[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7064-7066]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02503]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74196; File No. SR-BOX-2015-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 To Extend the Pilot Program That
Eliminated the Position Limits for Options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF

February 3, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 26, 2015, 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
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 to extend the
pilot program that eliminated the position limits for options on SPDR
S&P 500 ETF

(``SPY'') (``SPY Pilot Program''). 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 IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 to extend the
time period of the SPY Pilot Program,\3\ which is currently scheduled
to expire on January 27, 2015, through July 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67936 (September 27,
2012), 77 FR 60491 (October 3, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-BOX-2012-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY
Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the
Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported
the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the
availability of economically equivalent products and their respective
position limits, (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying
security, (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and
the related index, (4) the reporting of large positions and
requirements surrounding margin, and (5) the potential for market on
close volatility.
    In the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, the
Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, permanent
approval or termination of the program, the Exchange would submit,
along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a
report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program covering the
first twelve (12) months during which the SPY Pilot Program was in
effect (the ``Pilot Report'').\4\ Accordingly, the Exchange is
submitting the Pilot Report detailing the Exchange's experience with
the SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot Report is attached as Exhibit 3 to
this filing. The Exchange notes that it is unaware of any problems
created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any as a result
of the proposed extension. In extending the SPY Pilot Program, the
Exchange states that if it were to propose another extension, permanent
approval or termination of the program, the Exchange will submit
another Pilot Report covering the period since the previous extension,
which will be submitted at least 30 days before the end of the proposed
extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. The Exchange
believes that extending the SPY Pilot Program promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by permitting market participants,
including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors,
to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and
needs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue as other SROs have adopted similar provisions.

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) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \7\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is appropriate and
will benefit market participants because immediate operability would
allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue without interruption. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2015-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-07, and should be
submitted on or before March 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02503 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


as EBIP that, according to the commenter, shift control of the voting
process to brokers and corporate managers.\310\ This commenter also
questioned whether the proposal would ensure proper Commission
oversight of the preparation of clear, informative and balanced VIFs,
and whether it would enable the creation of open rather than
proprietary client directed voting systems.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ See CII Letter. Specifically, this commenter requested
that the Commission consider (1) whether VIFs, including those
distributed to beneficial shareowners by EBIPs, should be subject to
the same degree of Commission oversight as proxy ballots; (2)
whether EBIPs that distribute VIFs to beneficial shareowners should
be prohibited from presenting voting options in a manner that
unfairly tilts votes in favor of management recommendations; (3)
whether VIFs, including those distributed to beneficial shareowners
by EBIPs, should be prohibited from describing proxy ballot items
using wording, headings, or fonts that differ from those used on the
related proxy card; and (4) whether VIFs, including those
distributed to beneficial shareowners by EBIPs, should not be
permitted to tally unmarked shareowner votes in favor of
management's recommendations when the underlying voting items are
otherwise ineligible for discretionary voting by brokers. The
Commission notes that these comments are beyond the subject of this
proposed rule change by the NYSE.
    \308\ See Angel Letter.
    \309\ See Zumbox Letter.
    \310\ See CtW Letter, CtW Letter II.
    \311\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believed that the proposed EBIP fee is inequitable
because it does not apply to accounts that already have converted to
electronic delivery while having access to an EBIP,\312\ and another
commenter believed the incentive fees for EBIPs should apply to all
EBIPs, not just new ones.\313\ However, another commenter urged the
Commission not to adopt an incentive fee for the development of EBIPs
``without evidence that such an incentive is necessary'' and noted that
no evidence is presented that the PFAC obtained any data in support of
the proposed financial incentive.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ See FOLIOfn Letter.
    \313\ See Angel Letter.
    \314\ See AFSCME Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, in its initial response letter, noted that it
proposed the EBIP incentive fee because it was supported by the PFAC
and issuer representatives.\315\ The Exchange expressed no opinion as
to whether EBIPs would be used to facilitate client directed voting, as
this was not an issue discussed with the PFAC.\316\ The Exchange noted
one commenter's concerns regarding the VIF used to obtain voting
instructions from street name shareholders,\317\ but stated that these
concerns similarly were not discussed with the PFAC or in follow up
EBIP discussions.\318\ With respect to concerns about firms that have
already instituted EBIPs, the Exchange referred to a related discussion
in its rule filing, and noted that the proposed fee is premised on the
expectation that investors who are provided EBIP will be more likely to
elect to switch to e-delivery, with the attendant significant savings
to issuers in paper and postage.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ See NYSE Letter.
    \316\ Id.
    \317\ See CII Letter.
    \318\ See NYSE Letter.
    \319\ See NYSE Letter IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Impact on Mutual Funds

