[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22328-22333]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77580; File No. SR-BOX-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend BOX Rule 100 (Definitions) Relating to Professionals

April 11, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 29, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (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 from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 100 (Definitions) relating
to Professionals. The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 100 (Definitions) to amend
the definition of Professional. This filing that is based on a proposal
recently submitted by Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') and approved by the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77450 (March 25,
2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2016-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 100(a)(50) relating to
Professionals. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new
language to the rule setting forth amended standards for calculating
average daily order submissions for Professional order counting
purposes. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
provide additional clarity in the BOX Rules.
Background
    In general, ``public customers'' are granted certain marketplace
advantages over other market participants, including Market Makers,
brokers and dealers of securities, and industry ``Professionals'' on
most U.S. options exchanges. The U.S. options exchanges, including BOX,
have adopted similar definitions of the term ``Professional,'' \4\
which commonly refers to persons or entities that are not a brokers or
dealers in securities and who or which place more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for their own
beneficial account(s).\5\ Various exchanges adopted similar
Professional rules for many of the same reasons, including, but not
limited to the desire to create more competitive marketplaces and
attract retail order flow.\6\ In addition, as several of the exchanges
noted in their original Professional rule filings, their beliefs that
disparate Professional rules and a lack of uniformity in the
application of such rules across the options markets would not promote
the best regulation and could, in fact, encourage regulatory
arbitrage.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Some U.S. options exchanges refer to ``Professionals'' as
``Professional Customers'' or non-``Priority Customers.'' Compare
BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rule 16.1(a)(45) (Professional); BOX
Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule 100(a)(50) (Professional); CBOE
Rule 1.1(ggg) (Professional); C2 Rule 1.1; BX Chapter I, Sec. 1(49)
(Professional); NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1000(b)(14)
(Professional); Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') Chapter I, Sec.
1(a)(48) (Professional); with ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority
Customer); Gemini Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority Customer); Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') Rule 100 (Priority
Customer); NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule 900.2NY(18A)
(Professional Customer); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.1A(4A)
(Professional Customer).
    \5\ See, e.g., BZX Rule 16.1(a)(45); BOX Rule 100(a)(50); CBOE
Rule 1.1(ggg); C2 Rule 1.1; BX Chapter I, Sec. 1(49); PHLX Rule
1000(b)(14); NOM Chapter I, Sec. 1(a)(48); see also ISE Rule
100(a)(37A) (Priority Customer); Gemini Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority
Customer); MIAX Rule 100 (Priority Customer); NYSE MKT Rule
900.2NY(18A) (Professional Customer); Arca Rule 6.1A(4A)
(Professional Customer).
    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60931
(November 4, 2009), 74 FR 58355, 58356 (November 12, 2009) (Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Related to Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE-2009-078); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5694, 5694
(January 30, 2009) (Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Professional
Account Holders) (SR-ISE-2006-026); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR 17193, 17194 (April 5, 2010)
(Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2
Thereto, Relating to Professional Orders) (SR-PHLX-2010-005);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61629 (March 2, 2010), 75 FR
10851, 10851 (March 9, 2010) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Designation of a ``Professional Customer'')
(SR-NYSEMKT-2010-018).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 62724
(August 16, 2010), 75 FR 51509 (August 20, 2010) (Notice of Filing
of a Proposed Rule Change by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC To Adopt a
Definition of Professional and Require That All Professional Orders
Be Appropriately Marked) (SR NASDAQ-2010-099); Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 65500 (October 6, 2011), 76 FR 63686
(October 13, 2011) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Definition of Professional and
Require That All Professional Orders Be Appropriately Marked) (SR-
BATS-2011-041); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65036 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49517, 49518 (August 10, 2011) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Definition of ``Professional'' and Require That Professional Orders
Be Appropriately Marked by BOX Options Participants) (SR-BX-2011-
049); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60931 (November 4, 2009),
74 FR 58355, 58357 (November 12, 2009) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to Professional
Orders) (SR-CBOE-2009-078); see also Securities Exchange Act Release
73628 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR 69958, 69960 (November 24, 2014)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE-2014-085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to other U.S. options exchanges, the Exchange grants
``Public Customers'' certain marketplace advantages over other market
participants pursuant to the Exchange's Fee Schedule \8\ and the BOX
Rules.\9\ Specifically, Public Customer orders are

