[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29987-29992]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10520]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94894; File No. SR-BOX-2022-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Adopt Electronic
Market Maker Trading Permit Fees

May 11, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 27, 2022, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
establish a new monthly Participant Fee on the BOX Options Market LLC
(``BOX'') options facility. 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
website 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to establish a new
monthly Participant Fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt
electronic Market Maker Trading Permit Fees as follows: (i) $4,000 per
month for Market Maker Appointments in up to and including 10 classes;
(ii) $6,000 per month for Market Maker Appointments in up to and
including 40 classes; (iii) $8,000 per month for Market Maker
Appointments in up to and including 100 classes; and (iv) $10,000 per
month for Market Maker Appointments for over 100 classes. For the
calculation of the monthly electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees,
the number of classes is defined as the greatest number of classes the
Market Maker was appointed to quote in on any given day within the
calendar month. The Exchange notes that the proposed electronic Market
Maker Trading Permit fees are lower than fees assessed at competing
options exchanges.\5\ The Exchange notes the current monthly
Participant Fee of $1,500 per month will not apply to electronic Market
Makers. Under this proposal, electronic Market Makers will pay the
applicable monthly electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fee only. All
other electronic Participants \6\ will continue to pay the monthly
Participant Fee in Section I.B of the BOX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') Fee Schedule (assessing
Market Makers $6,000 for up to 175 option issues, an additional
$5,000 for up to 350 option issues, an additional $4,000 for up to
1,000 option issues, and an additional $3,000 for all option issues
traded on the Exchange). The Exchange notes that these fees are
compounded, so Market Makers who trade in all option issues on the
exchange are assessed $18,000 per month. See also Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') Fee Schedule
(assessing Market Makers $7,000 for up to 10 classes or up to 20% of
classes by volume, $12,000 for up to 40 classes or up to 35% of
classes by volume, $17,000 for up to 100 classes or up to 50% or
classes by volume, and $22,000 for over 100 classes or over 50% of
classes by volume up to all classes listed on MIAX).
    \6\ The Exchange notes the following Participant types on BOX:
Public Customers, Professional Customers, Broker Dealers, and Market
Makers. Pursuant to this proposal, Public Customers, Professional
Customers, and Broker Dealers will continue to be charged the $1,500
Participant Fee detailed in Section I.B of the BOX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on January 3,
2022 (SR-BOX-2022-01) (the ``Original Filing''). BOX withdrew the
Original Filing and submitted SR-BOX-2022-04 (the ``Second Proposed
Rule Change''). BOX withdrew the Second Proposed Rule Change and
submitted the SR-BOX-2022-06 (the ``Third Proposed Rule Change''). On
February 1, 2022, BOX withdrew the Third Proposed Rule Change and
submitted SR-BOX-2022-07 (the ``Fourth Proposed Rule Change'') to lower
the fees detailed in the past filings after industry feedback. On April
5, 2022, BOX withdrew and submitted SR-BOX-2022-12 (the ``Fifth
Proposed Rule Change''). On April 11, 2022, BOX withdrew and submitted
SR-BOX-2022-15 (the ``Sixth Proposed Rule Change''). The Exchange is
now withdrawing the Sixth Proposed Rule Change and submitting this
filing (the ``Seventh Proposed Rule Change'').
    The Exchange notes that the proposed electronic Market Maker
Trading Permit fees have been effective, and thus paid by BOX Market
Makers, since January 1, 2022.\7\ The Exchange believes it is notable
that during this time, there have been no comment letters submitted to
the Commission arguing that the Exchange's new fees are unreasonable.
