[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57508-57513]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18190]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98169; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2023-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 7.44

August 18, 2023.
    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 August 8, 2023, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44 to provide for a Retail
Liquidity Program. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44, which is currently
designated as Reserved, to provide for a Retail Liquidity Program (the
``Program''). The purpose of the Program would be to attract retail
order flow to the Exchange and allow such order flow to receive
potential price improvement at the midpoint or better. As described in
greater detail below, the Program would allow ETP Holders to provide
potential price improvement to retail investor orders in the form of a
non-displayed order that is priced at the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price, called a Retail Price
Improvement Order (``RPI Order'').\3\ When there is an RPI Order in a
particular security that is eligible to trade at the midpoint of the
PBBO, the Exchange would disseminate an indicator, known as the Retail
Liquidity Identifier, that such interest exists.\4\ Retail Member
Organizations (``RMOs'') would be able to submit a Retail Order to the
Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with available
contra-side RPI Orders and may interact with other liquidity on the
Exchange, depending on the Retail Order's instructions.\5\ The
segmentation in the Program would allow retail order flow to receive
potential price improvement as a result of that order flow being deemed
more desirable by liquidity providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See proposed Rule 7.44(a)(3).
    \4\ See proposed Rule 7.44(e). The Exchange notes that it will
seek an exemption from the provisions of Regulation NMS Rule 602, 17
CFR 242.602(d) (the ``Quote Rule'') with respect to its planned
dissemination of a Retail Liquidity Identifier to allow it to
disseminate the Retail Liquidity Identifier to indicate the presence
of RPI Order interest without including such interest in the
Exchange's quotation. The Exchange will not implement the proposed
Program unless and until its request for exemption from the
requirements of the Quote Rule has been granted.
    \5\ See proposed Rules 7.44(a)(1), 7.44(a)(2), and 7.44(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules providing for the proposed Program are structured
similarly to the Retail Liquidity Programs currently offered by its
affiliated exchanges, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') except for differences as further described
below relating to RPI Orders and Retail Orders, and uses the same
terminology as is used in the approved rules governing the NYSE and
NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Programs.\6\ Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.44
is based on NYSE Rule 7.44 and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E, except as
described in further detail below to reflect that the proposed Program
would differ substantively from the NYSE and NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity
Programs in that it would primarily seek to provide retail order flow
with price improvement opportunities at the midpoint or better.\7\ The
Exchange notes that several other equities exchanges also offer retail
price improvement programs, one of which offers trading opportunities
at the midpoint, similar to the Program, as proposed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 7.44; NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E. The Exchange
notes that NYSE Arca has proposed to decommission its Retail
Liquidity Program in a separate rule filing. See SR-NYSEARCA-2023-
55. The Exchange proposes to implement the Program in the third
quarter of 2023, in tandem with the discontinuation of the NYSE Arca
Retail Liquidity Program, on a date to be announced by Trader
Update.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that it is not seeking an exemption under
Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612 (the ``Sub-Penny Rule'')
because it will not accept or rank orders priced greater than $1.00
per share in an increment smaller than $0.01. The Program will thus
differ from the NYSE and NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Programs in this
respect, as both of those programs operate pursuant to exemptive
relief granted by the Commission from the requirements of the Sub-
Penny Rule.
    \8\ See, e.g., Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') Rule 11.232
(describing the IEX Retail Program, which is designed to provide
retail order flow with price improvement opportunities at the
midpoint); Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rule 11.24 (setting
forth BYX's Retail Price Improvement Program); Nasdaq BX, Inc.
(``BX'') Rule 4780 (setting forth BX's Retail Price Improvement
Program). The Exchange further notes that Nasdaq BX, like the
Exchange, utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model;
accordingly, offering a retail price improvement program on an
exchange that operates with such a model is not novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions for the
Program under proposed Rule 7.44(a).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that it does not propose that the Program
include a role for Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs''), unlike the
NYSE and NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Programs. See NYSE Rules
7.44(a)(1), 7.44(a)(4)(D), 7.44(c)--(g), 7.44(i); NYSE Arca Rules
7.44-E(a)(1), 7.44-E(a)(4)(C), 7.44-E(c)--(g), 7.44-E(i). The
Exchange believes that the Program can operate effectively without
RLPs, including because any ETP Holder may enter RPI Orders, as
proposed, and notes that other exchanges currently operate retail
price improvement programs that likewise do not include an RLP
function. See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.232 (describing IEX Retail Price
Improvement Program); Nasdaq BX Rule 4780 (describing Nasdaq BX
Retail Price Improvement Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(1) would define a Retail Member
Organization or RMO as an ETP Holder that is approved by the Exchange
under Rule 7.44 to submit Retail Orders. Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(1) is
substantively identical \10\ to NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(2) and NYSE Arca Rule
7.44-E(a)(2) and is also substantially similar to IEX Rule
11.232(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The phrase ``substantively identical'' is used in this
filing to indicate that the proposed rules are the same as the rules
of another exchange except for non-substantive grammatical or
stylistic differences, including differences in nomenclature or
numbering (for example, whereas the Exchange and NYSE Arca use the
term ``ETP Holder'' to generally refer to member firms, NYSE uses
the term ``member organization'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(2) would define a Retail Order as an
agency order or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of
FINRA Rule 5320.03, originating from a natural person, and that is
submitted to the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to
the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the
order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology. A Retail Order would operate in accordance
with proposed Rule 7.44(f) (as described below). Proposed Rule
7.44(a)(2) is substantively identical to NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(3) and NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) as to the core definition of a Retail Order and
the provision that the operation of a Retail Order would be outlined
further in a later section of the rule.\11\ Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(2) is
also substantially similar to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(3) and NYSE Arca
Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) differ from each other in two ways. First, NYSE
Rule 7.44(a)(3) provides that a Retail Order is an Immediate or
Cancel Order. NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) does not provide the same
because the NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Program offers Retail Order
types that are not IOC. The Exchange does not propose to include
this detail in Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(2), as the operation of Retail
Orders is further outlined in proposed Rule 7.44(f). Second, NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) provides that a Retail Order may be an odd
lot, round lot, or mixed lot. NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(3) previously
included the same language, which NYSE recently proposed to delete
as extraneous. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96944
(February 16, 2023), 88 FR 11499 (February 23, 2023) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Rule 7.44 Relating to the Retail Liquidity Program). Proposed Rule
7.44(a)(2) would be consistent with NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(3) rather than
NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(3) would define a Retail Price
Improvement Order