generally exempt from transaction fees and certain Exchange surcharges.
Similar to other U.S. options exchanges, the Exchange affords these
marketplace advantages to Public Customers based on various business-
and regulatory-related objectives, including, for example, to attract
retail order flow to the Exchange and to provide competitive pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., BOX Fee Schedule (Exchange Fees).
    \9\ Public Customers receive allocation priority above equally
priced competing interests of Market Makers, broker-dealers, and
other market participants in the PIP and COPIP. See, e.g., BOX Rule
7150(g)(1) (Public Customer Allocation in PIP), BOX Rule 7245(g)(2)
(Public Customer Allocation in COPIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, BOX Rule 100(a)(50) defines a Professional as ``any
person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
(ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).'' The
Exchange's Professional order rule was adopted to distinguish non-
broker dealer individuals and entities that have access to information
and technology that enable them to professionally trade listed options
in a manner similar to brokers or dealers in securities from retail
investors for order priority and/or transaction fees purposes. In
general, Professionals are treated as brokers or dealers in securities
under the Exchange's rules, including, but not limited to with respect
to order priority and fees.\10\ BOX Rule 100(a)(50) is substantially
similar to the Professional order rules of other exchanges and was
materially based upon the preexistent Professional order rules of other
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BOX Rule 100(a)(50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2015, the Exchange clarified its Professional order
rule by distributing a Regulatory Circular to its Participants.\11\
Specifically, the Exchange codified its interpretation that, for
Professional order counting purposes, ``parent'' orders that are placed
on a single ticket and entered for the beneficial account(s) of a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities and that
are broken into multiple parts by a broker or dealer, or by an
algorithm housed at a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm licensed
from a broker or dealer that is housed with the customer in order to
achieve a specific execution strategy, should count as one single order
for Professional order counting purposes. This interpretation was a
clarification in the Rules based on the Exchange's past interpretations
of Rule 100 (a)(50) and similar interpretations set forth in a
previously issued ISE/ISE Gemini, LLC (``Gemini'') Joint Regulatory
Information Circular.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See RC-2015-21.
    \12\ See ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2014-007/Gemini
Regulatory Information Circular 2014-011 (Priority Customer Orders
and Professional Orders (FAQ)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Informational Circular, however, has not clarified
the Exchange's Professional rule completely. The advent of new multi-
leg spread products and the proliferation of the use of complex orders
and algorithmic execution strategies by both institutional and retail
market participants continue to raise questions as to what constitutes
an ``order'' for Professional order counting purposes. For example, do
complex orders (which on the Exchange may be up to 4 legs) constitute a
single order or multiple orders for Professional order counting
purposes? The Exchange's Professional rule does not fully address these
issues and there is no common interpretation across the U.S. options
markets.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
serve to accomplish the Exchange's stated goals for its Professional
rule. Under current Rule 100(a)(50) many market participants using
sophisticated execution strategies and trading algorithms who would
typically be considered professional traders are not identified under
the Exchange's Professional rule. The Exchange believes that these
types of market participants have access to technology and market
information akin to broker-dealers. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule is warranted to ensure that Public Customers are afforded
the marketplace advantages that they are intended to be afforded over
other types of market participants on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that despite the adoption of materially similar
Professional rules across the markets, exchanges' interpretations of
their respective Professional rules vary. Although Professionals are
similarly defined by exchanges as non-broker-dealer persons or entities
that place more than 390 orders in listed options for their own
beneficial account(s) per day on average during a calendar month, there
is no consistent definition across the markets as to what constitutes
an ``order'' for Professional order counting purposes. While several
options exchanges, including BOX, have attempted to clarify their
interpretations of their Professional rules through regulatory and
information notices and circulars,\13\ many of the options exchanges
have not issued any guidance regarding the application of their
Professional rules. Furthermore, where exchanges have issued such
interpretive guidance, those interpretations have not necessarily been
consistent.\14\ As a result, the Exchange believes that the rather than
helping to promote the best regulation and discourage regulatory
arbitrage, the Professional rules have become a basis of intermarket
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BOX Regulatory Circulars RC-2015-21 (Professional
Orders) and RC-2015-22 (Professional Order Implementation);
Regulatory Circular RG09-148 (Professional Orders); ISE Regulatory
Information Circular 2014-007/Gemini Regulatory Information Circular
2014-011 (Priority Customer Orders and Professional Orders (FAQ));
MIAX Regulatory Circular 2014-69 (Priority Customer and Professional
Interest Order Summary); NYSE Joint Regulatory Bulletin, NYSE Acra
RBO-15-03, NYSE Amex RBO-15-06) (Professional Customer Orders).
    \14\ Compare NYSE Joint Regulatory Bulletin, NYSE Acra RBO-15-
03, NYSE Amex RBO-15-06) (Professional Customer Orders) with
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg); Regulatory Circular
RG09-148 (Professional Orders); ISE Regulatory Information Circular
2014-007/Gemini Regulatory Information Circular 2014-011 (Priority
Customer Orders and Professional Orders (FAQ)); and ISE Regulatory
Information Circular 2009-179 (Priority Customer Orders and
Professional Orders (FAQ)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a new set of standards and a more
detailed counting regime than the Exchange's current Professional order
rules provide would allow the Exchange to better compete for order flow
and help ensure deeper levels of liquidity on the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would help to
remove impediments to and help perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system by increasing competition in the
marketplace. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Rules by
amending BOX Rule 100(a)(50) to adopt new rules with respect to
Professional order counting.
Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to add additional details to Rule 100(a)(50)
setting forth a more in depth counting regime for calculating average
daily orders for Professional order designation purposes. Specifically,
the Exchange's proposed rule would make clear how to count complex
orders, ``parent/child'' orders that are broken into multiple orders,
and ``cancel/replace'' orders for Professional order counting purposes.
    Under the Exchange's proposed rule change all orders would count as
one single order for Professional counting purposes, unless otherwise
specified under the Rules. Proposed Rule 100(a)(50) would provide that
except as noted below, each order of any order type counts as one order
for Professional order counting purposes. Paragraph (a) of proposed
Rule 100(a)(50) would discuss Complex Orders.\15\ Under

paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50), a complex order comprised
of eight (8) legs or fewer would count as a single order. Conversely,
paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50) would provide that a
complex order comprised of nine (9) legs or more counts as multiple
orders with each option leg counting as its own separate order.\16\ The
Exchange believes the distinction between complex orders with up to
eight legs from those with nine or more legs is appropriate in light of
the purposes for which Rule 100(a)(50) was adopted. In particular, the
Exchange notes that multi-leg complex order strategies with nine or
more legs are more complex in nature and thus, more likely to be used
by professional traders than traditional two, three, and four leg
complex order strategies such as the strangle, straddle, butterfly,
collar, and condor strategies, and combinations thereof with eight legs
or fewer, which are generally not algorithmically generated and are
frequently used by retail investors. Thus, the types of complex orders
traditionally placed by retail investors would continue to count as
only one order while the more complex strategy orders that are
typically used by professional traders would count as multiple orders
for Professional order counting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A Complex Order is defined as any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. See BOX Rule 7240(a)(5).
    \16\ The Exchange notes that it does not current accept complex
orders comprised of more than four legs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50) would provide details
relating to the counting of ``parent/child'' orders. Under paragraph
(b)(1), a ``parent'' order that is placed for the beneficial account(s)
of a person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities that
is broken into multiple ``child'' orders on the same side (buy/sell)
and series as the ``parent'' order by a broker or dealer, or by an
algorithm housed at a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed from
a broker or dealer, but which is housed with the Public Customer,
counts as one order even if the ``child'' orders are routed across
multiple exchanges. Essentially, this paragraph would describe how
orders placed for Public Customers, which are ``worked'' by a broker in
order to receive best execution should be counted for Professional
order counting purposes. Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50)
would permit larger ``parent'' orders (which may be simple orders or
complex orders consisting of up to eight legs), to be broken into
multiple smaller orders on the same side (buy/sell) and in the same
series (or complex orders consisting of up to eight legs) in order to
attempt to achieve best execution for the overall order.
    For example, if a Public Customer were to enter an order to buy
1,000 XYZ $5 January calls at a limit price of $1, which the Public
Customer's broker then broke into four separate orders to buy 250 XYZ
$5 January calls at a limit price of $1 in order to achieve a better
execution, the four ``child'' orders would still only count as one
order for Professional order counting purposes (whether or not the four
separate orders were sent to the same or different exchanges for
execution).\17\ Similarly, in the case of a complex order, if a Public
Customer were to enter an order to buy 1,000 XYZ $5 January(sell)/
March(buy) calendar spreads (with a 1:1 ratio on the legs), at a net
debit limit price of $0.20, which the Public Customer's broker then
broke into four separate orders to buy 250 XYZ $5 January/March
calendar spreads (each with a 1:1 ratio on the legs), each at a net
debit limit price of $0.20, the four ``child'' orders would still only
count as one order for Professional order counting purposes (whether or
not the four separate orders were sent to the same or different
exchanges for execution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Notably, however, if the customer herself were to enter the
same four identical orders to buy 250 XYZ $5 January calls at a
limit price of $1 prior to sending the orders, those orders would
count as four separate orders for Professional order counting
purposes because the orders would not have been broken into multiple
``child'' orders on the same side (buy/sell) and series as the
``parent'' order by a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm housed at
a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed from a broker or
dealer, but which is housed with the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, under paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50), a
``parent'' order (including a strategy order) \18\ that is broken into
multiple ``child'' orders on both sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or
multiple series counts as multiple orders, with each ``child'' order
counting as a new and separate order. Accordingly, under this
provision, strategy orders, which are most often used by sophisticated
traders best characterized as ``Professionals,'' would count as
multiple orders for each child order entered as part of the overall
strategy. For example, if a customer were to enter an order with her
broker by which multiple ``child'' orders were then sent to the
Exchange across multiple series in a particular option class, each
order entered would count as a separate order for Professional order
counting purposes. Likewise, if the Public Customer instructed her
broker to buy a variety of calls across various option classes as part
of a basket trade, each order entered by the broker in order to obtain
the positions making up the basket would count as a separate order for
Professional counting purposes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of this proposed Rule 100(a)(50), the term
``strategy order'' is intended to mean an execution strategy,
trading instruction, or algorithm whereby multiple ``child'' orders
on both sides of a series and/or multiple series are generated prior
to being sent to any or multiple U.S. options exchange(s).
    \19\ Notably, with respect to the types of ``parent'' orders
(including strategy orders) described in paragraph (b)(2) to
proposed Rule 100(a)(50), such orders would be received only as
multiple ``child'' orders the U.S. options exchange receiving such
orders. The ``parent'' order would be broken apart before being sent
by the participant to the exchange(s) as multiple ``child'' orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the distinctions between ``parent'' and
``child'' orders in paragraph (b) to proposed Rule 100(a)(50) are
appropriate. The Exchange notes that paragraph (b) to proposed Rule
100(a)(50) is not aimed at capturing orders that are being ``worked''
or broken into multiple orders to avoid showing large orders to the
market in an effort to elude front-running and to achieve best
execution as is typically done by brokers on behalf of retail clients.
Rather, paragraph (b) to proposed Rule 100(a)(50) is aimed at
identifying ``child'' orders of ``parent'' orders generated by
algorithms that are typically used by sophisticated traders to
continuously update their orders in concert with market updates in
order to keep their overall trading strategies in balance. The Exchange
believes that these types of ``parent/child'' orders typically used by
sophisticated traders should count as multiple orders.
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50), would discuss the
counting of orders that are cancelled and replaced. Similar to the
distinctions drawn in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50),
paragraph (c) would essentially separate orders that are cancelled and
replaced as part of an overall strategy from those that are cancelled
and replaced by a broker that is ``working'' the order to achieve best
execution or attempting to time the market. Specifically, paragraph
(c)(1) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50) would provide that except as
otherwise provided in the rule (and specifically as provided under
paragraph (c)(2)), any order that cancels and replaces an existing
order counts as a separate order (or multiple new orders in the case of
a complex order comprised of nine (9) legs or more). For example, if a
trader were to enter a non-marketable limit order to buy an option
contract at a certain net debit price, cancel the order in response to
market