The Exchange also believes it's significant and notable that, due to
industry feedback received in January from BOX Market Makers, the
Exchange withdrew its proposed fee change and refiled to decrease the
proposed fees in response to the feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that the higher fees from the Original
Filing were assessed for the month of January 2022, however the
proposed fees were assessed for February 2022 and will continue to
be assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed herein, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are
consistent with the Act because they are reasonable, equitably
allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory, and not an undue burden on
competition, as they are supported by evidence (including data and
analysis) and are constrained by significant competitive forces. The
Exchange also believes the proposed fees are reasonable as they are in
line with the amounts assessed to Market Makers by other exchanges for
similar permits. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fees are consistent with the Act. The proposed rule change is
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
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)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange established the $1,500 monthly Participant Fee in
October 2016 for all Participants regardless of account type.\9\ At the
time BOX established this Participant Fee, BOX's market share was 2.45%
and the total volume of options contracts traded on BOX in September
2016 was 8,737,707. The Exchange established this lower (when compared
to other options exchanges in the industry) Participant Fee in order to
encourage market participants to become Participants of BOX and
register as BOX Market Makers. Since 2016, BOX has grown its market
share and membership base significantly. Specifically, in September
2021, BOX's market share was 5.19% and the total volume of option
contracts traded on BOX in September 2021 was 42,098,287. BOX recently
reviewed its current Participant Fees detailed in Section I of the BOX
Fee Schedule. In its review, BOX determined that

Participant Fees would need to be raised, and a flat fee for all
Participant types is no longer appropriate. Specifically, BOX found
that electronic Market Makers had been benefitting from a flat
Participant Fee rate while (1) consuming the most bandwidth and
resources of the network; (2) transacting the vast majority of the
volume on BOX; and (3) requiring the high touch network support
services provided by BOX and its staff. The Exchange notes that Broker
Dealers, Professional Customers, and Public Customers take up
significantly less BOX resources and costs as discussed further below.
Further, BOX notes that Market Makers account for greater than 99% of
message traffic over the network, while other non-Market Maker market
participants account for less than 1% of message traffic over the
network. In BOX's experience, most BOX Participants do not have a
business need for the high performance network solutions required by
Market Makers. BOX's high performance network solutions and supporting
infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled
system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 3 million
quote messages per second. On an average day, the BOX Trading Host
handles over 1.6 billion total messages. Of those 1.6 billion daily
messages, BOX Market Makers generate 1.59 billion of those messages,
while other BOX Participants generate 9.5 million messages.
Additionally, in order to achieve consistent, premium network
performance, BOX must build out and maintain a network that has the
capacity to handle the message rate requirements beyond those 1.6
billion daily messages. These billions of messages per day consume
BOX's resources and significantly contribute to the overall expense for
storage and network transport capabilities. Given this difference in
network utilization rate, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory that Market Makers begin to
pay for a higher portion of the access costs (compared to other BOX
Participant types).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79038 (October 4,
2016), 81 FR 70214 (October 11, 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX notes that while Market Makers continue to account for a vast
majority of the increased costs and resources placed on BOX and its
systems (as discussed herein), Market Makers continue to be valuable
market participants on the exchanges as the options market is a quote
driven industry. BOX recognizes the value that Market Makers bring to
the Exchange. In fact, BOX provides Market Makers volume-based
discounts and rebates to incentivize Market Makers to direct order flow
to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn
benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the
Exchange. Additionally, for certain transactions, BOX also assesses a
lower fee for Market Makers compared to the fee for Broker Dealers or
Professional Customers for the same reason.\10\ The proposed Trading
Permit fees discussed herein are meant to strike a balance between
offsetting the costs to which Market Makers place on BOX and continuing
to incentivize Market Makers to access and make a market on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, in Section IV.A (Non-Auction Transactions) of
the BOX Fee Schedule, Market Makers are assessed a lower fee than
Broker Dealers and Professional Customers when their orders interact
with Public Customers, Professional Customers, Broker Dealers, and
Market Makers. They are also eligible for rebates under the Tiered
Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions in Section IV.A.1 of the
BOX Fee Schedule. Additionally, Market Makers are assessed lower
fees on opening or re-opening transactions than Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers under Section IV.A.2 of the BOX Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its review of Participant Fees, BOX found that since 2016,
Market Makers have had the luxury of paying the same Participant Fees
as other account types despite Market Makers consuming the most
resources on the BOX system and contributing to increased costs for
BOX. As such, the Exchange proposes to establish higher, separate
electronic Trading Permit fees for Market Makers that are more aligned
with the costs and resources that Market Makers continue to place on
