000 contracts per day or more of Penny Pilot Options or
Non-Penny Pilot Options volume in a given month does not create an
undue burden on competition given the opportunity for Professionals to
qualify for higher Penny Pilot Options rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the differing outcomes, rebates and fees
created by the Exchange's proposed pricing incentives contribute to the
overall health of the market place for the benefit of all Participants
that willing choose to transact options on NOM. For the reasons
specified herein, the Exchange does not believe this proposal creates
an undue burden on competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market comprised of eleven U.S. options exchanges in which
many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily
and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels
or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. These market forces support the Exchange belief that the
proposed rebate structure and tiers proposed herein are competitive
with rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that this competitive marketplace continues to impact the
rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the
proposals set forth above.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\25\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File

Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-074 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-NASDAQ-2013-074. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-074, and should
be submitted on or before June 6, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11636 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34286-34288]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0490; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-004-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
(Bell) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bell Model 407 helicopters. This proposed AD would require
installing a placard beneath the NR/NP dual tachometer and revising the
limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This
proposed AD is prompted by several incidents of third stage engine
turbine wheel failures, which were caused by excessive vibrations at
certain engine speeds during steady-state operations. The proposed
actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds
during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage
engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada,
has issued TC AD No. CF-2004-09R1, dated July 4, 2005, to correct an
unsafe condition for Model 407 helicopters. TC advises of several
failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C30S and
250-C47B engines, and three of these failures have occurred to the 250-
C47B engine used by Bell on the Model 407. According to TC, Rolls Royce
has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a
particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to
these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM
and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform
pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 68.4% and 87.1% turbine
speeds.
    The TC AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the
change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. 407-05-67, dated June 8, 2005 (ASB 407-05-67).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, TC, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Bell has issued ASB 407-05-67, which contains procedures for
installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM
(Nr)/power turbine RPM (Np) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM
changes into the flight manual.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the
instrument panel below the NR/NP dual tachometer and revising the
Operating Limitations section of the Model 407 RFM to limit steady-
state operations between speeds of 68.4% to 87.1%.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the TC AD

    The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days; the proposed
AD requires compliance within 30 days.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 472 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we
estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-
hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S.
operators of $20,296. Installing the decal would require about 0.2
work-hours and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter
of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $17,464. Based on these
estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per
helicopter and $37,760 for the U.S. operator fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell): Docket No. FAA-2013-
0490; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-004-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers
53000 through 53644, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine
vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 30 days:
    (1) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 407
Rotorcraft Flight Manual by inserting Section 1, Operating
Limitations, pages 1-6 and 1-14, of Bell BHT-407-FM-1, revision 3,
dated April 26, 2005.
    (2) Remove placard part number (P/N) 230-075-213-105, if
installed.
    (3) Install placard P/N 230-075-213-111, or equivalent, directly
below the NR/NP dual tachometer.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 407-05-67, dated June 8,
2005, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone
(450) 437-2862 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD
No. CF-2004-09R1, dated July 4, 2005.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine
Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 29, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13477 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14506-14508]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05347]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91293; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Revise the
Clearing Agency Investment Policy