or RPI as an MPL Order \12\ that is eligible to trade only with
incoming Retail Orders submitted by an RMO. This proposed rule would
also provide that an RPI may not be designated IOC, ALO, or with an MTS
Modifier.\13\ Proposed Rule 7.44(a)(3) further provides that an RPI
remains non-displayed in its entirety and is ranked Priority 3--Non-
Display Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An MPL Order is a Limit Order to buy (sell) that is not
displayed and does not route, with a working price at the lower
(higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price. An MPL
Order is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders and may be entered
during any Exchange trading session. See Rule 7.31(d)(3). An MPL
Order to buy (sell) must be designated with a limit price in the
minimum price variation for the security and will be eligible to
trade at its working price. See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(A). If there is no
PBB or PBO, or if the PBBO is locked or crossed, an arriving or
resting MPL Order will not be eligible to trade until the PBBO is
not locked or crossed. See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(B). An Aggressing MPL
Order to buy (sell) will trade at the working price of resting
orders to sell (buy) when such resting orders have a working price
at or below (above) the working price of the MPL Order. Resting MPL
Orders to buy (sell) will trade against all Aggressing Orders to
sell (buy) priced at or below (above) the working price of the MPL
Order. See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(C). An MPL Order may be designated IOC
(``MPL-IOC Order'') and, subject to such IOC instructions, will
follow the same trading and priority rules as an MPL Order except
that an MPL-IOC Order will be rejected if there is no PBBO or the
PBBO is locked or crossed. See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(D).
    \13\ See Rules 7.31(b)(2) (providing that an order with an IOC
Modifier will be traded in whole or in part on the Exchange as soon
as such order is received, with any untraded quantity cancelled);
7.31(e)(2) (providing that an ALO Order is a Non-Routable Limit
Order that, unless it receives price improvement, will not remove
liquidity from the Exchange Book); 7.31(i)(3) (providing that the
MTS Modifier designates an order with a minimum trade size and an
order with an MTS Modifier will be rejected if the MTS is less than
a round lot or if the MTS is larger than the size of the order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of an RPI as a non-displayed order that trades only
with Retail Orders is consistent with NYSE Rule 7.44(a)(4) and NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4). However, proposed Rule 7.44(a)(3) differs
substantively from the definition of RPI Orders under NYSE Rule
7.44(a)(4) and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) in that RPI Orders in the
Program will only be MPL Orders, in accordance with the goal of the
Program to provide potential price improvement to retail orders at the
midpoint or better. The Exchange notes that it would not be novel for
RPI Orders to function as MPL Orders to offer retail orders trading
opportunities at the midpoint. NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) currently
provides that RPI Orders in the NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Program may
be designated as either Limit Orders or MPL Orders, and, similar to the
Program, as proposed, the IEX Retail Price Improvement Program provides
for Retail Liquidity Provider Orders that are non-displayed orders
priced at the less aggressive of the midpoint price or the order's
limit price and interact with eligible retail orders in price-time
priority at the midpoint price.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D) (``An RPI must be
designated as either a Limit Non-Displayed Order or MPL Order. . .
.''); IEX Rule 11.190(b)(14) (defining Retail Liquidity Provider
Order as a Midpoint Peg order that is only eligible to execute
against retail orders through the execution process described in IEX
Rule 11.232(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RMO Qualifications and Application Process
    As noted above, Retail Orders may be submitted by RMOs. Under
proposed Rule 7.44(b)(1), any ETP Holder could qualify as an RMO if it
conducts retail business or routes retail orders on behalf of another
broker-dealer. For purposes of this rule, the Exchange proposes that
conducting a retail business includes carrying retail customer accounts
on a fully disclosed basis. Proposed Rule 7.44(b)(2) would provide
that, to become an RMO, an ETP Holder must submit: (1) an application
form; (2) supporting documentation sufficient to demonstrate the retail
nature and characteristics of the applicant's order flow; \15\ and (3)
an attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that any order
submitted by the ETP Holder as a Retail Order would meet the
qualifications for such orders under Rule 7.44. Proposed Rule
7.44(b)(3) would provide that the Exchange would notify an applicant of
its decision in writing after an applicant submits the application
form, supporting documentation, and attestation. Proposed Rule
7.44(b)(4) would provide that a disapproved applicant may request an
appeal of such disapproval by the Exchange as provided in proposed Rule
7.44(d) (discussed further below) and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days
after the disapproval notice issued by the Exchange. An RMO may also
voluntarily withdraw from such status at any time by giving written
notice to the Exchange, as set forth in proposed Rule 7.44(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Proposed Rule 7.44(b)(2) would further provide that such
supporting documentation may include sample marketing literature,
website screenshots, other publicly disclosed materials describing
the ETP Holder's retail order flow, and any other documentation and
information requested by the Exchange in order to confirm that the
applicant's order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail
Order definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO must have written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to assure that it will only designate orders as Retail Orders
if all requirements of a Retail Order are met, pursuant to proposed
Rule 7.44(b)(6). Such written policies and procedures must require the
ETP Holder to (i) exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order
to assure that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the
requirements of Rule 7.44, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as
Retail Orders meet the applicable requirements. If the RMO represents
Retail Orders from another broker-dealer customer, the RMO's
supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the
orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates
as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The RMO must
(i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to
the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends its orders to
be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail
Orders will be in compliance with the requirements of this rule, and
(ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow
continues to meet the applicable requirements.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(b) is substantively identical to NYSE Rule
7.44(b) and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(b) and is also substantially similar
to IEX Rule 11.232(b).
Failure of RMO To Abide by Retail Order Requirements
    Proposed Rule 7.44(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by Retail
Order requirements. If an RMO designated orders submitted to the
Exchange as Retail Orders and the Exchange determined, in its sole
discretion, that those orders failed to meet the requirements of Retail
Orders, the Exchange could disqualify an ETP Holder from its status as
an RMO. When disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange
would provide a written disqualification notice to the ETP Holder. A
disqualified RMO could appeal the disqualification as provided in
proposed Rule 7.44(d), discussed below, and/or reapply for RMO status
90 days after the disqualification notice was issued by the Exchange.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(c) is substantively identical to NYSE Rule
7.44(h) and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(h) and is also substantially similar
to IEX Rule 11.232(c).
Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification
    Proposed Rule 7.44(d) provides appeal rights to ETP Holders that
are disapproved or disqualified as RMOs. If an ETP Holder disputes the
Exchange's decision to disapprove it under proposed Rule 7.44(b) or
disqualify it under proposed Rule 7.44(c), such ETP Holder could
request, within five business days after notice of the decision was
issued by the Exchange,

