[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15385-15392]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05543]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69040; File No. SR-BX-2013-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Directed Order Process

March 5, 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 February 21, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange has filed a proposed rule change offering a new
enhancement [sic] to adopt a Direct Order process.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; deletions are bracketed.
* * * * *

Chapter VI Trading Systems

* * * * *

Sec. 1 Definitions

    The following definitions apply to Chapter VI for the trading of
options listed on BX Options.
    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include:
    (1) [Reserved.] Directed Order. The term ``Directed Order'' means
an order to buy or sell which has been directed (pursuant to the
Exchange's instructions on how to direct an order) to a particular
Market Maker (``Directed Market Maker'') after the opening. Directed
Orders are handled within the System pursuant to Chapter VI, Section
10(3).
    (2)-(11) No change.
    (f)-(h) No change.
* * * * *

Sec. 6 Acceptance of Quotes and Orders

    All bids or offers made and accepted on BX Options in accordance
with the BX Options Rules shall constitute binding contracts, subject
to applicable requirements of the Rules of the Exchange and the Rules
of the Clearing Corporation.
    (a) General--A System order is an order that is entered into the
System for display and/or execution as appropriate. Such orders are
executable against marketable contra-side orders in the System.
    (1) All System Orders shall indicate whether they are a call or put
and buy or sell and a price, if any. Systems Orders can be designated
as Immediate or Cancel (``IOC''), Good-till-Cancelled (``GTC''), Day
(``DAY'') or WAIT.
    (2) A System order may also be designated as a Directed Order,
Limit Order, a Minimum Quantity Order, a Market Order, a Price
Improving Order, an All-or-None Order or a Post-Only Order.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

Sec. 10 Book Processing

    System orders shall be executed through the BX Book Process set
forth below:
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) [Price Improvement--any potential price improvement resulting
from an execution in the System shall accrue to the party that is
removing liquidity previously posted to the Book.]
    Directed Order Processing.
    (i) When BX's disseminated price is the NBBO and the Directed
Market Maker is quoting at BX's disseminated price, the Directed Order
shall be executed and allocated as follows:
    (A) If the option is subject to the Price/Time execution algorithm,
the Directed Market Maker shall receive 40% of the Directed Order at a
particular price (``Directed Allocation''), unless such Directed Market
Maker was first in time priority, in which case such Directed Market
Maker shall receive the amount of the Directed Order equal to the
Directed Market Maker's quote/order size at that price. If there are
multiple resting quotes/orders from the same Directed Market Maker, the
Directed Allocation will be distributed among them in time sequence.
Then, the remainder of the Directed Order shall be allocated to other
participants in price/time priority, including any remaining contracts
of the Directed Market Maker and multiple quotes/orders from the same
firm.
    (B) If the option is subject to the Pro-Rata execution algorithm,
Public Customer limit orders resting on the limit order book at the
execution price will execute against the Directed Order first. Then,
the Directed Market Maker shall receive the greater of: the pro-rata
allocation to which such Directed Market Maker would otherwise be
entitled or the Directed Allocation of 40% of the Directed Order at a
particular price. If there are multiple quotes/orders from the same
Directed Market Maker, the Directed Allocation will be distributed
among those quotes/orders on a size pro rata basis. Once the Directed
Allocation is determined, any remaining contracts associated with the
Directed Market Maker's quotes/orders are excluded from the remaining
pro-rata allocation. If there are any remaining contracts of the
Directed Order, they will be allocated on a size pro rata basis among
the remaining Participants (except the Directed Market Maker).
    (ii) When BX's disseminated price is the NBBO, and the quotation
disseminated by the Directed Market Maker on the opposite side of the
market from the Directed Order is inferior to the NBBO, the Directed
Order shall be automatically executed and allocated to those quotations
and orders at the NBBO in accordance with this Section.
    (iii) If BX's disseminated price is not the NBBO, the Directed
Order shall be processed in accordance with Chapter VI, Sections 7, 10
and 11.
    (iv) In addition, the following will apply:
    (A) A Directed Market Maker shall not be entitled to receive a
number of contracts that is greater than the size associated with their
order or quote at a particular price level.
    (B) Directed Allocations are rounded up to the next whole number.
    (C) The Directed Allocation is available for the life of the order
and the Directed Market Maker is entitled to the Directed Allocation at
all price levels that the Directed Market Maker has an order or quote.
    (D) Directed Market Makers are subject to the quoting requirements
of Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(i)(4).
    (E) The Exchange will determine which options are subject to
Directed Allocation.
    (4)-(7) No change.
    (8) Price Improvement--any potential price improvement resulting
from an execution in the System shall accrue to the party that is
removing liquidity previously posted to the Book.
* * * * *

Chapter VII Market Participants

* * * * *

Sec. 6 Market Maker Quotations

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Continuous Quotes. A Market Maker must enter continuous bids
and offers for the options to which it is registered, as follows:
    i. On a daily basis, a Market Maker must during regular market
hours make markets consistent with the applicable quoting requirements
specified in these rules, on a continuous basis [in at least sixty
percent (60%) of the series] in options in which the Market Maker is
registered.
    (1) To satisfy this requirement [with respect to quoting a series],
a Market Maker must quote[ such series] 60[90]% of the trading day (as
a percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or
such higher percentage as BX may announce in advance. BX Regulation may
consider exceptions to the requirement to quote 60[90]% (or higher) of
the trading day based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements
or other mitigating circumstances. This obligation will apply to all of
a Market Maker's registered options collectively, rather than on an
option-by-option basis. Compliance with this obligation will be
determined on a monthly basis.
    (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Market Makers shall not be
required to make two-sided markets pursuant to Section 5(a)(i) of these
rules in any Quarterly Option Series, any adjusted option series, and
any option series until the time to expiration for such series is less
than nine months. Accordingly, the continuous quotation obligations set
forth in this rule shall not apply to Market Makers respecting
Quarterly Option Series, adjusted option