BOX and its systems. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change will better align BOX Participant Fees with rates
charged by competing options exchanges in the industry for similar
Trading Permits for such market participants. As such, BOX believes the
proposed electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees are reasonable in
that they are lower than comparable fees at other options
exchanges.\11\ Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
reasonably designed to continue to compete with other options exchanges
by incentivizing market participants to register as Market Makers on
BOX in a manner than enables BOX to improve its overall competitiveness
and strengthen market quality for all market participants. As stated
above, the Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit
fees are an appropriate balance between offsetting the costs to which
Market Makers cost BOX and continuing to incentivize Market Makers to
access and make a market on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as
the fees apply equally to all electronic Market Makers. As such, all
similarly situated electronic Market Makers, with the same number of
appointments, will be subject to the same electronic Market Maker
Trading Permit fee. The Exchange also believes that assessing lower
fees to electronic Market Makers that quote in fewer classes is
reasonable and appropriate as it will allow BOX to retain and attract
smaller-scale electronic Market Makers, which are an integral component
of the options industry marketplace. Since these smaller electronic
Market Makers utilize less bandwidth and capacity on the BOX network
due to the lower number of quoted classes, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and appropriate to offer such electronic Market Makers a
lower fee. The Exchange also notes that other options exchanges assess
permit fees at different rates, based upon a member's participation on
that exchange,\12\ and, as such, this concept is not new or novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, p.1
(assessing market makers $6,000 for up to 175 option issues, an
additional $5,000 for up to 350 option issues, an additional $4,000
for up to 1,000 option issues, an additional $3,000 for all option
issues on the exchange, and an additional $1,000 for the fifth
trading permit and for each trading permit thereafter); NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule, p. 23 (assessing market makers $8,000
for up to 60 plus the bottom 45% of option issues, an additional
$6,000 for up to 150 plus the bottom 45% of option issues, an
additional $5,000 for up to 500 plus the bottom 45% of option
issues, and additional $4,000 for up to 1,100 plus the bottom 45% of
option issues, an additional $3,000 for all issues traded on the
exchange, and an additional $2,000 for 6th to 9th ATPs; plus an
addition fee for premium products). See also Cboe BZX Options
Exchange (``BZX Options'') assesses the Participant Fee, which is a
membership fee, according to a member's ADV. See Cboe BZX Options
Exchange Fee Schedule under ``Membership Fees''. The Participant Fee
is $500 if the member ADV is less than 5000 contracts and $1,000 if
the member ADV is equal to or greater than 5000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed tiered structure of the
electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees is reasonable and
appropriate. Under the proposal, electronic Market Makers will be
charged monthly fees based on the greatest number of classes quoted on
any given trading day in a calendar month. Under the proposed fee
structure, the fees increase as the number of classes quoted by a
Market Maker increases. The Exchange believes this structure is
reasonable because the BOX system requires increased performance and
capacity in order to provide the opportunity for Market Makers to quote
in a higher number of options classes on BOX. Specifically, the more
classes that are actively quoted

on BOX by a Market Maker requires increased memory for record
retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased
functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization
with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As
such, basing the Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number
of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is reasonable
and appropriate when taking into account how the increased number of
quoted classes directly impact the costs and resources required for
BOX. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed tiered structure
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all similarly situated
Market Makers will be charged the same fee. The Exchange notes that
another options exchange in the industry calculates Market Maker Permit
Fees in the same manner.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') Fee Schedule, Section 8(B)
detailing the tiered structure for Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'')
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is no regulatory requirement that
market makers connect and access any one options exchange. Moreover, a
Market Maker membership is not a requirement to participate on the
Exchange and participation on an exchange is completely voluntary. BOX
reviewed membership details at three options exchanges and found that
there are 62 market making firms across these three exchanges.\14\
Further, BOX found that 42 of the 62 market making firms access only
one of the three exchanges. Additionally, BOX has identified numerous
market makers that are members of other options exchanges, but not the
Exchange. For example, BOX identified 47 market makers that are members
of Cboe Exchange Inc. (an exchange that only lists options), but not
the Exchange (which also lists only options). Not only is there not an
actual regulatory requirement to connect to every options exchange, the
Exchange believes there is also no ``de facto'' or practical
requirement as well, as further evidenced by the market maker
membership analysis of three options exchanges discussed above. Indeed,
Market Makers choose if and how to access a particular exchange and
because it is a choice, BOX must set reasonable pricing, otherwise
prospective market makers would not connect and existing Market Makers
would disconnect from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BOX reviewed membership lists at Cboe Exchange Inc.