March 10, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 8, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would revise the Clearing Agency
Investment Policy (``Investment Policy'') of National Securities
Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') and its affiliates, The Depository
Trust Company (``DTC'') and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC,'' and together with DTC and NSCC, the ``Clearing Agencies'')
in order to (1) enhance the methodology for determining investment
limits for investments in bank deposits, and (2) clarify the
description of certain investable funds of the Government Securities
Division of FICC (``GSD''), as described in greater detail below.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Clearing Agencies are proposing to revise the Investment
Policy, which was adopted for each clearing agency in December 2016 \3\
and is maintained in compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the
Act,\4\ in order to (1) enhance the methodology for determining
investment limits for investments in bank deposits, and (2) clarify the
description of certain investable funds of GSD, as described in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79528 (December 12,
2016), 81 FR 91232 (December 16, 2016) (SR-DTC-2016-007, SR-FICC-
2016-005, SR-NSCC-2016-003).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(16). As discussed in this filing, the
Investment Policy also addresses compliance with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3). 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of the Investment Policy
    The Investment Policy governs the management, custody and
investment of cash deposited to the respective NSCC and FICC Clearing
Funds, and the DTC Participants Fund,\5\ the proprietary liquid net
assets (cash and cash equivalents) of the Clearing Agencies, and other
funds held by the Clearing Agencies pursuant to their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The respective Clearing Funds of NSCC and FICC, and the DTC
Participants Fund are described further in the Rules & Procedures of
NSCC (``NSCC Rules''), the DTC Rules, By-laws and Organization
Certificate (``DTC Rules''), the Clearing Rules of the Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division of FICC (``MBSD Rules'') or the Rulebook
of the Government Securities Division of FICC (``GSD Rules''),
respectively, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) of the NSCC Rules, Rule 4
(Participants Fund and Participants Investment) of the DTC Rules,
Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) of the GSD Rules and Rule
4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) of the MBSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Investment Policy identifies the guiding principles for
investments and defines the roles and responsibilities of DTCC staff in
administering the Investment Policy pursuant to those principles. The
Investment Policy is co-owned by DTCC's Treasury group (``Treasury'')
\6\ and the Counterparty Credit Risk team (``CCR'') within DTCC's Group
Chief Risk Office (``GCRO'').\7\ Treasury is responsible for
identifying potential counterparties to investment transactions,
establishing and managing investment relationships with approved
investment counterparties, and making and monitoring all investment
transactions with respect to the Clearing Agencies. CCR is responsible
for conducting a credit review of any potential counterparty, updating
those reviews on a quarterly basis, and establishing an investment
limit for each counterparty. CCR is also responsible for ongoing
monitoring of counterparties and recommending changes to investment
limits when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Treasury is a part of the DTCC Finance Department and is
responsible for the safeguarding, investment and disbursement of
funds on behalf of the Clearing Agencies and in accordance with the
principles outlined in the Investment Policy.
    \7\ Among other responsibilities, GCRO is generally responsible
for the systems and processes designed to identify and manage
credit, market and liquidity risks to the Clearing Agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Investment Policy also identifies sources of funds that may be
invested, and the permitted investments of those funds, including the
authority required to make such investments and the parameters of, and
limitations on, each type of investment. Allowable investments include
bank deposits, reverse repurchase agreements, direct obligations of the
U.S. government, money market mutual funds, high-grade corporate debt,
and hedge transactions. Finally, the Investment Policy defines the
approval authority required to exceed established investment limits.
    The Investment Policy is reviewed and approved by the Boards
annually. In connection with a recent annual review of the Investment
Policy, the Clearing Agencies have decided to propose revisions to the
Investment Policy in order to (1) enhance the methodology for
determining investment limits for investments in bank deposits, and (2)
clarify the description of certain investable funds of GSD, as
described in greater detail below.