movements, and then reenter the same order once it became marketable,
those orders would count as two separate orders for Professional order
counting purposes even though the terms of both orders were the same.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50) would specify the
exception to paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50) and would
provide that an order that cancels and replaces any ``child'' order
resulting from a ``parent'' order that is placed for the beneficial
account(s) of a person or entity that is not a broker, or dealer in
securities that is broken into multiple ``child'' orders on the same
side (buy/sell) and series as the ``parent'' order by a broker or
dealer, by an algorithm housed at a broker or dealer, or by an
algorithm licensed from a broker or dealer, but which is housed with
the Public Customer, would not count as a new order. For example, if a
Public Customer were to enter an order with her broker to buy 10,000
XYZ $5 January calls at a limit price of $1, which the Public
Customer's broker then entered, but could not fill and then cancelled
to avoid having to rest the order in the book as part of a strategy to
obtain a better execution for the Public Customer and then resubmitted
the remainder of the order, which would be considered a ``child'' of
the ``parent'' order, once it became marketable, such orders would only
count as one order for Professional order counting purposes. Again,
similar to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50), the Exchange
notes that paragraph (c) to proposed Rule 100(a)(50) is not aimed at
capturing orders that are being ``worked'' or being cancelled and
replaced to avoid showing large orders to the market in an effort to
elude front-running and to achieve best execution as is typically done
by brokers on behalf of retail clients. Rather, paragraph (c) to
proposed Rule 100(a)(50) is aimed at identifying ``child'' orders of
``parent'' orders generated by algorithms that are typically used by
sophisticated traders to continuously update their orders in concert
with market updates in order to keep their overall trading strategies
in balance. The Exchange believes that paragraph (c)(2) to proposed
Rule 100(a)(50) is consistent with these goals.
    Accordingly, consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule
100(a)(50), under paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Rule 100(a)(50), an
order that cancels and replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a
``parent'' order (including a strategy order) that generates ``child''
orders on both sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or in multiple series
would count as a new order. For example, if an investor were to seek to
make a trade (or series of trades) to take a long position at a certain
percentage limit on a basket of options, the investor may need to
cancel and replace several of the ``child'' orders entered to achieve
the overall execution strategy several times to account for updates in
the prices of the underlyings. In such a case, each ``child'' order
placed to keep the overall execution strategy in place would count as a
new and separate order even if the particular ``child'' order were
being used to replace a slightly different ``child'' order that was
previously being used to keep the same overall execution strategy in
place. The Exchange believes that the distinctions between cancel/
replace orders in paragraph (c) to proposed Rule 100(a)(50) are
appropriate as such orders are typically generated by algorithms used
by sophisticated traders to keep strategy orders continuously in line
with updates in the markets. As such, the Exchange believes that in
most cases, cancel/replace orders should count as multiple orders.
    Under current BOX Rule 100(a)(50), in order to properly represent
orders entered on the Exchange, BOX Participants are required to
indicate whether Public Customer orders are ``Professional'' orders.
This requirement will remain the same. To comply with this requirement,
Participants are required to review their customers' activity on at
least a quarterly basis to determine whether orders that are not for
the account of a broker or dealer should be represented as customer
orders or Professional orders. Orders for any Public Customer that had
an average of more than 390 orders per day during any month of a
calendar quarter must be represented as Professional orders for the
next calendar quarter. Participants are required to conduct a quarterly
review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are
representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar
quarter. While Participants only will be required to review their
accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the Exchange
identifies a customer for which orders are being represented as public
customer orders but that has averaged more than 390 orders per day
during a month, the Exchange will notify the Participant and the
Participant will be required to change the manner in which it is
representing the Public Customer's orders within five days. Because BOX
Rule 100(a)(50) only requires that Participants conduct a look-back to
determine whether their Public Customers are averaging more than 390
orders per day at the end of each calendar quarter, the Exchange
proposes an effective date of April 1, 2016 for proposed calculation
details to ensure that all orders during the next quarterly review will
be counted in the same manner and that proposed language will not be
applied retroactively.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\20\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ 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 mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed
changes to Rule 100(a)(50) provides a more conservative order counting
regime for Professional order counting purposes that would identify
more traders as Professionals to which the Exchange's definition of
Professional was designed to apply and create a better competitive
balance for all participants on the Exchange, consistent with the Act.
As the options markets have evolved to become more electronic and more
competitive, the Exchange believes that the distinction between
registered broker-dealers and professional traders who are currently
treated as Public Customers has become increasingly blurred. More and
more, the category of Public Customer today includes sophisticated
algorithmic traders including former market makers and hedge funds that
trade with a frequency resembling that of broker-dealers. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable under the Act to treat those customers
who meet the high level of trading activity established in the proposal
differently than customers who do not meet that threshold and are more
typical retail investors to ensure that professional traders do not
take advantage of priority and fee benefits intended for Public
Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it is not unfair to differentiate between
different types of investors in order to achieve certain marketplace
balances. The Rules currently differentiate between Public

Customers, Broker-Dealers, Market Makers, and the like. These
differentiations have been recognized to be consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the current BOX Rules and other
exchanges that accord priority to all Public Customers over broker-
dealers are unfairly discriminatory. Nor does the Exchange believe that
it is unfairly discriminatory to accord priority to only those Public
Customers who on average do not place more than one order per minute
(390 per day) under the counting regime that the Exchange proposes. The
Exchange believes that such differentiations drive competition in the
marketplace and are within the business judgment of the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent
with the requirement of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act that the rules of an
exchange not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden upon
competition in that it treats persons who should be deemed
Professionals, but who may not be under current Rule 100(a)(50) in a
manner so that they do not receive special priority benefits.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors and the public interest by helping to assure
that retail customers continue to receive the appropriate marketplace
advantages in the BOX marketplace as intended, while furthering
competition among marketplace professionals by treating them in the
same manner as other similarly situated market participants. The
Exchange believes that it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
not to afford market participants with similar access to information
and technology as that of brokers and dealers of securities with
marketplace advantages over such marketplace competitors. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change would help to remove
burdens on competition and promote a more competitive marketplace by
affording certain marketplace advantages only to those for whom they
are intended. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change sets forth a more detailed and clear regulatory regime with
respect to calculating average daily order entry for Professional order
counting purposes. The Exchange believes that this additional clarity
and detail will eliminate confusion among market participants, which is
in the interests of all investors and the general public.