(``Cboe''), Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''),
and BOX--all of which detail the firms registered as making makers
on their respective exchanges. The Nasdaq and NYSE exchange groups
do not provide this level of detail in their membership lists. As
such, BOX has not included the Nasdaq and NYSE exchanges in this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, BOX responded to Market Maker feedback to the
proposed fees in January 2022 and due to this valuable feedback, BOX
lowered the proposed fees. The Exchange believes that this reduction
demonstrates that competitive constraints do not depend on showing that
a Market Maker walked away, or threatened to walk away, from BOX due to
a pricing change. Rather, the absence of negative feedback (in and of
itself, and particularly when coupled with valuable feedback suggesting
modifications or alternatives) is indicative that the proposed fees
are, in fact, reasonable and consistent with BOX being subject to
competitive forces in setting fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes
the Commission has a sufficient basis to determine that BOX was subject
to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposed
fees. Moreover, the Commission has found that, if an exchange meets the
burden of demonstrating it was subject to significant competitive
forces in setting its fees, the Commission ``will find that its fee
rule is consistent with the Act unless `there is a substantial
countervailing basis to find that the terms' of the rule violate the
Act or the rules thereunder.'' \15\ The Exchange is not aware of, nor
has the Commission articulated, a substantial countervailing basis for
finding the proposal violates the Act or the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74781 (December 9, 2008) (``2008 ArcaBook
Approval Order'') (approving proposed rule change to establish fees
for a depth-of-book market data product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide more detail and to quantify BOX's costs
associated with providing access to the BOX network in general, BOX
notes that there are material costs associated with providing the
infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to BOX. BOX incurs
technology expenses related to establishing and maintaining Information
Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting
associated with its network technology. While some of the expense is
fixed, much of the expense is not fixed, and thus increases as the
expenses associated with access services for electronic Market Makers
increases. For example, new Market Makers to BOX may require the
purchase of additional hardware to support those Participants as well
as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer performance that BOX
provides. Further, as the total number of Market Makers increase, BOX
may need to increase their data center footprint and consume more
power, resulting in increased costs charged by their third-party data
center provider. Accordingly, the cost to BOX to provide access to its
electronic Market Makers is not fixed. BOX believes the proposed
electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees are reasonable in order to
offset a portion of the costs to BOX associated with providing access
to Market Makers to its network infrastructure.
    As discussed above, BOX Market Makers have and continue to account
for the vast majority of network capacity utilization and trading
activity on BOX and thus account for the majority of expenses placed on
BOX systems. Specifically, in 2017 (the year after BOX established the
flat Participant Fee), the total expense for providing access services
for all Participant types was approximately $819,000. Broken down
further, in 2017, the total expense for providing access services to
non-Market Maker Participants was approximately $117,000 and the total
expense for providing access services to Market Makers was
approximately $702,000. The Exchange has seen this disparity in access
expenses between non-Market Makers and Market Makers year after year
since the establishment of the Participant Fee in 2016. In 2018, the
total expense for providing access services for all Participant types
was approximately $763,000--approximately $109,000 allocated to non-
Market Maker expenses and approximately $654,000 allocated to Market
Maker expenses. In 2019, the total expense for providing access
services for all Participant types was approximately $722,000--
approximately $103,000 allocated to non-Market Maker expenses and
approximately $619,000 allocated to Market Makers. In 2020, the total
expense for providing access services for all Participant types was
approximately $1.1 million--approximately $161,000 allocated to non-
Market Maker expenses and approximately $971,000 allocated to Market
Makers. Further, as discussed herein, BOX experienced a material
increase in costs in 2021 and projects a similar material increase for
2022 due to projects to make its network environment more transparent
and deterministic, and increased order flow seen throughout the
industry. Specifically, in 2021, the total expense for providing access
services for all Participant types was approximately $1.29 million--
approximately $190,000 allocated to non-Market Maker expenses

and approximately $1.1 million allocated to Market Makers. Further, in
the projected expenses for 2022, the total projected expense for
providing access services for all Participant types is approximately
$1.89 million--approximately $270,000 allocated to non-Market Maker