    Two commenters took the position that there should be further
analysis of the impact the proposed rule change would have on proxy
distribution fees paid by mutual funds and, in particular, the open-end
funds that hold special meetings each year.\320\ One of these
commenters stated that the proposal could result in a significant fee
increase in combined processing and intermediary unit fees for many
mutual funds.\321\ This commenter also stated that the ``net impact of
the proposed changes will vary widely due to the complexity of a
proposed fee structure that raises combined processing and intermediary
costs for many funds (and especially funds conducting special meetings
without the election of directors/trustees), while also reducing
certain costs associated with `managed accounts.' '' \322\ This
commenter noted that there was insufficient information to determine
the cost basis and impact of the fee changes, including the extent to
which related cost reductions could mitigate the impact of higher
combined processing and intermediary unit fees.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ See ICI Letter, AST Letter.
    \321\ See AST Letter.
    \322\ See AST Letter.
    \323\ See AST Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its first response letter, the Exchange expressed the view that
these two commenters \324\ had premised their comments on a
misunderstanding of the meaning of a ``special meeting.'' \325\
According to the Exchange, such misunderstanding may have impacted the
proxy fee analysis performed by the other commenter.\326\ One commenter
responded that ``the [Exchange's] response did not change (or
specifically address) our view that there is a need for additional
analysis of the proxy distribution fees paid by funds.'' \327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ See, e.g., ICI Letter.
    \325\ See NYSE Letter.
    \326\ Id., see also AST Letter. With respect to that analysis,
the Exchange asserts that it is not clear how many issuers were
included, and that the experiences of particular issuers will
differ. See NYSE Letter. The Exchange also noted that that analysis
clearly states that it looks only at the basic processing and
intermediary fees, and only at the fees applicable to special
meetings. Id. In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange
has stated that the increased special meeting fees reflect the
additional work required of the intermediary for these meetings,
such as faster turnaround and more frequent vote tabulation,
analytics and reporting because of the need for approval and
concerns about quorum. See Notice, 78 FR 12390.
    \327\ See ICI Letter II. The commenter acknowledged its
inclusion in the Exchange's Mutual Fund Proxy Fee Review group,
which, according to the commenter, has been focusing on the
``interim fees'' associated with the distribution of annual and
semi-annual reports to fund shareholders. See ICI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations

thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\328\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\329\ which requires that an
exchange have rules that provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities; \330\ Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\331\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and Section 6(b)(8) of
the Act,\332\ which prohibits any exchange rule from imposing any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). We address comments
about the potential competitive impact of the proposed rule change
below.
    \329\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \330\ Relatedly, SEC Rules 14b-1 and 14b-2 condition broker-
dealer's and bank's obligation to forward issuer proxy materials to
beneficial owners on the issuer's assurance that it will reimburse
the broker-dealer's or bank's reasonable expenses, both direct and
indirect, incurred in connection with performing that obligation.
See 17 CFR 240.14b-1 and 17 CFR 240.14b-2.
    \331\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \332\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal has presented a number of complex and
controversial issues, and generated substantial comment, both for and
against. The Commission's Order Instituting Proceedings identified
several areas where questions were raised as to whether the Exchange's
proposal was consistent with the requirements of the Act, including
those relating to the reasonableness of fees and their equitable
allocation, unfair discrimination, and unnecessary burdens on
competition. After carefully considering the proposal, the comment
letters received and NYSE's responses, the Commission finds that, on
balance, the proposal is consistent with the Act and therefore must be
approved.\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that some commenters did not support
certain aspects of the proposed rule change. The Commission, however,
must approve a proposed rule change if it finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations thereunder. NYSE responded to the
comments received and the issues identified in the Order Instituting
Proceedings, and no comments otherwise convinced us that the proposed
rule change was not consistent with the Act and the applicable rules
and regulations thereunder. As more fully discussed below, the
Commission believes that, overall, the proposed rule change will
improve the way proxy distribution and related expenses are allocated.
The Exchange has proposed to amend its rules that provide a schedule of
``fair and reasonable'' rates of reimbursement by issuers to NYSE
member organizations for expenses in connection with the processing of
proxy materials and other issuer communications provided to investors
holding securities in street name. The Exchange's proposal relies
substantially on the recommendations of the PFAC, an advisory committee
composed of representatives of issuers, broker-dealers and investors.
The PFAC's recommendations, according to the Exchange, were intended to
serve several goals, including supporting the current proxy
distribution system given that it provides a reliable and accurate
process for distributing proxies to street name stockholders; \334\
encouraging and facilitating retail investor voting; improving the
transparency of the fee structure; and ensuring that the fees are as
fair as possible.\335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ See Proxy Concept Release, supra note 24.
    \335\ See Notice, 78 FR 12384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission acknowledged
that aspects of the Exchange's proposal appear designed to make
incremental improvements to the existing fee structure.\336\
Nevertheless, the Commission believed significant questions existed as
to whether the Exchange had provided adequate justification for
material aspects of its proposal such that the Commission could make a
determination that the proposal is consistent with the Act.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \336\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32521-22.
    \337\ Id. at 32522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, in the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission
questioned the rigor with which the PFAC and the Exchange reviewed the
costs associated with proxy processing in developing its
recommendations, and noted the PFAC's reliance on publicly available
financial information about Broadridge that did not break out the proxy
distribution business as a standalone segment, as well as related
analyst reports.\338\ In addition, several commenters fundamentally
questioned the basis for the proposed fee schedule, and believed the
Exchange should first engage an independent third party to audit the
actual costs incurred in proxy distribution activities.\339\ In the
Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission concluded that neither
the Exchange nor the PFAC had articulated a sufficient analysis of
Broadridge's costs of providing proxy processing services, so that the
Commission lacked a sufficient basis on which to assess whether the
incremental changes proposed to the existing fee structure were
consistent with the statutory standard.\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ Id.
    \339\ See Section IV.A, supra.
    \340\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange explained that, today, there is no common
methodology for tracking the costs incurred in the proxy distribution
process, and that they typically have not been segregated from other
related costs either at broker-dealers or at intermediaries such as
Broadridge.\341\ The Exchange reiterated the information that led it to
conclude that the proposed fees overall were reasonable, including the
fact that the profit margins on Broadridge's broader business segment
were consistent with the margins of firms in comparable
businesses.\342\ In addition, the Exchange cited a recent analysis by
Broadridge indicating that the fees issuers pay for delivering proxies
to registered shareholders, which are not governed by NYSE rule,
generally are higher than the proposed fees for delivering proxies to
beneficial shareholders.\343\ The Exchange also provided supplemental
information from Broadridge about the higher technology costs it
incurred as the delivery of proxies became increasingly electronic, and
detailed Broadridge's major technology investments over the past
decade.\344\ In this regard, the Commission recognizes the difficulties
associated with attempts to assign substantial fixed costs, such as
those incurred in building and maintaining technological
infrastructure, to specific functions or activities. Finally, the
Exchange stressed that the proposal was expected to lower overall proxy