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. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is substantially similar
to a recent CBOE filing.\22\ As discussed above, the Exchange does not
believe that the current BOX Rules and other exchanges that accord
priority to all Public Customers over broker-dealers are unfairly
discriminatory. Nor does the Exchange believe that it is unfairly
discriminatory to accord priority to only those customers who on
average do not place more than one order per minute (390 per day) under
the counting regime that the Exchange proposes. The Exchange believes
that its proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition. The
Exchange notes that one of the purposes of the Professional rules is to
help ensure fairness in the marketplace and promote competition among
all market participants. The Exchange believes that proposed BOX
Rule100(a)(50)(a) would help establish more competition among market
participants and promote the purposes for which the Exchange's
Professional rule was originally adopted. The Exchange does not believe
that the Act requires it to provide the same incentives and discounts
to all market participants equally, so as long as the exchange does not
unfairly discriminate among participants with regard to access to
exchange systems. The Exchange believes that here, that is clearly the
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than burden competition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change promotes competition by ensuring that retail
investors continue to receive the appropriate marketplace advantages in
the BOX marketplace as intended, while furthering competition among
marketplace professionals by treating them in the same manner under the
BOX Rules as other similarly situated market participants by ensuring
that market participants with similar access to information and
technology (i.e. Professionals and broker-dealers), receive similar
treatment under the BOX Rules while retail investors receive the
benefits of order priority and fee waivers that are intended to apply
to Public Customers.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \23\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\24\ A proposed rule
change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative
prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\25\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission notes that it has considered a
substantially similar proposed rule change filed by CBOE which it
approved after a notice and comment period.\27\ This proposed rule
change does not raise any new or novel issues from those considered in
the CBOE proposal. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that
it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest to waive the 30-day operative date so that the proposal may
take effect upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77450 (March 25,
2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2016-005).
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 rule<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BOX-2016-13 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 No. SR-BOX-2016-13. 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 No. SR-BOX-2016-13, and should be
submitted on or before May 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08645 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43443-43446]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0571; Project Identifier AD-2021-00101-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of damage to the
thrust reverser (TR) translating sleeve secondary sliders due to
contact between the slider and the slider track liner. This damage was
only found on TR sleeves installed on certain engines. This proposed AD
would require determining the serial number of the TR and performing
applicable on-condition actions; or replacing the TR with a serviceable
TR. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
23, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information 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 on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0571.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0571; 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

NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street address
for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and 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-2021-0571; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00101-T'' 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
this 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 NPRM.

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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tak
Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3553; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 has received reports of damage to the TR translating sleeve
secondary sliders. Gouging damage to the slider end and grooving damage
along the length of the slider occurred due to contact between the
slider and the slider track liner. This damage was found only on TR
sleeves installed on Rolls-Royce engines with mission improvement
configuration thrust reversers. This damage, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the TR translating sleeve secondary slider and
possible detachment of the outer cowl, which could strike the fuselage
causing damage to the airplane, and could result in reduced control or
performance of the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021. This service
information specifies procedures for determining the serial number of
the TR, and applicable on-condition actions; or replacing the TR with a
serviceable TR. On-condition actions include reworking affected TR
slider track liners; determining the serial number of the TR
translating sleeves; checking to determine if certain TR translating
sleeves have been installed on certain TRs; performing a detailed
inspection of the secondary sliders of affected TR translating sleeves
for cracking, grooving, gouging damage, and any existing repair;
performing a dye penetrant inspection on any cracking, grooving or
gouging damage, and any existing repair for cracking; and repairing any
discrepancy found.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0571.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for
annotating which steps in the service information are ``required for
compliance'' (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept
into Boeing service bulletins.
    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related
Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was
worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the
development of a new process in which the service information more
clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition
in the ``Accomplishment Instructions.'' The new process results in a
Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to
address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, includes all Model
787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce engines.
This proposed AD would only require accomplishing the actions specified
in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue
001, dated January 15, 2021, on airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD.
Airplanes certificated after the effective date of this AD will not be
delivered with affected TRs or TR translating sleeves. However, because
the affected TRs and TR translating sleeves are rotable parts, the FAA
has determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes
delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to
the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would therefore include a parts
installation prohibition applicable to all Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-
10 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. Furthermore, the FAA
has determined that a parts installation prohibition needs to be
specified for airplanes on