series, and series with an expiration of nine months or greater. For
purposes of this subsection (2), an adjusted option series is an option
series wherein one option contract in the series represents the
delivery of other than 100 shares of underlying stock or Exchange-
Traded Fund Shares.
    (3) If a technical failure or limitation of a system of BX prevents
a Market Maker from maintaining, or prevents a Market Maker from
communicating to BX Options timely and accurate quotes, the duration of
such failure or limitation shall not be included in any of the
calculations under this subparagraph (i) with respect to the affected
quotes.
    (4) In options in which it receives Directed Orders, a Directed
Market Maker must quote such options 90% of the trading day (as a
percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such
higher percentage as BX may announce in advance, applied collectively
to all series in all of the options in which the Directed Market Maker
receives Directed Orders (rather than on an option-by-option basis).
Compliance with this obligation will be determined on a monthly basis.
    ii.-iii. No change.
    (e) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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
    The BX Options market launched on June 29, 2012 as a fully
automated, price/time priority execution system built on the core
functionality of the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'').\3\ BX Options
operates as an all-electronic system (``System'') with no physical
trading floor and provides for the electronic display and execution of
orders. In its proposed rule change to create the BX Options market, BX
stated that, initially, BX Options would have the same market structure
and rules as NOM, focusing on a price/time priority market.\4\ BX
further stated that, over time, as the BX Options market secured more
participants, it would introduce additional, innovative
functionality.\5\ Accordingly, BX recently introduced a Size Pro-Rata
execution algorithm for BX Options,\6\ which executes orders at a
particular price level based on the size of each Participant's quote or
order as a percentage of the total size of all orders and quotes
resting at that price. BX intends for some options to employ one
algorithm while others employ a different one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BX Options Rules, Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(11).
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR
39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (Approving the establishment
of the BX Options market).
    \4\ See id. at 39278.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66983 (May 14, 2012), 77
FR 29730 (May 18, 2012) (Notice of filing of SR-BX-2012-030).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68041 (October 11,
2012), 77 FR 63903 (October 17, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-065).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, BX proposes its next enhancement to BX Options by
offering a directed order process.\7\ BX proposes to amend various
rules to establish the process. First, BX proposes to define a Directed
Order in Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(1) as an order to buy or sell which
has been directed (pursuant to the Exchange's instructions on how to
direct an order) to a particular Market Maker (``Directed Market
Maker'') after the opening.\8\ It further provides that Directed Orders
are handled within the System pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 10(3),
which is proposed new language.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term directed order has a different meaning on equities
markets. See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4751(a)(9)[sic].
    \8\ BX also proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 6(a)(2) to add
Directed Orders to the list of System orders.
    \9\ Currently, Section 10(3) governs price improvement. It is
being moved to new Section 10(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Chapter VI, Section 10(3)(i), when BX's
disseminated price is the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') and the
Directed Market Maker is quoting at BX's disseminated price, the
Directed Order shall be executed and allocated pursuant to one of BX's
two execution algorithms for options.\10\ If the option is subject to
the Price/Time execution algorithm,\11\ the Directed Market Maker shall
receive 40% of the Directed Order (``Directed Allocation''), unless
such Directed Market Maker was first in time priority, in which case
such Directed Market Maker shall receive the amount of the Directed
Order equal to the Directed Market Maker's quote/order size at that
price. If there are multiple resting quotes/orders from the same
Directed Market Maker, the Directed Allocation will be distributed
among them in time sequence. Then, the remainder of the Directed Order
shall be allocated to other participants in price/time priority,
including any remaining contracts of the Directed Market Maker and
multiple quotes/orders from the same firm.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Chapter VI, Section 10(1).
    \11\ Chapter VI, Section 10(1)(A).
    \12\ The BX Options trading system identifies Directed Market
Makers by a particular code called an IFI, which BX will use to
consider which quotes/orders are from the same firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1 (Price/Time)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In each example, quotes and orders are listed in the
sequence in which they were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firm1 Order A Sell 20 at $1.05
Firm2 Order B Sell 20 at $1.05
MM3 Quote C $1.00 x $1.05 (size 100 x 100)
Firm4 Order D Sell 50 at $1.05
BX Options Best Offer: 190 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 100 contracts at $1.05 directed to
MM3:
    40 contracts execute against MM3 Quote C as a Directed Allocation:
40% of 100 contracts
    20 contracts execute against Firm1 Order A based on time priority
    20 contracts execute against Firm2 Order B based on time priority
    20 additional contracts execute against MM3 Quote C based on time
priority
The Directed Order is fully executed
No contracts execute against Firm4 because it is behind Firm1, Firm2,
and MM3 in time priority and no more contracts remain

    BX notes that, in this example, MM3 receives additional contracts
beyond the Directed Allocation under the proposed rule, which permits
the Directed Market Maker to retain its position in time priority for
the remainder of the contracts. BX believes that it is reasonable and
encourages Directed Market Makers to display their entire size, which
benefits the quality of BX's market.
    BX further notes that if a Public Customer order is involved, the
Directed Allocation is nevertheless available to the Directed
Participant, before the Public Customer order is executed. For example:

Example 1A (Price/Time With a Public Customer)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book
Firm1 Public Customer Order A Sell 20 at $1.05
Firm2 Broker Dealer Order B Sell 20 at $1.05
MM3 Quote C $1.00 x $1.05 (size 100 x 100)
Firm4 Broker Dealer Order D Sell 50 at $1.05
BX Options Best Offer: 190 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 100 contracts at $1.05 directed to
MM3:
    40 contracts execute against MM3 Quote C as a Directed Allocation:
40% of 100 contracts
    20 contracts execute against Firm1 Public Customer Order A based on
time priority
    20 contracts execute against Firm2 Order B based on time priority
    20 additional contracts execute against MM3 Quote C based on time
priority
The Directed Order is fully executed
No contracts execute against Firm4 because it is behind Firm1, Firm2,
and MM3 in time priority and no more contracts remain