Proposed Enhancement to the Formula for Setting Bank Deposit Investment
Limits
    Section 6.2.1 of the Investment Policy sets forth the investment
limits applicable to bank deposit investments. Currently, bank deposit
investment limits are determined based on the bank counterparty's
external credit rating. For example, investments in a bank deposits
with a bank counterparty with an external credit rating of AAA or Aaa
are limited to no more than $750 million, and an investment with a bank
counterparty with an external credit rating of BBB+ or Baa1 are limited
to no more than $100 million.
    The Clearing Agencies are proposing to enhance the methodology for
setting investment limits and investment caps on bank deposits with a
particular counterparty by including a consideration of the size of the
bank counterparty, measured as the total shareholders' equity capital,
in this calculation. Under the proposed methodology, an investment
limit for a bank deposit counterparty would continue to be based on the
counterparty's credit rating, but would be the lower of (1) a
percentage of its total shareholders' equity capital, and (2) the
applicable dollar value that is currently in Section 6.2.1 of the
Investment Policy. For example, investments in a bank deposits with a
bank counterparty with an external credit rating of AAA or Aaa and
total shareholders' equity capital of $9 billion would be limited to no
more than $750 million, however, investments with a bank counterparty
with the same external credit rating and total shareholders' equity
capital of $2 billion would be limited to no more than $300 million.
    The proposed approach would permit the Clearing Agencies to take
into account the size of a counterparty in setting investment limits
rather than apply the same investment limits to each counterparty with
the same credit rating without regard to the entity's size. The
proposal is designed to mitigate the Clearing Agencies' risk exposure
to smaller bank counterparties.
Proposed Revisions to the Description of Investable Funds of GSD
    The Clearing Agencies are also proposing to amend Section 5 of the
Investment Policy to revise the description of investable funds of GSD,
which are currently described as ``GSD Forward Margin.'' The proposed
changes would refer to these funds as ``GSD Forward Mark Adjustment
Payment,'' which is the term used in the GSD Rules to refer to these
funds.\8\ The proposed change to clarify the term used to describe
these funds would prevent any confusion about which funds are included
in Section 5 and invested pursuant to the Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 1 (Definitions) of the GSD Rules. Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In
particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed
modifications to the Investment Policy are consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act,\10\
for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of each of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds that are in the custody or control of each of
the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.\11\ The
investment guidelines and governance procedures set forth in the
Investment Policy are designed to safeguard funds that are in the
custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are
responsible. Such protections include, for example, following a prudent
and conservative investment philosophy that places the highest priority
on maximizing liquidity and risk avoidance. The Clearing Agencies
believe the proposed change to consider the size of a bank counterparty
in setting its bank deposit investment limits would allow it to adhere
to these guidelines by minimizing the risk posed by smaller
counterparties, measured by their shareholders' equity capital.
Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed change would
allow the Clearing Agencies to continue to operate the Investment
Policy pursuant to a prudent and conservative investment philosophy
that assures the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in their
custody and control, or for which they are responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed change to align the description of
investable funds of GSD with the description of these funds in the GSD
Rules would clarify the funds that are subject to the Policy and,
thereby, improve the effectiveness of the Investment Policy and allow
the Investment Policy to continue to be administered in alignment with
the investment guidelines and governance procedures set forth therein.
Given that such guidelines and governance procedures are designed to
safeguard funds that are in the custody or control of the Clearing
Agencies or for which they are responsible, the Clearing Agencies
believe the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to safeguard the Clearing Agencies' own
and their participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in
access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with
minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.\13\ The Clearing Agencies
believe that the Investment Policy follows a prudent and conservative
investment philosophy, placing the highest priority on maximizing
liquidity and avoiding risk of loss, by setting appropriate investment
limits and creating clear guidelines. As originally implemented, the
Investment Policy was designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(16) under the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ When the Investment Policy was implemented, the Clearing
Agencies were subject to the requirements of subsection (d) of Rule
17Ad-22 and the Investment Policy was designed to meet the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(3). See supra note 3; 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(d). The Commission subsequently adopted Rule 17Ad-22(e)
and amended Rule 17Ad-22(d) such that the Clearing Agencies became
subject to the new requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e) and are no longer
subject to the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d). Id.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Clearing Agencies believe that
the proposed revisions would both strengthen the risk management
objectives of the Investment Policy and improve the clarity of the
Policy and, therefore, make the Investment Policy more effective in
governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held
by the Clearing Agencies. In this way, the proposed changes would
better allow the Clearing Agencies to maintain this document in a way
that is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16).
Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed revisions would
be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the
Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Each of the Clearing Agencies believes that none of the proposed
revisions to the Investment Policy would have any

impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Investment Policy
applies equally to allowable investments of Clearing Fund and
Participants Fund deposits, as applicable, of each member of the
Clearing Agencies, and establishes a uniform policy at the Clearing
Agencies. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would not
affect any changes on the fundamental purpose or operation of this
document and, as such, would also not have any impact, or impose any
burden, on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written
comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify
the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing
Agencies.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2021-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-003 and should be submitted on
or before April 6, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05347 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P