which the corrective actions required by this proposed AD have been
accomplished. In general, such a prohibition is not necessary since an
airplane that is credited for compliance with an AD requirement must be
maintained at the AD-compliant configuration. However, the corrective
actions required by this AD are accomplished on the TRs and TR
translating sleeves, and those parts can be moved from one airplane to
another as part of regular maintenance activities. To prevent
inadvertent maintenance where an AD-compliant airplane is re-configured
to a non-compliant configuration by installing a TR or TR translating
sleeve on which the corrective actions have not been accomplished, this
proposed AD would explicitly specify a parts installation prohibition
for those airplanes that have complied with an AD requirement.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost per
              Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost        product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial number inspection.........  6 work-hours x $85                $0            $510  Up to $7,140.
                                    per hour = $510.
Replacement (per.................  12 work-hours x $85                0           1,020  Up to $14,280.
T/R half)........................   per hour $1,020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition repairs, dye-penetrant inspections, TR sleeve serial number
checks, or checks to determine if certain TR sleeves have been
installed on certain TRs, that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost          Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.................................  Up to 100 work-hours x                 $0  Up to $8,500.
                                          $85 per hour = Up to
                                          $8,500.
Dye-penetrant inspection...............  Up to 4 work-hours x $85                0  Up to $340.
                                          per hour = Up to $340.
TR sleeve serial number check..........  1 work-hour x $85 per                   0  $85.
                                          hour = $85.
Check to determine if TR translating     1 work-hour x $85 per                   0  $85.
 sleeve has been installed on certain     hour = $85.
 TRs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition rework and detailed inspections
specified in this proposed AD.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2021-0571; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00101-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 23, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and
787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by Rolls-
Royce Trent 1000 engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Thrust
Reverser.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of damage to the thrust reverser
(TR) translating sleeve secondary sliders due to contact between the
slider and the slider track liner. This damage was only found on TR
sleeves installed on certain engines. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address this damage, which could result in failure of the TR
translating sleeve secondary slider and possible detachment of the
outer cowl, which could strike the fuselage, causing damage to the
airplane, and could result in reduced control or performance of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the
effective date of this AD: Except as specified by paragraph (h) of
this AD; at the applicable times specified in the ``Compliance''
paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-
00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, do all applicable actions
for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes as identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated
January 15, 2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
B787-81205-SB780043-00, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, which is
referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, uses the phrase
``the issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00
RB,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, specifies
contacting Boeing for repair instructions or for instructions to
address certain conditions: This AD requires doing the repair or
doing the instructions using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) As of the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(i)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane
a TR with serial number between 00110001 and 00312001 inclusive, on
which all applicable inspections and corrective actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD have not been accomplished.
    (i) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the
effective date of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the
effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD.
    (2) As of the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(i)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane
a TR translating sleeve with serial number 00125001 and subsequent,
on which all applicable inspections and corrective actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD have not been accomplished.
    (i) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the
effective date of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the
effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
TR translating sleeve that was originally installed on any airplane
with an original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of this
AD; or a TR translating sleeve with serial number 00125001 and
subsequent, on which all applicable inspections and corrective
actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, have been
accomplished; on any airplane with a TR with a serial number between
00110001 and 00312001 inclusive, unless all applicable inspections
and corrective actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15,
2021, have been accomplished on that TR, except as specified in
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO 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 manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3553; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information 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>.

    Issued on July 13, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16680 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7106-7107]
[DOCID:fr14fe07-142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55256; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to Deletion of Rule 702, Carrying Accounts

February 8, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 9, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' 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
substantially prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change on January 18, 2007.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing
in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to delete Rule 702, Carrying Accounts. The text
of Rule 702, proposed to be deleted, is set forth below. Brackets
indicate deletion.
    [Rule 702. Carrying Accounts
    No member, doing business as an individual, shall carry accounts
for customers, except as provided in Rule 903.]

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 Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change to delete Rule 702,
Carrying Accounts, is to eliminate an unnecessary and confusing
Exchange rule. Currently, Rule 702 provides that ``[n]o member, doing
business as an individual, shall carry accounts for customers, except
as provided in Rule 903.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The reference to Rule 903 is clearly an incorrect reference
which should be to Rule 904, Use of a Partnership Name, which
provides that ``[n]o member shall conduct business under a
partnership firm name unless he has at least one general partner,
provided, however, that if by death or otherwise a member becomes
the sole general partner in a member organization that is a
partnership he may continue business under the partnership name for
such period as may be allowed by the Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``member'' (as opposed to ``member organization'') is
defined in Exchange rules as a permit holder which has not been
terminated in accordance with the by-laws and rules of the Exchange.\5\
Currently, the only issued and outstanding Exchange permits are Series
A-1 Permits, the terms and conditions of which are governed by Rule
908. Section (b) of Rule 908, Series A-1 Permits, provides in part
that, with one narrow exception not relevant here, a Series A-1 permit
shall only be issued to an individual.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange By-Law Article I, Section 1(t) and Exchange
Rule 1(n). Exchange By-Law Article XII, Section 1(b) provides in
part that ``[e]xcept as otherwise set forth in the rules of the
Exchange or any resolution of the Board of Governors authorizing a
specific class or series of permits, a permit will confer upon and
subject the holder thereof to all the privileges and obligations of
a member pursuant to these By-Laws and the rules of the Exchange, *
* * and to conduct business on the Exchange as provided in these By-
Laws and such rules.''
    \6\ Rule 908(b) provides that a Series A-1 Permit may also be
issued to ``a corporation meeting the requirements of Section 12-4
of the By-Laws.'' Section 12-4 of the By-Laws, Admission of
Corporation, provides that ``[a] corporation may be issued a permit
by the Exchange, provided such corporation is incorporated under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and all of its capital
stock is owned by the Exchange.'' This By-Law provision was intended
to permit Exchange membership for the Exchange's subsidiary, Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that Rule 702 is unnecessary. Additionally,
since virtually all members are individuals, Rule 702's proscription
against the carrying of customer accounts by a member ``doing business
as an individual'' is confusing. The Exchange has in the past
interpreted the rule as prohibiting any individual member from carrying
customer accounts. Rule 908