distribution fees by at least 4%.\345\ After reviewing the comments and
the Exchange's responses, we conclude that the Exchange has adequately
addressed these issues, and we find that the incremental changes
proposed to the existing fee structure are consistent with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \342\ See notes 170-172, supra and accompanying text and NYSE
Letter III.
    \343\ See note 207, supra and accompanying text and NYSE Letter
III.
    \344\ See note 208, supra and accompanying text and NYSE Letter
III.
    \345\ See NYSE Letter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission also
questioned the rigor with which the PFAC and the Exchange analyzed the
individual components of the proposed fees to assure they met the
statutory standards.\346\ For example, with respect to the basic
processing and supplemental fees, the Exchange proposed to introduce a
new five-tiered rate structure, with incrementally lower fees for
issuers with larger numbers of beneficial owner accounts. Although the
Commission acknowledged the Exchange's desire to better reflect the
economies of scale in processing issuers with a larger number of
accounts, the Commission expressed concern, among other things, that
the Exchange had not explained why the particular five tiers were
chosen, or conducted a meaningful review of the economies of scale
present in the proxy processing business.\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32522-23.
    \347\ Id. at 32522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange stressed that there were significant
fixed ``set-up'' costs associated with each proxy distribution job, and
provided an estimate from Broadridge that such fixed costs
conservatively represent 25%, and for some functions as much as 50-60%,
of total costs.\348\ According to the Exchange, the proposed fee
schedule does not fully reflect the benefits of economies of scale when
providing services to large issuers but, sensitive to the potential
impact of proxy distribution fees on small issuers, the PFAC determined
it was equitable to continue a structure where there was some
subsidization of smaller issuers by larger ones.\349\ The Exchange also
noted that, in assessing the fairness of the proposal, the PFAC
considered that the overall percentage of proxy processing fees borne
by small, medium, and large issuers would remain roughly the same under
the new fee schedule.\350\ Finally, as noted above, the Exchange
provided supplemental information indicating that, in Broadridge's
judgment, there was a high degree of alignment between the proposed
fees and the required ``work efforts'' to provide the corresponding
service (e.g., basic processing is estimated to require 56.7% of the
work effort and would represent approximately 55.4% of the proposed
fees).\351\ We find that the Exchange's responses adequately address
our concerns about the individual components of the proposed fees and
demonstrate that they are consistent with the Act and relevant rules
and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ See NYSE Letter III.
    \349\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \350\ Id.
    \351\ See NYSE Letter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the preference management fee, which currently is
characterized as an ``incentive'' fee for eliminating paper mailings,
the Commission raised questions in the Order Instituting Proceedings as
to the nature of the ongoing work that would justify such a fee, and
the rationale for eliminating the existing tiered rate structure.\352\
The Exchange's response adequately addressed these concerns. The
Exchange explained that ``preference management'' required confirmation
of each preference record on a daily basis.\353\ According to the
Exchange, these ongoing tasks were largely a variable cost, and
appeared to have fewer economies of scale than other processing
activities.\354\ The Exchange also provided Broadridge's assessment
that its work effort associated with preference management activities
(17.5%) is highly aligned with the proportion of preference management
fees (18.9%).\355\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \352\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32522.
    \353\ See NYSE Letter.
    \354\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \355\ See NYSE Letter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission also raised
questions as to the rationale for generally charging managed accounts
one-half the rate of other accounts for the preference management fee,
and for charging managed accounts with five or fewer shares no
fees.\356\ We find that the Exchange's further responses adequately
articulate the rationale for this proposed change. The Exchange noted
that managed accounts generate approximately half of all preference
management fees,\357\ and indicated that it was equitable for issuers
and broker-dealers, in effect, to share the cost of ongoing preference
management services, because managed accounts benefit broker-dealers by
allowing them to gather assets and generate fee income.\358\ The
Exchange also noted the proliferation of low minimum investment managed
accounts,\359\ and indicated that, for very small managed account
positions, it was equitable for there to be no fee given the minimal
benefit to an issuer of the number of shares voted from these
accounts.\360\ The Exchange stressed that its rule is designed to
provide reasonable reimbursement of the overall expenses of broker-
dealers in the aggregate, and the extent of reimbursement of any
individual firm would vary depending on the specifics of its account
population.\361\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32522-23.
    \357\ See NYSE Letter IV.
    \358\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \359\ See NYSE Letter IV.
    \360\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \361\ See NYSE Letter IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the PFAC--representing issuers, broker-
dealers and investors--examined several possible thresholds, but
reached consensus at the five-share level.\362\ The Commission
acknowledges that any general rule setting forth an industry-wide fee
schedule for the reimbursement of reasonable broker-dealer expenses
necessarily will not precisely reimburse the actual expenses incurred
by individual firms. Broker-dealers nevertheless must comply with their
obligations pursuant to Rules 14b-1 and 14b-2 under the Act if provided
assurance of reimbursement of reasonable expenses as provided in NYSE
Rules 451 and 465 and the related material.\363\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \362\ See NYSE Letter II.
    \363\ Issuers must likewise nevertheless comply with their
obligations under Rule 14a-13; the Commission does not view the rule
change as inconsistent with or violating Regulation 14A.
Accordingly, the Commission does not believe the NYSE proposal could
effectively ``disenfranchise'' shareholders, as alleged by one
commenter. See FOLIOfn Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the notice and access fees, the Commission
expressed concern in the Order Instituting Proceedings that the
proposal essentially would codify Broadridge's existing fee
schedule.\364\ The Exchange responded to this concern by providing
supplemental information from Broadridge detailing the work effort
associated with notice and access services.\365\ The Exchange
previously had represented that there was general satisfaction with the
current Broadridge notice and access fees, and although the PFAC had
explored alternatives, none were more attractive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \364\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32523.
    \365\ See NYSE Letter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission
expressed concern regarding the practice by Broadridge of rebating a
portion of the fees paid by issuers for proxy processing to its larger
broker-dealer clients, and questioned why these savings were not