    BX is proposing to afford a Directed Allocation when there is a
Public Customer order eligible to trade with the Directed Order. BX
understands that other options exchanges' rules respecting directed
orders do not provide a directed allocation to a directed market maker
when there is a customer order ahead of a directed market maker at a
particular price.\14\ However, BX believes it is reasonable and
consistent with applicable statutory standards for the Directed
Allocation to occur, as proposed herein. The Public Customer order is
not precluded from participating in the trade, but rather continues to
stand in time priority once the Directed Allocation occurs. The Public
Customer may not receive a full execution, but had the Directed Order
not been sent to BX, the Public Customer may not have received an
execution at all. The Directed Participant and their relationship with
the provider of that Directed Order may have attracted the order to BX,
to the benefit of the Public Customer order as well as all potential
contra-side orders on the book. Accordingly, there is no particular
reason for a Directed Allocation to operate differently just because a
Public Customer order is involved; the very nature of the price/time
priority model is that Public Customer orders are like all other orders
and do not jump ahead in priority. BX does not believe that this is
unfair to Public Customer orders; it is merely a different model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the directed order is allocated pursuant to
the price/time priority rule on NYSE Arca. See NYSE Arca Rule
6.76A(a)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Section 10(3)(i)(B) provides that if the option is subject to
the Size Pro-Rata execution algorithm,\15\ Public Customer limit orders
resting on the limit order book at the execution price will execute
against the Directed Order first. Then, the Directed Market Maker shall
receive the greater of: the pro-rata allocation to which such Directed
Market Maker would otherwise be entitled pursuant to the Size Pro-Rata
execution algorithm or the Directed Allocation of 40% of the Directed
Order. If there are multiple resting quotes/orders from the same
Directed Market Maker, the Directed Allocation will be allocated among
those quotes/orders on a size pro-rata basis. Once the Directed
Allocation is determined, any remaining contracts associated with the
Directed Market Maker's quotes/orders are excluded from the remaining
pro-rata allocation. If there are any remaining contracts of the
Directed Order, they will be allocated on a size pro-rata basis among
the remaining Participants (except the Directed Market Maker). For
example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Chapter VI, Section 10(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2 (Pro-Rata)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book
Firm1 Public Customer Order A Sell 20 at $1.05
MM2 Quote B $1.00 x $1.05 (size 100 x 100)
MM3 Quote C $1.00 x $1.05 (size 50 x 50)
MM4 Quote D $1.00 x $1.05 (size 100 x 100)
BX Options Best Offer: 270 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 100 contracts at $1.05 directed to
MM3:
    20 contracts execute against Firm1 Public Customer Order A due to
Public Customer priority
    40 contracts execute against MM3 Quote C as a Directed Allocation
(40% of 100 contract buy order)
    MM2 and MM4 each receive 20 contracts on a size pro-rata basis (50%
each of 40 remaining contracts)

    New Section 10(3)(ii) deals with the situation where BX's
disseminated price is the NBBO but the quotation disseminated by the
Directed Market Maker on the opposite side of the market from the
Directed Order is inferior to the NBBO. In such case, the Directed
Order shall be automatically executed and allocated to those quotations
and orders at the NBBO in accordance with this Section as follows:

Example 3 (Price/Time or Pro-Rata--Same Outcome)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book
Firm1 Order A Sell 100 at $1.05
MM2 Quote C $1.00 x $1.06 (size 100 x 100)
BX Options Best Offer: 100 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 50 contracts directed to MM2:
    50 contracts execute against Firm1 Order A
The Directed Order is completely filled
MM2 does not receive a Directed Allocation because Quote C is not part
of BX Options' best offer nor the NBBO

    New Section 10(3)(iii) covers the situation where BX's disseminated
price is not the NBBO; then, the Directed Order shall be processed in
accordance with Chapter VI, Sections 7, 10 and 11.

Example 4 (Price/Time or Pro-Rata--Same Outcome)

CBOE Quote: $1.00 x $1.05 (size 10 x 10)

BX Options Book
MM1 Quote A $1.00 x $1.06 (size 100 x 100)
MM2 Quote B $1.00 x $1.06 (size 50 x 50)
BX Options Best Offer: 150 at $1.06
NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05 (size 160 x 10)
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 110 contracts at $1.06 directed to
MM2:
    10 contracts are routed and executed against the better away offer
of $1.05 (CBOE)
    Because the CBOE offer is executed, BX Options is now the NBBO
    40 contracts execute against MM2 Quote B as a Directed Allocation
(40% of 100 contracts remaining from the Directed Order)
    60 contracts execute against MM1 Quote A

    In this example, BX was not initially at the NBBO, but once the
National Best Offer (``NBO'') was exhausted, BX's offer of 150
contracts at $1.06 became the NBO. BX proposes to permit the Directed
Allocation at the next price level, even though the Directed
Participant was not at the NBBO at the time of order receipt, as
described further below. BX understands that other options exchanges'
directed order programs limit directed allocations to situations where
the directed party is at the NBBO at the time of receipt of the