the Retail Liquidity Program Panel (``RLP Panel'') review the decision
to determine if it was correct.
    The RLP Panel would consist of the NYSE's Chief Regulatory Officer
(``CRO''), or a designee of the CRO, and two qualified Exchange
employees. The RLP Panel would review the facts and render a decision
within the time frame prescribed by the Exchange. The RLP Panel may
overturn or modify an action taken by the Exchange, and all
determinations by the RLP Panel would constitute final action by the
Exchange on the matter at issue.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(d) is substantively identical to NYSE Rule
7.44(i) and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E(i) and is also substantially similar
to IEX Rule 11.232(d).
Retail Liquidity Identifier
    Proposed Rule 7.44(e) would provide for the Retail Liquidity
Identifier, which is an identifier disseminated by the Exchange through
proprietary data feeds and through the Consolidated Quotation System or
the UTP Quote Data Feed, as applicable, when RPI interest eligible to
trade at the midpoint of the PBBO for a particular security is
available in Exchange systems. The Retail Liquidity Identifier would
reflect the symbol for the particular security and the side (buy or
sell) of the RPI interest but would not include the price or size of
the RPI interest.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(e) is the same as NYSE Rule 7.44(j), aside from
differences to reflect that the Program's Retail Liquidity Identifier
would indicate when RPI interest is available at the midpoint of the
PBBO, consistent with the goal of the Program to offer trading
opportunities to Retail Orders at the midpoint or better.
Retail Order Designation
    Proposed Rule 7.44(f) would describe the operation of Retail Orders
in the Program. A Retail Order may be designated with an MTS
Modifier.\16\ Proposed Rule 7.44(f) provides for two types of Retail
Orders, and an RMO would be able to designate how a Retail Order will
trade with available contra-side interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that the availability of an MTS Modifier
with retail orders is not novel, as it is currently offered on other
exchanges operating retail price improvement programs. See, e.g.,
Investors Exchange LLC Rules 11.190(b)(9)(G), 11.190(b)(10)(G), and
11.232(a)(2) (providing that a Retail order may be a Discretionary
Peg order or Midpoint Peg order, either of which may be designated
with a minimum trade size). In addition, the Commission recently
noticed for immediate effectiveness a proposed rule change by the
NYSE to permit Retail Orders to be designated with an MTS Modifier.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96944 (February 16, 2023),
88 FR 11499 (February 23, 2023) (SR-NYSE-2023-11) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule
7.44 Relating to the Retail Liquidity Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.44(f)(1) would define the Type 1 Retail Order. A
Type 1 Retail Order to buy (sell) would be an MPL IOC Order with a
working price at the lower (higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or its
limit price and that will trade only with available RPI Orders to sell
(buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below
(above) or equal to the midpoint of the PBBO on the Exchange Book. A
Type 1 Retail Order would not route, and the quantity of a Type 1
Retail Order to buy (sell) that does not trade with eligible orders to
sell (buy) will be immediately and automatically cancelled. A Type 1
Retail Order would be cancelled on arrival if there is no PBBO or the
PBBO is locked or crossed.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(f)(1) is similar to NYSE Rule 7.44(k) and NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(k)(1) except that the Type 1 Retail Order, as
proposed, would differ from the NYSE Retail Order and the NYSE Arca
Type 1 Retail Order in that it would be an MPL Order (rather than a
Limit Order), to reflect the intent of the Program to provide potential
price improvement opportunities for retail order flow at the midpoint
or better. The Type 1 Retail Order, as an order eligible to trade at
the midpoint or better, accordingly also shares characteristics with
the existing MPL Order type available on the Exchange and is similar to
the retail order in IEX's Retail Price Improvement Program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 13, supra (describing the MPL Order); IEX Rule
11.232(a)(2) (providing that a retail order must be a Discretionary
Peg order or Midpoint Peg order with a Time-in-Force of IOC or FOK
that is only eligible to trade at a price between the NBB and the
Midpoint Price (for bids) or between the NBO and the Midpoint Price
(for offers)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.44(f)(2) would define the Type 2 Retail Order. A
Type 2 Retail Order to buy (sell) would be a Limit IOC Order that
trades first with available RPI Orders to sell (buy) (which, as noted
above, are orders with a working price at the lower (higher) of the
midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price) and with all other orders to
sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the
Exchange Book. Any remaining quantity of a Type 2 Retail Order would
then trade with orders to sell (buy) on the Exchange Book at prices
equal to or above (below) the PBO (PBB) as a Limit IOC Order and would
not route. Any untraded quantity would be immediately and automatically
cancelled. Retail Orders designated by the submitting RMO as Type 2
thus differ from Type 1 Retail Orders because they would be able to
trade with all contra-side orders inside the PBBO and then would have
the opportunity to trade as a Limit IOC Order, as such order is defined
in Rule 7.31.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(f)(2) is identical to NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-
E(k)(2)(A) except that proposed Rule 7.44(f)(2) references the Exchange
Book rather than the NYSE Arca Book.
Priority and Order Allocation
    Proposed Rule 7.44(g) would set forth priority and allocation rules
for the Program. RPI Orders in the same security would be ranked
together with all other interest ranked as Priority 3--Non-Display
Orders, and odd lot orders ranked as Priority 2--Display Orders would
have priority over orders ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders at each
price. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest would remain available to
trade with other incoming Retail Orders. Any remaining unfilled
quantity of the Retail Order would cancel in accordance with proposed
Rule 7.44(f), as described above.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(g) would also include the following examples to
illustrate priority and allocation of orders in the Program.
    Examples of priority and order allocation are as follows:

    PBBO for security ABC is $10.00-$10.10.
    User 1 enters a Retail Price Improvement Order to buy ABC at
$10.06 for 500.
    User 2 then enters a Retail Price Improvement Order to buy ABC
at $10.09 for 400.
    User 3 then enters a Retail Price Improvement Order to buy ABC
at $10.04 for 500.
    An incoming Type 1 Retail Order to sell ABC for 1,000 at $10.00
would trade first with User 1's bid for 500 at $10.05. The Retail
Order would then trade with User 2's bid for 400 at $10.05, because
User 2's bid is ranked at the same price as User 1's but arrived
later. User 3 would not be filled because the limit price of its
order is not priced to execute at or above the current midpoint
price of $10.05, and the remaining 100 shares of the Retail Order
would be cancelled back to the Retail Member Organization. The
Retail Order trades with RPI Orders in price/time priority, as
illustrated by this example.
    The result would be the same as the above if User 1's order was
instead either an MPL Order to buy ABC at $10.06 for 500 or a non-
displayed order to buy ABC at $10.05 for 500. The incoming Retail
Order would trade first with User 1 for 500 at $10.05, then with
User 2 for 400 at $10.05. User 3 would not be filled because the
limit price of its order is not priced to execute at or above the
current midpoint price of $10.05, and the remaining 100 shares of
the Retail Order would be cancelled back to the Retail Member
Organization.
    As a final example, assume the original facts, except that User
3's order was not an