passed on to issuers.\366\ Several commenters also were of the view
that this practice placed an unnecessary burden on competition. In
considering the impact on competition of these rebate practices, the
Commission took into account the Exchange's representations that
broker-dealers incur some costs related to proxy distribution beyond
the cost of retaining Broadridge, and that, given the economies of
scale associated with Broadridge's services, Broadridge can afford to
make ``cost recovery'' payments to larger broker-dealers to reimburse
them for some proxy distribution costs not outsourced to
Broadridge.\367\ Accordingly, these rebate arrangements may in fact
appropriately reimburse broker-dealers for reasonable expenses incurred
in connection with proxy distribution, and not represent an
inappropriate competitive action. The Commission also considered the
Exchange's representation that the proposal was expected to lower
overall proxy distribution fees by at least 4%, in which case the
proposal would not use Broadridge's competitive position to adversely
affect, on average, the prices paid by issuers. We conclude the
Exchange has adequately demonstrated that to the extent the proposed
rule change allows rebate practices to continue, that does not place an
unnecessary burden on competition in contravention of relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \366\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, 78 FR 32523.
    \367\ See NYSE Letter III. NYSE supported its representations
with a description prepared by SIFMA of these additional proxy
distribution costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes, as it did in the Order Instituting
Proceedings, that the Exchange's proposal appears designed to make
incremental improvements to the existing fee structure. For example, as
noted above, the proposed five-tiered rate structure for the basic
processing and supplemental fees arguably would more equitably allocate
such fees among issuers by better reflecting the economies of scale in
proxy processing. The proposal also would incrementally apply the rates
in higher tiers, so as to avoid the rate ``cliff'' that currently
exists with the supplemental fee tiers.
    In addition, the proposal would appear to impose fees more
equitably on managed accounts, where voting often is delegated by the
beneficial shareholder to the investment manager and the positions held
frequently are small. Specifically, the proposal would charge managed
accounts one-half the rate of non-managed accounts for the preference
management fee, and no fee for managed accounts with five or fewer
shares. In addition, the proposal would provide the same treatment to
wrap accounts and other managed accounts, ending the current disparate
practice of charging no fees to managed accounts labeled as wrap
accounts, but full fees to other managed accounts.
    Finally, the proposal would, for a five-year test period, provide
an EBIP incentive fee to encourage broker-dealers to offer customers
the ability, among other things, to access proxy materials and vote
through the broker-dealers' Web sites.\368\ Commenters expressed the
view that the availability of EBIPs would re-engage individual
shareholders and encourage retail voting in corporate elections, which
the Commission believes would further the protection of investors and
the public interest.\369\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \368\ See supra notes 106, 108, 109, 110 and accompanying text
for a description of the EBIP fee.
    \369\ See Section IV.G, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, and as discussed in detail above, the Exchange has proposed
a variety of revisions to its schedule of reasonable rates of
reimbursement by issuers for the processing of proxy materials and
other issuer communications provided to beneficial holders, including
with respect to the basic, supplemental, preference management, notice
and access, NOBO list, and EBIP incentive fees. The Commission views
the proposed rule change as an overall package of changes and fees that
is, on balance, an improvement to the NYSE's existing reimbursement
rate structure. The proposed rule change reflects the consensus
recommendation of the PFAC, which is composed of representatives of
issuers, broker-dealers and investors, key constituencies impacted by
the proposal. In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission
questioned the rigor with which the PFAC and the Exchange reviewed the
costs associated with proxy processing in developing its
recommendations, and analyzed the individual components of the proposed
fees to assure they met the statutory standards. The Exchange responded
by providing the additional explanation and supplemental information
described above, including responses to specific comments on the
individual components of the proposal. The Commission believes the
Exchange has addressed the questions raised in the Order Instituting
Proceedings sufficiently to allow the Commission, on balance, to find
that the proposal is consistent with the Act. In approving the
proposal, the Commission notes that the proxy system need not be
reformed in a single step, and the Commission welcomes improvements to
the current system, even incremental ones. In this regard, the
Commission emphasizes that it continues to review the issues raised in
the Proxy Concept Release, including ways to encourage competition in
the proxy distribution process, so that more reliance can be placed on
market forces to determine reasonable rates of reimbursement.