directed order. BX believes that it is consistent with the purpose of
the NBBO requirement to structure its Directed Order program as
proposed herein for the following reasons.
    The purpose of the requirement for the directed participant to be
at the NBBO is to encourage such participant to quote competitively
rather than to quote a wide market and wait for directed orders to
arrive. BX believes that permitting the Directed Market Maker to
receive a Directed Allocation even if such market maker was not on the
NBBO at the time of receipt of the Directed Order still encourages
competitive quoting. The Directed Order will trade at the NBBO at the
time it was received with whatever contracts are available. If, and
only if, contracts remain, then the order can execute at the next price
level. At that next price level that is the new NBBO, the Directed
Market Maker must be on the NBBO. Under the proposal, such market maker
is being rewarded for being at the next best price, consistent with the
purposes of the NBBO requirement. The market maker has an incentive to
quote competitively because quoting a tick or two away from the NBBO is
likely to result in very little trading for that market maker,
especially if other quotes and orders are at or closer to the NBBO and
especially in more liquid options.
    Providing market makers with an enhanced allocation for order flow
that is specifically directed to that market maker when the market
maker is not initially on the NBBO is fair and does not create
incentives to avoid quoting at the NBBO. There is fierce competition
within the BX Options market and within the broader options market
place. Within the BX Options market, there are many market makers who
compete for available order flow on the basis of their quoted price. If
a market maker's price is not equal to or better than all other quoted
prices, they will simply not trade until all other market makers (and
all other participants) trade at the superior price. This creates and
supports healthy competition among market makers to quote the best
price possible. In addition to the competition among market makers,
there are also other market participants (broker-dealer, Public
Customer, professional, etc.) who compete against each other and
against market makers based on price, thus providing a further
incentive for market makers to provide the best price possible.
Finally, in the broader options marketplace, BX Options market makers
not only have to compete with the market makers and participants on the
BX Options market, but also with the plethora of market makers and
other participants who quote or post orders on options exchanges other
than BX Options. Indeed, the incentive to provide a competitive quote
is strong due to the inherently competitive nature of today's options
markets. Necessarily, a market maker who does not match or improve the
NBBO on a consistent basis does not trade often. This proposal does not
create a disincentive for a market maker to match or improve the NBBO.
BX believes that this is an issue of timing of the directed allocation
and not whether it is appropriate to afford a directed allocation at
the next price level.
    Providing directed order functionality should also add an
additional layer of competition among those market makers who attempt
to attract directed order flow. When market makers approach order flow
providers to send directed order flow, the order flow providers expect
clear data as evidence that directing order flow to the market maker
will benefit the order flow provider and more importantly the order
flow provider's customers. As more market makers attempt to attract
order flow, they will likely need to show ever improving quote
statistics. If a market maker were to quote $0.01 outside the NBBO in
hopes of capturing some miniscule amount of order flow at a better
price than everyone else, the order flow provider would see this in
their quality of execution statistics and simply stop directing order
flow to the market maker. Here again, there is a strong incentive to be
matching or improving the NBBO in order to attract order flow and
trade.
    BX notes that at the time of the approval of the first directed
order programs, routing among the options exchanges occurred through a
central linkage process and executions through multiple price levels
were not as seamless and efficient as today. In the current
environment, executions occur across multiple price levels with
simultaneous outbound routing. BX believes that order execution should
not be inhibited by the artificial constraint of limiting directed
allocations to directed participants who are on the NBBO at the time of
order receipt in an options marketplace with vigorous competition and
actively changing markets. It is sufficient for the directed
participant to be on the NBBO at the time of execution.
    New Section 10(3)(iv) incorporates several additional provisions
respecting the Directed Order process. Specifically, a Directed Market
Maker shall not be entitled to receive a number of contracts that is
greater than the size associated with their order or quote at a
particular price level. This provision is common in other options
exchanges' directed order programs and is intended to incent Directed
Market Makers to show more size. Much like a market maker has an
incentive to match or improve the NBBO in order to trade more often, a
market maker also has the incentive to display as much liquidity as
possible in order to trade more volume. The resulting additional size
at the NBBO benefits investors by making the market more liquid, which,
in turn, makes it easier for investors to enter and exit their specific
options positions.
    In addition, Directed Allocations are rounded up to the next whole
number.

Example 5 (Price/Time or Pro-Rata--Same Outcome)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book
MM1 Quote A $1.00 x $1.05 (size 100 x 100)
MM2 Quote B $1.00 x $1.05 (size 50 x 50)
BX Options Best Offer: 150 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 91 contracts at $1.05 directed to
MM2:
    37 contracts execute against MM2 Quote B as a Directed Allocation
(40% of 91 = 36.4 rounded up to 37)
    54 contracts execute against MM1 Quote A

    BX understands that the directed order programs of other options
exchanges have generally limited the amount of the directed allocation
to 40% of the size of the directed order, which is what BX has proposed
herein. Because BX intends to round that allocation up to the nearest
whole number, BX acknowledges that it is mathematically possible for
its proposed Directed Allocation to exceed 40% in certain situations,
but, of course, because it is rounding to the nearest whole number,
rounding will necessarily never result in more than one additional
options contract being added to the Directed Allocation. Even if such
one additional contract caused the Directed Allocation to exceed 40%,
BX believes that this is appropriate and reasonable because it is only
one contract, regardless of the percentage.\16\ Other options
entitlement programs approved by the Commission sometimes exceed a 40%
guarantee, also in limited, mathematically-driven situations. For

example, the specialist or lead market maker entitlement permits the
allocation of five contracts and less to a particular participant,
which is much greater than the one contract proposed herein (i.e. the
specialist entitlement allows for a 100% allocation for orders of 5
contracts or less).\17\ Furthermore, specialist entitlement programs
also provide for a 60% allocation in situations where the split is
between two participants. Furthermore, pursuant to proposed
subparagraph (iv)(C), the Directed Allocation is available for the life
of the order. If a Directed Order is not executed upon receipt, it
retains its status as a Directed Order, such that, once it becomes
executable, it is subject to Directed Order Handling under new Section
10(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Generally, the larger the number of contracts being
rounded, the smaller the percentage, with some mathematical
variation. For example, an order of 9 contracts would round up from
3.6 to 4 contracts or 44.44% of the order, whereas an order for
91contracts would be rounded up for directed allocation purposes
from 36.4 to 37 contracts or 40.66% of the order.
    \17\ The specialist on NYSE MKT receives a 100% allocation on
orders of 5 contracts or less and 40% of other eligible orders, even
though the specialist's quoting obligation is the same as the
proposed BX Options Directed Market Maker quoting obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 6 (Price/Time or Pro-Rata--Same Outcome)