requires any Series A-1 Permit Holder to maintain a primary affiliation
with an eligible member organization at all times that such holder
holds a permit. Member organizations, which do not include individuals
but which are defined as ``a corporation, partnership (general or
limited), limited liability partnership, limited liability company,
business trust or similar organization'' which meet certain criteria,
are not covered by the Rule 702 prohibition.
    The Exchange is proposing the deletion of Rule 702 not only because
it is confusing, but also because a member's ability to carry customer
accounts is in many ways dictated by the member's ability to comply
with relevant securities laws and regulations including, but not
limited to, Exchange Act Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3,\7\ and related rules,
which do not make distinctions on the basis of a member's
organizational and corporate structure.\8\ The Exchange believes that
Rule 702 is therefore superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1 and 240.15c3-3.
    \8\ For example, the customer protection provisions of Rule
15c3-3 under the Act requires broker-dealers to maintain physical
possession or control of customer fully-paid and excess margin
securities. Further, Phlx member firms for which the Exchange is the
DEA generally do not carry public customer accounts. If a Phlx
member firm carries customer accounts it is required to become a
member of a national securities association (e.g., the National
Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'')). Under agreements that
the Phlx has entered into with other self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') in accordance with Rule 17d-2 under the Act, any Phlx
member that is also a member of another SRO (including the NASD)
would be assigned to another DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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,
by eliminating a confusing and unnecessary Exchange rule.

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.

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 35 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 Phlx consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve such
proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2005-68 and should be submitted on or before March 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2550 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48708-48710]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034]
RIN 1218-AB70

Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica; Approval
of Collections of Information

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of
collections of information.

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

SUMMARY: This rule is a technical amendment announcing that OMB has
approved the collections of information contained in OSHA's standards
for Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica and revising
OSHA's regulations to reflect that approval. The OMB approval number is
1218-0266.

DATES:  Effective July 26, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA published a final rule for the
Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica standards on
March 25, 2016 (81 FR 16286), after determining that employees exposed
to respirable crystalline silica at the previous permissible exposure
limits face a significant risk of material impairment to their health.
The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers
exposed to respirable crystalline silica are at increased risk of
developing silicosis and other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, lung
cancer, and kidney disease. These requirements are necessary to provide
protection from these hazards. The silica final rule becomes effective
on June 23, 2016. Start-up dates for specific provisions are set in
Sec.  1910.1053(l) for general industry and maritime and in Sec.
1926.1153(k) for construction.
    Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), the Federal Register notice for the Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica final rule states that employers do not
have to comply with the collections of information until OMB approves
those collections of information and the

Department of Labor publishes a notice in the Federal Register
announcing this approval and the control number assigned by OMB to the
final rule's collections of information. Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an
agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless:
(1) The collection of information displays a current valid OMB control
number and (2) the agency informs members of the public required to
respond to the collection of information that they are not required to
do so unless the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number
for the collection of information.
    On March 25, 2016, the Department of Labor submitted an information
collection request for the final rule to OMB for approval in accordance
with the PRA. On June 27, 2016, OMB approved the collections of
information contained in the final rule and assigned these collections
of information OMB Control Number 1218-0266, titled ``Respirable
Crystalline Silica Standards for General Industry, Shipyard Employment
and Marine Terminals (29 CFR 1910.1053) and Construction (29 CFR
1926.1053).'' The approval for collecting the information expires on
June 30, 2019.
    This revision of Sec.  1910.8, Sec.  1915.8 and Sec.  1926.5 is a
technical amendment to increase public awareness of OMB's approval of
the collections of information. Opportunity for public comment on this
rule is therefore unnecessary. The Agency notes that the public has
already had the opportunity to comment on the collections of
information and OMB has approved them.
    The final Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica
standards impose new collections of information for purposes of the
PRA. The collections of information in the rule are needed to assist
employers in identifying and controlling exposures to respirable
crystalline silica in the workplace, and to address adverse health
effects related to respirable crystalline silica. OSHA will also use
records developed in response to these standards to determine
compliance with OSHA standards.
    The table below identifies the new collections of information
contained in the final rule.

      Collection of Information Requirements in the Final Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure assessment--General...........  29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(1), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(c)(1), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(d), and 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(d)(2)(i).
Exposure assessment--Performance option  29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(2) and 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(ii).
Exposure assessment--Scheduled           29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(3)(i), 29
 monitoring option.                       CFR 1910.1053(d)(3)(iii)-
                                          (d)(3)(v), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(A), and
                                          29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(C)-
                                          (E).
Exposure assessment--Reassessment of     29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(4) and 29
 exposures.                               CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iv).
Exposure assessment--Notifying each      29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(6)(i) and
 affected employee in writing of the      29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(vi)(A).
 monitoring results or posting the
 results.
Exposure assessment--Describing          29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(6)(ii) and
 corrective actions being taken to        29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(vi)(B).
 reduce employee exposure to or below
 the PEL in the written notification
 when an exposure assessment indicates
 that that employee exposure is above
 the PEL.
Written exposure control plan--          29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i), 29
 Establishing and implementing a          CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i)(A)-(C),
 written exposure control plan.           29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1), and 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(g)(1)(i)-(iv).
Written exposure control plan--          29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(ii) and
 Reviewing and evaluating the             29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(2).
 effectiveness of the written exposure
 control plan annually and updating it
 as necessary.
Written exposure control plan--Making    29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(iii) and
 the written exposure control plan        29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(3).
 readily available for examination and
 copying.
Methods of compliance--Compliance with   29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(3).
 29 CFR part 1915 Subpart I.
Respiratory protection--Instituting a    29 CFR 1910.1053(g)(2) and 29
 respiratory protection program in        CFR 1926.1153(e)(2).
 accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
Medical surveillance--Implementing       29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(1)(i), 29
 medical surveillance of employees.       CFR 1910.1053(i)(2), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(i)(2)(i)-(i)(2)(vi),
                                          29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(3), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(i)(7)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(1)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(2), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(2)(i)-(h)(2)(vi),
                                          29 CFR 1926.1153(h)(3), and 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(h)(7)(i).
Medical surveillance--Ensuring that the  29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(4), 29 CFR
 physician or other licensed health       1910.1053(i)(4)(i)-(iv), 29
 care professional (PLHCP), or            CFR 1910.1053(i)(7)(ii), 29
 specialist, has certain specified        CFR 1926.1153(h)(4), 29 CFR
 information.                             1926.1153(h)(4)(i)-(iv), and
                                          29 CFR 1926.1153(h)(7)(ii).
Medical surveillance--Ensuring that the  29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(5), 29 CFR
 PLHCP, or specialist, explains to the    1910.1053(i)(5)(i)-(iv), 29
 employee the results of the medical      CFR 1910.1053(i)(7)(iii), 29
 examination and provides each employee   CFR 1926.1153(h)(5), 29 CFR
 with a copy of their written medical     1926.1153(h)(5)(i)-(iv), and
 report.                                  29 CFR 1926.1153(h)(7)(iii).
Medical surveillance--Obtaining a        29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(6)(i), 29
 written medical opinion from the         CFR 1910.1053(i)(6)(i)(A)-(C),
 PLHCP, or specialist, and ensuring       29 CFR 1910.1053(i)(6)(ii)(A)-
 that each employee receives a copy of    (B), 29 CFR
 the PLHCP's written medical opinion.     1910.1053(i)(6)(iii), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(i)(7)(iv), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(6)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(6)(i)(A)-(C), 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(h)(6)(ii)(A)-
                                          (B), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(h)(6)(iii), and 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(h)(7)(iv).
Hazard communication--Including          29 CFR 1910.1053(j)(1) and 29
 respirable crystalline silica in the     CFR 1926.1153(i)(1).
 program established to comply with the
 hazard communication standard (29 CFR
 1910.1200) and ensuring that each
 employee has access to labels on
 containers of crystalline silica and
 safety data sheets.