VI. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\370\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2013-07) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \370\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24920 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57165-57168]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0797; Product Identifier 2018-SW-081-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-23-08 for Agusta S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and
AW139 helicopters. AD 2017-23-08 requires repetitively inspecting the
main rotor (M/R) rotating scissors, removing certain lower half scissor
spherical bearings (bearings) from service, replacing the removed
bearings with a new bearing, and installing a special nut. Since the
FAA issued AD 2017-23-08, investigation results determined that a
quality control issue may have affected the production of the affected
bearings. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2017-23-
08 and require replacing each affected bearing with a certain part-
numbered bearing. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to
address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0797; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section,
General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Confidential Business Information

    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 Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, Continued
Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General
Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2017-23-08, Amendment 39-19102 (82 FR 55752,
November 24, 2017) (``AD 2017-23-08'') for Agusta S.p.A. (now Leonardo
S.p.a.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. AD 2017-23-08 requires
repetitively inspecting the M/R rotating scissors, removing certain
bearings from service, installing a special nut and requires replacing
the removed bearings with certain part-numbered bearings.
    AD 2017-23-08 was prompted by EASA Emergency AD (EAD) No. 2017-
0028-E, dated February 15, 2017 (EASA EAD 2017-0028-E) issued by EASA,
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Union. EASA advised of a report of a dislodged bearing on an M/R
rotating scissor equipped with a certain special nut. EASA EAD 2017-
0028-E requires repetitive inspections of certain M/R rotating scissor
bearings, and depending on the findings, replacement of the bearing and
affected M/R parts. The EASA AD also requires replacement of certain
bearings as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
According to EASA, this condition, could result in failure of the M/R
rotating scissor bearing and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2017-23-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2017-23-08, investigation results by the
supplier of the bearings determined that a quality control issue may
have affected the production of bearing part number (P/N) 3G6230V00654.
Accordingly, this proposed AD retains the requirements of AD 2017-23-08
and proposes replacing bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 with P/N 3G6230V00655.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD specifies some compliance times using calendar time,
whereas this proposed AD does not. The EASA AD requires reporting
information to Leonardo S.p.a. Product Support Engineering, whereas
this proposed AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Bollettino Tecnico No.
139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017. This service information
specifies repetitively inspecting the M/R rotating scissors to monitor
the bearings and replacing the bearing with a new part-numbered
bearing. This service info also specifies installing a special nut in
case of lower scissor bearing dislodging.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal

course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-
39-A-62-31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation--Fixed
swashplate and rotating scissors--Detailed inspection, Issue 29, dated
July 31, 2017, which describes procedures for a detailed inspection of
the fixed swashplate and rotating scissors.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the repetitive inspection
requirements of AD 2017-23-08, and continue to require replacing the
bearing with an improved bearing, replacing the rotating scissor
attachment flange with a certain part-numbered rotating scissor
attachment flange, and replacing the nut with a certain part-numbered
special nut. This proposed AD would also require removing each bearing
P/N 3G6230V00654 from service and replacing it with bearing P/N
3G6230V00655 within 100 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 102
helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may
incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Inspecting for bearing liner wear, seat movement, and play would
take about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,670 for
the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
    Replacing a bearing would take about 2 work-hours and parts would
cost about $950 for a cost of $1,120 per bearing.
    Replacing a rotating scissor attachment flange would take about
0.25 work-hours and parts would cost about $25,629 for a cost of
$25,650 per flange.
    Installing two special nuts would take about 1 work-hour and parts
would cost about $755 for a cost of $840 per helicopter and $85,680 for
the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-23-08, Amendment 39-19102
(82 FR 55752, November 24, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.):
Docket No. FAA-2020-0797; Product Identifier 2018-SW-081-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters, certified in any category, with main rotor (M/R)
rotating scissors with a lower half scissor spherical bearing
(bearing) P/N 3G6230V00654 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as excessive play of the
bearing in the M/R rotating scissors. This condition could result in
failure of the M/R rotating scissor bearing and loss of helicopter
control.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-03-08, Amendment 39-19102; (82 FR
55752, November 24, 2017) (``AD 2017-23-08'').