RPI Order, but rather, a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.09
for 400 and User 4 enters a displayed odd lot limit order to buy ABC
at $10.05 for 60. The incoming Retail Order to sell for 1,000 would
trade first with User 3's bid for 400 at $10.09, because it is the
best-priced bid, then with User 4's bid for 60 at $10.05 because it
is the next best-priced bid and is ranked Priority 2--Display Orders
and has priority over same-priced non-displayed orders (RPIs and
non-displayed limit orders). The incoming Retail Order would then
trade with User 1's bid for 500 at $10.05 and, finally, with User 2
for 40 at $10.05, at which point the entire size of the Retail Order
to sell 1,000 would be depleted. The balance of User 2's bid would
remain on the Exchange Book and be eligible to trade with the next
incoming Retail Order to sell.
    To demonstrate how a Type 2 Retail Order would trade with
available Exchange interest, assume the following facts:
    PBBO for security DEF is $19.99--$20.03.
    User 1 enters a Limit Order to buy DEF at $20.00 for 100
(updated PBBO 20.00 x 20.03.)
    User 2 then enters a Retail Price Improvement Order to buy DEF
at $20.03 for 100.
    User 3 then enters an MPL Order to buy DEF at $21.00 for 100.
    User 4 then enters a Non-Displayed Order to buy DEF at $20.01
for 100.
    User 5 then enters a Non-Displayed Order to buy DEF at $20.02
for 100.
    An incoming Type 2 Retail Order to sell DEF for 1,000 at $20.00
would trade first with User 5's bid for 100 at $20.02, because it is
the best-priced bid. The incoming Retail Order would then trade with
User 2's bid for 100 at $20.015, because it is the next best-priced
bid, then with User 3's bid for 100 at $20.015, because User 3's bid
is ranked at the same price as User 2's but arrived later. The
incoming Retail Order would then trade with User 4's bid for 100 at
$20.01 because it is the next best-priced bid. Finally, the Retail
Order would trade with User 1's bid for 100 at $20.00. The remaining
500 shares of the Retail Order would be cancelled back to the Retail
Member Organization.

    Finally, proposed Rule 7.44(g) would limit the Program to trades
occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share and
provide that Exchange systems will reject Retail Orders and RPI Orders
priced below $1.00. The Program will operate only during the Core
Trading Session and Retail Orders will be accepted during Core Trading
Hours only.
    Proposed Rule 7.44(g) is substantially the same as NYSE Arca Rule
7.44-E(l) except that it provides that remaining unfilled quantities of
Retail Orders would cancel only (because all Retail Orders in the
Program, as proposed, would be IOC Orders) and is also substantially
the same as NYSE Rule 7.44(l) except to the extent the NYSE rule refers
to the allocation of Retail Orders pursuant to NYSE Rule 7.37(b). The
examples of priority and allocation provided in proposed Rule 7.44(g)
are structured similarly to those that appear in NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-
E(l), with differences to reflect that RPI Orders and Type 1 Retail
Orders in the Program would function as MPL Orders.
* * * * *
    Subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the Exchange
will implement this change no later than in the third quarter of 2023
and announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\19\ in particular, because 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, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest because proposed Rule 7.44 is
based on NYSE Rule 7.44 and NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E providing for the
NYSE and NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity Programs, respectively, and is also
substantially similar to rules providing for the IEX Retail Price
Improvement Program. Proposed Rule 7.44 sets forth definitions, order
types, processes for RMO application, qualification, disapproval and
disqualification for the Program, and the operation, priority, and
allocation of orders in the Program that are based on rules previously
approved by the Commission for retail price improvement programs
currently offered by equities exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange also
believes the proposed change would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest by promoting consistency among
exchange rules setting forth retail price improvement programs, which
could encourage retail investors to direct order flow to the Program to
seek out price improvement opportunities.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system because it is intended to attract retail order flow to the
Exchange, including by facilitating opportunities for such order flow
to receive potential price improvement at the midpoint or better. The
proposed change would also promote competition for retail order flow
among execution venues, which would benefit retail investors by
creating additional price improvement opportunities for marketable
retail order flow on a public exchange. In particular, the Exchange
believes that providing for RPI Orders and Retail Orders that function
as MPL Orders could provide more deterministic price improvement
opportunities for Retail Orders, thereby attracting additional retail
order flow to the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that
also offering a Retail Order to buy (sell) that could trade with orders
to sell (buy) on the Exchange Book at prices equal to or above (below)
the PBO (PBB) (after trading with RPI Orders and interest on the
Exchange Book with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB)) could
provide for additional trading opportunities for Retail Orders
designated as Type 2 by the RMO. The Exchange notes that this type of
Retail Order is currently offered in the NYSE Arca Retail Liquidity
Program. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would
allow it to compete with other exchanges that similarly promote
additional trading opportunities for retail order flow at the
midpoint.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change could encourage competition by promoting additional
trading opportunities at the midpoint and supporting price improvement
opportunities at the midpoint of the PBBO or better for retail
investors. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change could
promote competition between the Exchange and other exchanges that offer
retail price improvement programs, including an exchange that operates
a retail price improvement program intended to