CBOE Quote: $1.00 x $1.05 (size 10 x 10)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05 (size 160 x 10)

BX Options Book
MM1 Quote A $1.00 x $1.06 (size 100 x 100)
MM2 Quote B $1.00 x $1.06 (size 50 x 50)
BX Options Best Offer: 150 at $1.06
BX receives a non-routable Directed Order to buy 100 contracts at $1.06
directed to MM2:
The order is posted on the BX Options book at $1.05 and displayed at
$1.04 \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Chapter VI, Section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBOE updates its quote to $1.00 x $1.07 (size 10 x 10)
The new NBBO is $1.00 x $1.06 (size 160 x 150)
The Directed Order can now execute against the BX Options book at $1.06
as follows:
    40 contracts execute against MM2 Quote B as a Directed Allocation
(40% of the 100 contract buy order)
    60 contracts execute against MM1 Quote A

    The Exchange believes that it is useful and beneficial for the
order to retain its status as a Directed Order, because this handling
is consistent with the order instructions and original intent of the
submitting Participant. On other options exchanges, the ``directed
order'' designation is only considered upon receipt of the order.\19\
BX believes that its Participants may find this feature attractive;
otherwise, Participants might consider cancelling and re-entering the
order so it is treated as a Directed Order, which would be less
efficient and would increase message traffic. BX does not believe that
retaining directed order status on the book is controversial or
inconsistent with the Act. Nor does BX believe that it undermines the
policy underpinnings of directed order programs. Rather, it is an
innovative enhancement intended to make entering directed orders more
efficient and modern. It is possible that more directed allocations
will occur because orders retain their directed order status, but the
same result could be achieved today by, inefficiently, reentering
directed orders rather than leaving them on the book as non-directed
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See e.g., Phlx Rule 1080(l)(ii), which provides: When the
Exchange's disseminated price is the NBBO at the time of receipt of
the Directed Order, and the Directed Specialist, SQT or RSQT is
quoting at the Exchange's disseminated price, the Directed Order
shall be automatically executed and allocated in accordance with
Rule 1014(g)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Directed Market Maker is entitled to the Directed
Allocation at all price levels at which the Directed Market Maker has
an order or quote. This is intended to reflect that orders are
executable at multiple price levels, and that, today, market makers can
enter orders at multiple price levels.

Example 7 (Price/Time or Pro-Rata--Same Outcome)

NBBO: $1.00 x $1.05

BX Options Book
MM1 Quote A $1.00 x $1.05 (size 20 x 20)
MM2 Quote B $1.00 x $1.05 (size 10 x 10)
MM3 Quote C $1.00 x $1.06 (size 100 x 100)
MM2 Quote D $1.00 x $1.06 (size 50 x 50)
BX Options Best Offer: 30 at $1.05
BX receives a Directed Order to buy 110 contracts at $1.06 directed to
MM2:
    20 contracts execute against MM1 Quote A
    10 contracts execute against MM2 Quote B
    $1.05 price level is completely exhausted
    32 contracts execute against MM2 Quote D as a Directed Allocation
(40% of 80 remaining contracts from buy order)
    48 contracts execute against MM3 Quote C

New Quoting Requirement for All Market Makers

    BX also proposes to change the quoting obligation applicable to its
Market Makers. Currently, Chapter VII, Section 6(d) provides that on a
daily basis, a Market Maker must during regular market hours make
markets consistent with the applicable quoting requirements specified
in these rules, on a continuous basis in at least sixty percent (60%)
of the series in options in which the Market Maker is registered. It
further provides that, to satisfy this requirement with respect to
quoting a series, a Market Maker must quote such series 90% of the
trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such
trading day) or such higher percentage as BX may announce in advance.
BX Regulation may consider exceptions to the requirement to quote 90%
(or higher) of the trading day based on demonstrated legal or
regulatory requirements or other mitigating circumstances.
    BX proposes to better align its market maker quoting requirement
with that of other exchanges, such as NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT.
Specifically, BX proposes to reduce the quoting requirement for non-
Directed BX Options Market Makers as follows: A Market Maker must quote
such options 60% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total
number of minutes in such trading day) or such higher percentage as BX
may announce in advance. BX Regulation may consider exceptions to the
requirement to quote 60% (or higher) of the trading day based on
demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other mitigating
circumstances. This obligation will apply to all of a Market Maker's
registered options collectively, rather than on an option-by-option
basis. Compliance with this obligation will be determined on a monthly
basis. This is the same requirement as on other options exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.88 and NYSE MKT Rule 964.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX believes that this is appropriate for two reasons. First, BX's
current Market Maker quoting requirement is much more stringent than
certain other exchanges. Quoting each series 90% of the trading day is
much more stringent than looking at all options in which a Market Maker
is registered, because it allows for some number of series not to be
quoted at all, as long as the overall standard is met. This better
accommodates the occasional issues that may arise in a particular
series, whether technical or manual. The existing requirement may at
times discourage liquidity in particular options series because a
market maker is forced to focus on a momentary lapse rather than using
the appropriate resources to focus on the options series

that need and consume additional liquidity. As a new market, BX
believes that it can better attract Market Makers to the BX Options
market and grow its market if its quoting obligation is more in line
with that of other exchanges. In addition, as BX seeks to introduce
directed orders, the market maker quoting obligation has become an
obstacle to crafting a competitive, attractive directed order program.
Specifically, because the Commission has required directed participants
to be subject to heightened quoting obligations as compared to non-
directed market makers, BX would have to adopt a Directed Market Maker
quoting obligation more stringent than the current 90% of the time/60%
of the series requirement for regular BX Options Market Makers. BX does
not believe that a quoting requirement for greater than 90% of the time
would attract Directed Market Makers to BX Options, as BX embarks on
growing its market with new functionality and features. In fact, a more
stringent quoting requirement would likely discourage new market makers
from participating in the BX Options market and inhibit current market
makers' ability to provide liquidity effectively.