Making and maintaining air monitoring    29 CFR 1910.1053(k)(1)(i), 29
 data and objective data records and      CFR 1910.1053(k)(1)(ii), 29
 medical surveillance records for         CFR 1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(A)-
 specific periods.                        (G), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(k)(2)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(k)(2)(ii), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(k)(2)(ii)(A)-(E), 29
                                          CFR 1910.1053(k)(3)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(k)(3)(ii), 29 CFR
                                          1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(C), 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(1)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(j)(1)(ii), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(A)-(G), 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(2)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(j)(2)(ii), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(j)(2)(ii)(A)-(E) 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(3)(i), 29 CFR
                                          1926.1153(j)(3)(ii), and 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(A)-
                                          (C).
Recordkeeping--Making air monitoring     29 CFR 1910.1053(k)(1)(iii), 29
 data, objective data, and medical        CFR 1910.1053(k)(2)(iii), 29
 surveillance records available.          CFR 1910.1053(k)(3)(iii), 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(1)(iii), 29
                                          CFR 1926.1153(j)(2)(iii), and
                                          29 CFR 1926.1153(j)(3)(iii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Respirable Crystalline Silica Standards for General
Industry, Shipyard Employment and Marine Terminals and Construction.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 682,581 firms.
    Frequency: Biennially; Once; Semi-annually; On occasion; Annually;
Quarterly.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes for the employer
to make air-monitoring data, objective data and medical surveillance
records available to employees to 16 hours for a large employer to
develop a written exposure control plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 12,118,364 hours.
    Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $394 million.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
document. The authority for this document is the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order 1-
2012 (77 FR 3912 (January 25, 2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration amends 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 as
follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 1910 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736),
1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002
(67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012
(77 FR 3912), as applicable.

    Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR
1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a,
5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); Public Law 11-8
and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142,
July 15, 1993).

Subpart A--General

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.8 by adding to the table, in the proper numerical
sequence, the entry ``1910.1053'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.8  OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 * * * *
1910.1053...............................................       1218-0266

                                 * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; 29 CFR
part 1911.

Subpart A--General

0
4. Amend Sec.  1915.8 by adding to the table, in the proper numerical
sequence, the entry ``1915.1053'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.8  OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 * * * *
1915.1053...............................................       1218-0266

                                 * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for part 1926 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657;
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912),
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

Subpart A--General

0
6. Amend Sec.  1926.5 by adding to the table, in the proper numerical
sequence, the entry ``1926.1153'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.5  OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 * * * *
1926.1153...............................................       1218-0266

                                 * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-17270 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70607-70608]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73668; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Amending Rule 6.2A To
Authorize the Exchange To Share Any User-Designated Risk Settings in
Exchange Systems With the Clearing Member That Clears Transactions on
Behalf of the User

November 21, 2014.
    On September 19, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc., (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rule 6.2A to authorize the Exchange to
share any User-designated risk settings in Exchange systems with the
Clearing Member \3\ that clears transactions on behalf of the User.\4\
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 7, 2014.\5\ On November 19, 2014, the Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Rule 6.1(b)(3) defining ``Clearing Member'' as
``an Exchange OTP Firm or OTP Holder which has been admitted to
membership in the Options Clearing Corporation pursuant to the
provisions of the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation.''
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 6.1A(a)(19) defining ``User'' as ``any OTP
Holder, OTP Firm or Sponsored Participant that is authorized to
obtain access to OX pursuant to Rule 6.2A.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73281 (October 1,
2014), 79 FR 60552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing

is November 21, 2014.\7\ The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ On November 19, 2014, the Exchange consented to an extension
of this time period until November 29, 2014. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. The proposed
rule change, if approved, would authorize the Exchange to share any
User-designated risk settings in Exchange systems with the Clearing
Member that clears transactions on behalf of the User.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ designates January 5, 2015, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NYSEArca-2014-110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28081 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P