provide additional trading opportunities at the midpoint.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\27\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that
it anticipates that it will be technologically ready to implement the
Program within 30 days of the date of filing, and a waiver of the 30-
day operative delay would allow the Exchange to provide beneficial
price improvement opportunities to retail investors as soon as
practicable. Further, the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative
delay would encourage competition for retail order flow among execution
venues. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would allow the Exchange to implement its Program to provide
retail investors with price improvement opportunities and compete with
other execution venues for retail order flow. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \29\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSENAT-2023-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSENAT-2023-17. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSENAT-2023-17 and should
be submitted on or before September 13, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18190 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1436]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15g-3, SEC File No. 270-346, OMB Control No. 3235-0392.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-3--Broker or dealer
disclosure of quotations and other information relating to the penny
stock market (17 CFR 240.15g-3) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15g-3 requires that brokers and dealers disclose to customers
current quotation prices or similar market information in connection
with transactions in penny stocks. The purpose of the rule is to
increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks
generally and specific penny stock transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 221 broker-dealers will
spend an average of 87 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus,
the total compliance burden is approximately 19,245 burden-hours per
year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send
an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 5, 2015.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00138 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37856-37858]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14963]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69785; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Extend the Penny Pilot Program

June 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 12, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II 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 is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to extend the pilot program for the
quoting and trading of certain options in pennies (the ``Penny Pilot
Program'') and to revise the provision describing how the Exchange
specifies which option classes trade in the Penny Pilot Program.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program
that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in
penny increments (the ``Penny Pilot Program'' or ``Program'').
Specifically, the Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of
certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in
such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum
increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price
of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and
iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''), however, are quoted and
traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the
price. The Penny Pilot Program was initiated at the then existing
option exchanges in January 2007 and currently includes more than 300
of the most active option classes. The Penny Pilot Program is currently
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to extend the Penny Pilot Program in its current format
through December 31, 2013.
    In addition to the extension of the Penny Pilot Program through
December 31, 2013, the Exchange will replace any Penny Pilot issues
that have been delisted with the next most actively traded multiply
listed option classes that are not yet included in the Penny Pilot
Program. The replacement issues will be selected based on trading
activity in the previous six months and

will be added to the Penny Pilot Program on the second trading day
following July 1, 2013. Please note, the month immediately preceding a
replacement class's addition to the Pilot program (i.e., June) will not
be used for purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement
added on the second trading day following July 1, 2013 will be
identified based on trading activity from December 1, 2012 through May
31, 2013. Rule 510 has been updated to reflect the new date replacement
issues will be added to the Penny Pilot Program.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to revise the provision describing
how the Exchange specifies which option classes trade in the Penny
Pilot Program. Currently, the rule provides that the Exchange specifies
which option classes trade in the Penny Pilot Program and in what
increments in a Regulatory Circular that has been filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act and
distributed to its Members. The Exchange now proposes to revise that
provision to indicate information regarding the option classes trading
in the Penny Pilot Program will be communicated to Members through a
Listings Alert and posted on the Exchange's Web site.\3\ By revising
this provision, the Exchange will eliminate the requirement to file a
Regulatory Circular with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This revision is consistent with rules at most of the other
options exchanges participating in the Penny Pilot Program: BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 21.5, Interpretations and Policies
.01; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') Chapter VI, Section 5(3); NASDAQ
OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'') Rule 1034(a)(i)(B); The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``NOM'') Chapter VI, Section 5; NYSE MKT LLC Rule 960NY,
Commentary .02; and NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 6.72, Commentary .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ 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, 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. In particular, the proposed
rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months,
allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has
been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers
and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating
in it. In addition, the revision to how the Exchange will specify which
options participate in the Penny Pilot Program promotes just and
equitable principles of trade since it clarifies how Members and other
market participants will be made aware of which options classes are
trading in the Penny Pilot Program and eliminates an unnecessary
requirement that the Exchange specify which option classes are in the
Penny Pilot Program through a Regulatory Circular that has been filed
with Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act. The requirement
to file the Regulatory Circular with the Commission is unnecessary
because most (i.e., all but two option exchanges \6\) do not require
such a submission to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Only BOX Options Exchange LLC (at Rule 7050(b)) and
International Securities Exchange, LLC (at Rule 710, Supplementary
Materials .01) require that the Regulatory Information Circulars
specifying which options trade in the Penny Pilot Program be
submitted to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition,
consistent with previous practices, the Exchange believes the other
options exchanges will be filing similar extensions of the Penny Pilot
Program.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\11\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-28 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-MIAX-2013-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-28 and should be
submitted on or before July 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14963 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13222-13225]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0857; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00707-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-04, which applies to all
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350,
PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-
6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes.
This action revises the NPRM by adding an eddy current inspection of
each fuselage wing fitting if an earlier version of the service
information was accomplished. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would
impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is
requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by April 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371 Stans,
exception occurred on : 2021-04395.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-04395.htm
Switzerland; phone: +41 848 24 7 365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0857; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
the NPRM, this SNPRM, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:
(816) 329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0857; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-00707-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901
Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD
2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045 (79 FR 73803, December 12, 2014) (AD
2014-25-04). AD 2014-25-04 applies to all Pilatus Model PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-
H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/
C1-H2 airplanes and resulted from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country
to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. AD
2014-25-04 requires incorporating revised airworthiness limitations
into the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) for your FAA-approved
maintenance program.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2020 (85
FR 62266). The NPRM was prompted by