New Quoting Requirement for Directed Market Makers

    New Section 10(3)(iv)(D) makes clear that Directed Market Makers
are subject to the quoting requirements of new Chapter VII, Section
6(d)(iv). Specifically, in options in which it receives Directed
Orders, a Directed Market Maker must quote 90% of the trading day (as a
percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such
higher percentage as BX may announce in advance. BX Regulation may
consider exceptions to the requirement to quote 90% (or higher) of the
trading day based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or
other mitigating circumstances. This obligation will apply collectively
to all series in all of the options in which the Directed Market Maker
receives Directed Orders, rather than on an option-by-option basis.
Compliance with this obligation will be determined on a monthly basis.
This quoting obligation is more stringent than that which is applicable
to regular BX Options Market Makers, who will now have to quote, under
this proposal, at least 60% of the time the Exchange is open for
trading in registered options. Such quotations must meet the quote
width requirements of Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(ii). Once a Directed
Market Maker receives a Directed Order, the heightened quoting
obligation is triggered and applies to the options in which the
Directed Market Maker receives Directed Orders.
    Lastly, Section 10(3)(iv)(E) will provide that the Exchange will
determine which options have the Directed Allocation functionality
available.\21\ BX will issue an Options Trader Alert to inform its
Participants in which options the Directed Allocation will be
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Directed Orders received in options where BX Options is not
offering Directed Order processing will not be rejected; instead,
such orders will be handled normally as non-Directed Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    In summary, BX seeks to compete with the many options exchanges
that offer directed orders in their respective markets and seeks to
introduce directed order functionality, as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, because it will establish
a directed order process similar to what operates on other exchanges,
as explained in detail herein, which will provide Participants with
additional choices among the many competing exchanges with regard to
their execution needs and strategies. BX Options operates in an
intensely competitive environment and seeks to offer the same services
that its competitors offer and in which its customers find value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its approval of other options exchange directed order programs,
the Commission has, like proposals to amend a specialist guarantee,
focused on whether the percentage of the ``entitlement'' would rise to
a level that could have a material adverse impact on quote competition
within a particular exchange, and concluded that such programs do not
jeopardize market integrity or the incentive for market participants to
post competitive quotes.\24\ BX's proposed Directed Allocation of 40%
is consistent with the directed order allocations of other options
exchanges, except for the impact of rounding up, as described above,
which BX does not believe is significant. BX notes that the remaining
portion of each order will still be allocated based on the competitive
bidding of market participants. In addition, at the time of execution,
a BX Options Directed Market Maker will have to be quoting at the NBBO
for the size of the Directed Allocation to receive the Directed
Allocation, which is intended to incent the Directed Market Maker to
quote aggressively, because he cannot merely step up and match the NBBO
after the Directed Order is received. Similarly, BX believes there is
an incentive for Directed Market Makers to quote competitively even
though they may receive a Directed Allocation when such Directed Market
Maker is not on the NBBO at the time of order receipt, but is at the
time of execution. BX also notes that BX Options Directed Market Makers
will have greater quoting obligations than other BX Options Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51759 (May 27,
2005), 70 FR 32860 (June 6, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2004-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The competition among the
options exchanges is vigorous and this proposal is intended to afford
the BX Options market the opportunity to compete for directed order
flow. In that regard, the proposal is pro-competitive and will offer
market participants an additional venue for the execution of directed
orders. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal imposes a
burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the ability to send
directed orders is available to all Participants, and the ability to
become a Market Maker is available to all Market Makers.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate
and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the
Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (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. The Commission also requests and
encourages interested persons to submit comments on the following
specific questions:
     Unlike the Directed Order rules of other options
exchanges, BX's proposed rule would not require that a Directed Market
Maker be quoting at the NBBO at the time a Directed Order is received.
Would the lack of the NBBO quoting requirement impact market makers'
incentives to quote competitively? If so, how? If not, why? If other
options exchanges eliminated the requirement that Directed Market
Makers quote at the NBBO to receive Directed Orders as part of their
Directed Order process, what, if any impact would there be on market
maker quoting behavior, and more generally on the quality of quotations
in the options markets?
     Under the proposed rule, a Directed Market Maker to whom
an order is directed in an option subject to the exchange's Price/Time
execution algorithm would receive a 40% allocation ahead of orders of
other market participants, including customer orders that had time
priority over the Directed Market Maker's quotation. What, if any,
concerns does this raise for the options markets?
    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-BX-2013-016 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-BX-2013-016. 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 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-BX-2013-016, and should be
submitted on or before April 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05543 Filed 3-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 208 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66099-66100]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76244; File No. 4-631]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving the Ninth Amendment to the
National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange,
Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