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by October 30, 2020.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) after December 11, 2017
(the effective date of AD 2017-23-08), and thereafter before the
first flight of each day or at intervals not exceeding 24-clock
hours, whichever occurs later:
    (i) Using a magnifying glass and a flashlight, visually inspect
each bearing for wear of the bearing liner. Some examples of wear
are shown in Figures 4 through 8 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert
Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017
(BT 139-392). If there is any wear of the liner, before further
flight, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and
install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with
bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the
remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (ii) Inspect each bearing for movement. Refer to Figure 9 of BT
139-392. If the bearing moves freely out of its seat, before further
flight, replace the rotating scissor attachment flange with flange
P/N 3G6220A00633, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655
and install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with
bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the
remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (iii) Inspect the M/R rotating scissors for play and wear of
each bearing, paying particular attention to the bearing staking
condition, by manually moving the lower half scissor along the axis
of the spherical bearing. Refer to Figure 1 of BT 139-392. If there
is any play or wear beyond allowable limits, before further flight,
replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and install
special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with bearing P/N
3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the remaining
actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (2) Within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
replace and torque each lower half scissor nut with special nut P/N
3G6230A06851 to the M/R rotating scissor in accordance with the
Compliance Instructions, Part II, steps 5.1 through 5.9 of

BT 139-392, except you are not required to discard parts.
    (3) Within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
remove each bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 from service and replace with
bearing P/N 3G230V00655.
    (4) After December 11, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-23-
08), do not install on any helicopter any M/R rotating scissors with
a bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 installed.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, AD Program
Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products
Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD No.
2017-0028-E, dated February 15, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

    Issued on September 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20228 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:  7/29/15

FROM:  Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:   Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:  Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the American Petroleum Institute Southern Region Meeting SUMMARY:         REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN at the American Petroleum Institute Southern Region Meeting in Charleston, SC, on May 19, 2015.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.   ATTENDEES:

EPA Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders Approximately 50 participants (meeting organizer is Tom Parker, API Southern Region)

ATTACHMENT

Follow-up answers to meeting participants' questions provided by Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 to Tom Parker/API Southern Region via email on 5/27/15.

   1. Is methane regulated as a VOC?

This question was raised in the context of our discussion of ozone regulations.  In that context, the term "VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds" is defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s) as follows:

"(s) Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions.

(1)  This includes any such organic compound other than the following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity: methane; ethane..."  (Emphasis added)           2. Are additional refinery regulations in the works or anticipated?

From the conversation at the Charleston API meeting, I understood this to be specifically related to a greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for refineries pursuant to a 2010 settlement agreement between EPA and various petitioners (see:  http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/2010-proposed-settlement-agreements-address-greenhouse-gas-emissions).  The Agency is focused on finalizing the proposed Clean Power Plan.           3. When were the current ozone implementation standards completed?

      There are two main rules related to implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  The first (the Classification Rule) was issued on April 30, 2012.  The second (the SIP Requirements Rule) was issued on February 13, 2015 (see:  http://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl).  Note that implementation activities undertaken to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS are expected to help many areas make progress toward meeting any future revised ozone standards.  On November 25, 2014, the EPA proposed to strengthen the ozone NAAQS in order to ensure that the standards meet the requirements of the CAA.  The EPA will complete that proposed rulemaking by October 1, 2015.  In the event EPA takes final action to revise the current (2008) NAAQS, EPA would issue a new implementation rule specific to that future revised NAAQS.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 52672]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2285-000]

Desert Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Desert Wind Farm LLC`s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 22, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18801 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P