MCAI issued by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which
is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union.
EASA superseded its previous MCAIs on this unsafe condition with EASA
AD No. 2020-0120, dated May 27, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0120). EASA AD 2020-
0120 states that revised airworthiness limitations for the subject
airplanes introduce new data modules that require non-destructive
visual and eddy current inspections instead of a previous requirement
for the fluorescent dye-penetrant method. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
to require incorporating the new airworthiness limitations (revision
29) and performing an eddy current inspection of the fuselage wing
fittings and wing-to-fuselage fittings.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, EASA superseded EASA AD 2020-0120
and issued EASA AD No. 2020-0278, dated December 14, 2020 (EASA AD
2020-0278) (also referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). According to
EASA AD 2020-0278, an installation procedure specified in the service
information identified in the NPRM contained an error and, therefore,
did not adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Pilatus has
revised the airworthiness limitations (revision 30) and issued
corrected service information, which includes installing certain bushes
using grease instead of a bonding agent and an additional one-time eddy
current inspection of the fuselage wing fittings and wing-to-fuselage
fittings if the last inspection was performed using an earlier version
of the service information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0857.
    This SNPRM was prompted by the FAA's determination that the revised
airworthiness limitations and new inspection procedures are necessary,
in addition to the new life limits proposed in the NPRM. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address reduced airplane controllability due to
possible loss of structural integrity of certain parts.

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from Pilatus. The following presents the
comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request to Reference Latest Service Information

    Pilatus requested that FAA revise the NPRM to require using Pilatus
PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document Number 01975, Revision 30,
dated October 30, 2020; and Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations
Document Number 02334, Revision 10, dated October 30, 2020. In support
of its request, Pilatus stated the installation procedure in the
service information specified in the NPRM is incorrect. Pilatus also
stated that it has added a note to the airworthiness limitations
section indicating the data module procedure has been corrected and
specifying a repeat of the action if it was last done in accordance
with the prior service information.
    The FAA agrees. After Pilatus submitted its comment, EASA issued
the MCAI to require the revised service information, as described
previously. In this SNPRM, the FAA proposes to require the latest
service information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus issued PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations Document No. 02334,
Revision 10, dated October 30, 2020; and Section 04-00-00,
Airworthiness Limitations of Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations, of
the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 01975,
Revision 30, dated October 30, 2020. This service information contains
airworthiness limitations for the stabilizer trim actuator, fuselage
wing fittings, and wing-to-fuselage fittings. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
    Pilatus also issued Section 53-00-01, Fuselage Wing Fittings--
Inspection/Check, of the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
Document No. 01975, Revision 30, dated October 30, 2020; Section 57-00-
03, Wing to Fuselage Fittings--Inspection/Check, of the PC-6 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual Document No. 01975, Revision 29, dated February 28,
2020; Appendix K, Fuselage Wing Fittings--Inspection/Check, of the PC-6
Airworthiness Limitations Document No. 02334, Revision 10, dated
October 30, 2020; and Appendix L, Wing to Fuselage Fittings--
Inspection/Check, of the PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations Document No.
02334, Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020. This service information
specifies procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections of the
fuselage wing fittings and wing-to-fuselage fittings and, if necessary,
installing the bush on the fuselage wing fittings using grease.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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 the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2014-
25-04. This proposed AD would require revising the airworthiness
limitation section of the existing AMM or instructions for continued
airworthiness to incorporate new airworthiness limitations. The revised
limitations include an eddy current inspection of the fuselage wing
fittings and wing-to-fuselage fittings. This proposed AD would also
require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) for certain bushes,
performing an eddy current inspection of the fuselage wing fittings and
wing-to-fuselage fittings and replacing the bush on the fuselage wing
fittings using grease. Lastly, this proposed AD would require
performing the eddy current inspection of the fuselage wing fittings
and wing-to-fuselage fittings first within 1,100 hours TIS or 12 months
(whichever occurs first), and thereafter at the intervals specified in
the revised limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to the airworthiness
limitations section (ALS) of an operator's maintenance documents to
include new inspections. Compliance with the airworthiness limitations
section is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per  product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALS revision.....................  1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $2,550.
                                    per hour = $85.
Eddy current inspection of the     7 work-hours x $85           $1,860  $2,455 per           $73,650 per
 fuselage wing fittings and         per hour = $595.                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 wing[dash]to[dash]fuselage
 fittings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do the inspections and
installation that would be required if an earlier version of the
service information has been accomplished. The agency has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections
and installation:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual and eddy current inspection and          7 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $1,860          $2,455
 installation for certain bushes.                $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (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 Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045
(79 FR 73803, December 12, 2014); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Pilatus Aircraft Limited: Docket No. FAA-2020-0857; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-00707-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 22, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    This AD replaces AD 2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045 (79 FR 73803,
December 12, 2014) (AD 2014-25-04).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-
6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c): These airplanes may also be identified
as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild Industries
airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller
Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new and more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, new life limits, and new
inspection procedures are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address reduced airplane controllability due to possible loss of
structural integrity of certain parts.