October 22, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On July 31, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), on behalf
of the following parties to the National Market System Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (``Plan''): BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, National Stock
Exchange, Inc., NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively with
NYSE, the ``Participants''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to amend the Plan.\3\ The proposal represents the ninth
amendment to the Plan, and reflects proposed changes unanimously
approved by the Participants. The amendment was published for comment
in the Federal Register on September 18, 2015.\4\ The Commission
received one comment letter regarding the amendment.\5\ This order
approves the amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel, NYSE, to
Brent Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated July 31, 2015
(``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75917 (September 14,
2015), 80 FR 56515 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter from Donald Bollerman, Head of Markets and Sales,
IEX, to Brent Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated October 16, 2015
(``IEX Letter''). IEX did not comment on the proposals set forth in
the proposed amendment. In its comment letter, IEX suggested that
the Commission evaluate the operation of the Plan and the experience
of trading on August 24, 2015 prior to making the Plan permanent. In
addition, IEX identified other areas for the Commission to consider,
such as SRO opening procedures, floor-based rules, and imbalance
information, in relation to trading on August 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The amendment proposes to extend the pilot period of the Plan from
October 23, 2015 to April 22, 2016. In addition, on March 30, 2015,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') provided
written notice to the Participants of CBOE's intent to withdraw from
the Plan. Notice of withdrawal was made pursuant to Section IX of the
Plan. CBOE became a Participant due to the operation of its facility,
the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX''), which engaged in NMS stock
transactions. The last day of trading on CBSX was April 30, 2014.
Therefore, because CBOE no longer operates a facility engaged in NMS
stock transactions, CBOE would have no additional NMS stock data to
provide nor any reason to avail itself of any further right under the
Plan. Accordingly, CBOE proposes to be removed from the Plan.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the amendment is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Specifically, the Commission finds that the amendment is consistent
with Section 11A of the Act \6\ and Rule 608 thereunder \7\ in that it
is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, and that it removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a national market
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Plan, the Participants are required to provide the
Commission with certain assessments relating to the impact of the Plan
and the calibration of the Percentage Parameters.\8\ On September 29,
2014, the Participants submitted a Participant Impact Assessment,\9\
which provided the Commission with the Participants' initial
observations in each area required to be addressed under Appendix B to
the Plan. On May 28, 2015, the Participants submitted a Supplemental
Joint Assessment, in which the Participants provided additional
analysis required under

Appendix B and recommended that the Plan be adopted on a permanent
basis with certain modifications.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Appendix B.III of the Plan.
    \9\ See Joint SROs letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC,
dated September 29, 2014 (``Participant Impact Assessment'').
    \10\ See Letter from Christopher B. Stone, Vice President,
FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC, dated May 28, 2015. The
Supplemental Joint Assessment is available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-631/4631-39.pdf.
    The areas of analysis in Appendix B are intended to capture the
key measures necessary to assess the impact of the Plan and to
support recommendations relating to the calibration of the
Percentage Parameters to help ensure that the stated objectives of
the Plan are achieved--particularly: liquidity when approaching
price bands; clearly erroneous trades; the appropriateness of the
percentage parameters; the attributes of limit states; the impact of
limit states on the options markets; whether process adjustments are
needed when entering/exiting a limit state; and the length of
trading pauses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants propose to amend Section VIII(C) of the Plan to
extend the pilot period through April 22, 2016, to allow the
Participants to conduct, and the Commission to consider, further
analysis of data in support of the recommendations made in the
Supplemental Joint Assessment. The Participants note that an extension
of the pilot period would allow the Participants to finalize and file
with the Commission any proposed amendments to the Plan resulting from
such recommendations and further analysis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 56516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market to approve the amendment to extend the pilot period
to April 22, 2016 so that the Participants can conduct further analysis
to support any recommendations to amend the Plan.\12\ In addition,
because CBOE no longer operates a facility for NMS Stocks, the
Commission believes it is appropriate for CBOE to be removed from the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Extending the pilot period will allow the Participants time
to consider various substantive issues regarding the operation of
the Plan, such as those raised in the IEX Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the
amendment to the Plan is consistent with Section 11A of the Act \13\
and Rule 608 thereunder.\14\ The Commission reiterates its expectation
that the Participants will continue to monitor the scope and operation
of the Plan and study the data produced, and will propose any
modifications to the Plan that may be necessary or appropriate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \16\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\17\ that the Ninth Amendment to the Plan (File
No. 4-631) be, and it hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \17\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27396 Filed 10-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER OERR 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2050 0095 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1488.05 9. Keywords Hazard Ranking System, National Priorities List 10. Abstract This ICR summarizes the burden imposed upon the States and Indian Tribes for assessing hazardous waste sites under EPA's Superfund Program Information collected under this ICR supports EPA's revised Hazard Ranking System ( HRS) model used to evaluate the relative threats to human health and the environment posed by actual or potential releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. EPA uses a multi phase evaluation process guided by criteria outlined in the HRS to determine which sites brought to the attention of the Superfund Program may warrant cleanup work and to help determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National Priorities List ( NPL).

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G __ Voluntary b. G __ Required to obtain or retain benefits c. O _ P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 60 b. Total annual responses 60________ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 25 % c. Total hours requested 230,533 d. Current OMB inventory 203,373 e. Difference 27,160 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 _____ 2. Adjustment 27,160 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. X General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Randy Hippen Phone: ( 703) 603 8829 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18378-18379]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1189; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-19]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Taylor, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will amend Class E airspace at Taylor Airport,
Taylor, AZ, to accommodate aircraft using the CAMBO One Departure, and
the Area Navigation (RNAV) standard instrument approach procedures at
Taylor Airport. This will improve the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also corrects the airport names to Taylor Airport, and Show Low
Regional Airport, respectively. Additionally, the geographic
coordinates for Taylor Airport will be adjusted.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, June 30, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 20, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Taylor,
AZ (76 FR 3570). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
found the geographic coordinates for Taylor Airport needed to be
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action
makes the adjustment. Also, the airport names have been changed: Taylor
Municipal Airport to Taylor Airport, and Show Low Municipal Airport to
Show Low Regional Airport. With the exception of editorial changes, and
the changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in
the NPRM.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Taylor Airport, Taylor, AZ, to accommodate IFR
aircraft using the CAMBO One Departure, and the RNAV standard
instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary
for the safety and management of IFR operations. The geographic
coordinates for Taylor Airport will be adjusted to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. Also, Taylor Municipal Airport has been
renamed Taylor Airport and Show Low Municipal Airport has been renamed
Show Low Regional Airport.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use

of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it amends controlled airspace at Taylor Airport, Taylor,
AZ.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Taylor, AZ [Modified]

Taylor Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 34[deg]27'10'' N., long. 110[deg]06'54'' W.)
Show Low Regional Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'56'' N., long. 110[deg]00'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Taylor Airport, excluding the
portion within the Show Low, AZ, Class E airspace area. That
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within
an area bounded by lat. 34[deg]27'10'' N., long. 110[deg]06'53'' W.;
to lat. 34[deg]32'14'' N., long. 110[deg]14'37'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]37'13'' N., long. 110[deg]09'11'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]52'00''
N., long. 110[deg]28'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]54'42'' N., long.
110[deg]25'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]39'34'' N., long. 109[deg]45'20''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]24'00'' N., long. 110[deg]01'40'' W.; to point of
beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 21, 2011.
Christine Mellon,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-7839 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20062-20065]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1579; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00903-T;
Amendment 39-22362; AD 2023-04-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-09-
12, which applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X
airplanes. AD 2021-09-12 required revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a
determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations
are necessary. This AD continues to require the actions in AD 2021-09-
12 and requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 10, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10,
2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June
8, 2021 (86 FR 23593, May 4, 2021).