(f) Airworthiness Limitations Revision

    Unless already done, before further flight, comply with the
actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) For Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes, revise the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing maintenance
manual or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) for your
airplane as follows:
    (i) Replace Section 04-00-00 with Section 04-00-00,
Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations,
of the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document No. 01975,
Revision 30, dated October 30, 2020.
    (ii) Add (or replace, if applicable) Section 53-00-01, Fuselage
Wing Fittings--Inspection/Check, of the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual Document No. 01975, Revision 30, dated October
30, 2020.
    (iii) Add Section 57-00-03, Wing to Fuselage Fittings--
Inspection/Check, of the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
Document No. 01975, Revision 29, dated February 28, 2020.
    (2) For all airplanes specified in paragraph (c) of this AD
except Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes, revise the ALS of

the existing maintenance manual or ICA for your airplane as follows:
    (i) Replace the ALS with the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations Document No. 02334,
Revision 10, dated October 30, 2020.
    (ii) Add (or replace, if applicable) Appendix K, Fuselage Wing
Fittings--Inspection/Check, of Pilatus PC 6 Airworthiness
Limitations Document No. 02334, Revision 10, dated October 30, 2020.
    (iii) Add Appendix L, Wing to Fuselage Fittings--Inspection/
Check, of Pilatus PC 6 Airworthiness Limitations Document No. 02334,
Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020.
    (3) For all airplanes specified in paragraph (c) of this AD,
after revising the ALS as required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this AD, remove from service each part that has reached or exceeded
its new life limit.

(g) Inspections and Replacement

    (1) For airplanes with a bush part number (P/N) 6100.0020.01
that has been bonded as specified in Section 53-00-01, Fuselage Wing
Fittings--Inspection/Check, of Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance
Manual Document No. 01975, Revision 29, dated February 28, 2020; or
Appendix K, Fuselage Wing Fittings--Inspection/Check, of Pilatus PC-
6 Airworthiness Limitations Document No. 02334, Revision 9, dated
March 6, 2020: Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, perform a visual and eddy current
inspection of each fuselage wing fitting on fuselage Frame 3, remove
bush P/N 6100.0020.01 from service, and install a new (zero hours
TIS) bush P/N 6100.0020.01 into Frame 3 with grease by using the
procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) or (f)(2)(ii) of this
AD, as applicable to your airplane.
    (2) Unless already done, within 1,100 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an eddy current
inspection of each fuselage wing fitting and each wing-to-fuselage
fitting using the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and
(iii) of this AD, or paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this AD, as
applicable to your airplane. Thereafter, repeat the eddy current
inspection of each fuselage wing fitting and each wing-to-fuselage
fitting at the intervals specified in the ALS identified in
paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(2)(i), as applicable to your airplane.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the ALS has been revised as required by paragraph (f) of
this AD, no alternative inspection intervals or procedures may be
approved, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. Send your request to the person identified in Related
Information. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspection, the manager
of the local Flight Standards District Office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2020-
0120, dated May 27, 2020, and EASA AD No. 2020-0278, dated December
14, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0857.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371
Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 848 24 7 365; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://www.pilatusaircraft.com/en. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 25, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-04395 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P