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1579; 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 material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1579.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-09-12, Amendment 39-21526 (86 FR
23593, May 4, 2021) (AD 2021-09-12). AD 2021-09-12 applied to certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2021-09-12 required
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The
FAA issued AD 2021-09-12 to address reduced structural integrity and
reduced control of airplanes due to the failure of system components.
AD 2021-09-12 specified that accomplishing the revision required by
that AD terminates certain requirements of AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-
17947 (79 FR 52545, September 4, 2014) (AD 2014-16-23).
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2022 (87
FR 76151). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0142, dated July 7, 2022,
issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0142) (also referred to as the MCAI). The
MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have
been issued.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1579.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in
AD 2021-09-12, and to require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-
0142. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural
integrity and reduced control of airplanes due to the failure of system
components.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is 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 this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0142. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD also requires EASA AD 2020-0214, dated October 6, 2020,
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of June 8, 2021 (86 FR 23593, May 4, 2021).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 122 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2021-09-12 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 (AD) 2021-09-12, Amendment 39-21526
(86 FR 23593, May 4, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-04-15 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-22362; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1579; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00903-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 10, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2021-09-12, Amendment 39-21526 (86 FR
23593, May 4, 2021) (AD 2021-09-12).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-17947 (79 FR
52545, September 4, 2014) (AD 2014-16-23).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes,
certificated in

any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before June 7,
2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c): Model FALCON 7X airplanes with
modification M1000 incorporated are commonly referred to as ``Model
FALCON 8X'' airplanes as a marketing designation.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity and reduced
control of airplanes due to the failure of system components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2021-09-12, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before June 1, 2020, except as specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and
compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0214, dated October 6,
2020 (EASA AD 2020-0214). Accomplishing the revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0214, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(k) of AD 2021-09-12, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0214 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0214 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the ``limitations, tasks and
associated thresholds and intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2020-0214 within 90 days after June 8, 2021 (the effective
date of AD 2021-09-12).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0214 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0214, or
within 90 days after June 8, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-09-
12), whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2019-0257 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0214 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions, Intervals, and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With a New
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2021-09-12, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs are allowed unless
they are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-0214.

(j) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0142, dated July 7, 2022 (EASA AD
2022-0142). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance
or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0142

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0142 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0142 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0142 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0142, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0142 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0142 does not apply
to this AD.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2022-0142.

(m) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements in AD 2014-16-23

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g) or (j) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2014-16-
23.

(n) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (o) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(o) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(p) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 10, 2023.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0142,
dated July 7, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 8, 2021.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0214,
dated October 6, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA ADs 2022-0142 and 2020-0214, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find these
EASA ADs on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this material 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 February 17, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07027 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 70721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM09-2-001]

Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas
Companies; Notice of Availability of Form 549D Quarterly Reports for Q1
and Q2 2011

    The Commission is making available to the public the Form No.
549D--Quarterly Transportation & Storage Reports for Intrastate Natural
Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines for the first and second quarters of 2011.
The data are located on the Commission's Web site at http://eformspublic.ferc.gov/.
    The public may search and download the entire database for all
quarters or specific quarters or for specific companies. As future
quarterly reports are filed with the Commission, they will also be
available on the Commission's Web site after the deadline for filing.
    Any questions or comments regarding the data should be sent to the
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mail box.

    Dated: November 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29403 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30729-30730]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0389]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the upper deck of the Steel Bridge
across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, at Portland, OR. This deviation
is necessary to accommodate the safe and efficient movement of light
rail and roadway traffic associated with the Starlight Parade in
Portland, Oregon. This deviation allows the upper deck of the Steel
Bridge to remain in the closed position to facilitate efficient
movement of event patrons.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on May 31, 2014 to 11:30
p.m. on May 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2014-0389 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2014-0389 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Trimet of Portland and the Oregon Department
of Transportation have requested that the upper deck of the Steel
Bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of light rail and roadway traffic associated with
the Starlight Parade. The Steel Bridge crosses the Willamette River at
mile 12.1 and is a double-deck lift bridge with a lower lift deck and
an upper lift deck which operate independent of each other. When both
decks are in the down position the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical
clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. When the lower deck is in the
up position the bridge provides 71 feet of vertical clearance above
Columbia River Datum 0.0. This deviation does not affect the operating
schedule of the lower deck which opens on signal. Vessels which do not
require an opening of the upper deck of the bridge may continue to
transit beneath the bridge and, if needed, may obtaining an opening of
the lower deck of the bridge for passage during this closure period of
the upper deck. Under normal conditions the upper deck of the Steel
Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(ii) which
states that from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday one hour
advance notice shall be given for draw openings and at all other times
two hours advance notice shall be given to obtain an opening. This
deviation period is from 7 p.m. on May 31, 2014 to 11:30 p.m. May 31,
2014. The deviation allows the upper deck of

the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, to remain in
the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 p.m.
on May 31, 2014 to 11:30 p.m. May 31, 2014. The bridge shall operate in
accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this
stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from
commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be
notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the
Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners as appropriate. The lift span will be required to open, if
needed, for public vessels of the United States and Canada and for
vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure
period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-12382 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P