expenses and $1.62 million allocated to Market Makers. As illustrated
by these access expenses year over year, it is clear that BOX Market
Makers account for the majority of expenses related to the provision of
access services for BOX Participants. Accordingly, BOX believes that it
is reasonable and appropriate to charge electronic Market Makers more
than other BOX Participants for electronic Trading Permits to access
the BOX network.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed electronic Market Maker
Trading Permit fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the reasonableness of its
proposed fees is demonstrated by the very fact that such fees are in
line with, and in some cases lower than, the costs of similar access
fees at other exchanges.\16\ The Exchange notes these fees were
similarly filed with the Commission and neither suspended nor
disapproved.\17\ The proposed fees are fair and equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they apply equally to all Market Makers
and access to BOX is offered on terms that are not unfairly
discriminatory. BOX designed the fee rates in order to provide
objective criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business
models that best matches their quoting activity on BOX. BOX believes
that the proposed fee rates and criteria provide an objective and
flexible framework that will encourage Market Makers to be appointed
and quote in option classes while also equitably allocating the fees in
a reasonable manner amongst Market Maker appointments to account for
quoting and trading activity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 5.
    \17\ The Exchange presumes that the fees of other exchanges are
reasonable, as required by the Exchange Act in the absence of any
suspension or disapproval order by the Commission providing
otherwise.
    \18\ Prior to filing the Original Proposal, the Exchange notes
that BOX Market Makers were made aware of the proposed tier
structure and fee change. BOX received feedback from Market Makers
and adjusted the fees accordingly based on their feedback. Market
Makers are not required to quote on every options exchange. BOX
Market Makers choose to quote and transact business on BOX because
BOX is providing increased trading opportunities for these firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market makers can readily favor competing venues if
they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, BOX must continually adjust its fees for services and
products, in addition to order flow, to remain competitive with other
exchanges. BOX believes that the proposed changes reflect this
competitive environment.
    The Exchange again notes it is not aware of any reason why Market
Makers could not simply drop their access to an exchange (or not
initially access an exchange) if an exchange were to establish prices
for its non-transaction fees that, in the determination of such Market
Maker, did not make business or economic sense for such Market Maker to
access such exchange. The Exchange again notes that no market makers
are required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to be a Market
Maker on the Exchange.
    Furthermore, the Exchange wishes to highlight that one Market Maker
modified their access to BOX since the implementation of the proposed
fee change. This Market Maker was approved as an electronic Market
Maker in 2017 but never underwent the process of provisioning itself to
access the BOX systems.\19\ After the Market Maker reviewed the notice
the Exchange issued describing the proposed fees, the Market Maker
informed the Exchange that it would terminate its Market Maker status
on BOX as it had no intention to provision itself for access. The
Exchange believes this further demonstrates competition within the
market for exchange access, which as a result constrains fees the
Exchange may charge for that access. The Exchange believes the fact
that this Participant chose to terminate its Market Maker status on BOX
but retained its status as an Order Flow Provider on BOX demonstrates
that market participants can and do alter their membership statuses at
exchanges if the market participant deems any fees as too high for its
relevant marketplace. In BOX's case, the Participant determined that
the Exchange's proposed fees for electronic Market Makers did not make
business sense for itself, however it retained its membership as a BOX
Participant in a different capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes that the Participant is also currently
an Order Flow Provider on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and
reflect a competitive environment, as BOX seeks to amend its Trading
Permit fees for Market Makers, while still attracting Market Makers to
continue to, or seek to, access BOX. The Exchange further believes the
proposed Trading Permit fees discussed herein are an appropriate
balance between offsetting the costs to which Market Makers cost BOX
and continuing to incentivize Market Makers to access and make a market
on BOX.

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.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed electronic Market Maker
Trading Permit fees do not place certain market participants at a
relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed
fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner
that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are
designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of
different sizes and business models that best matches their quoting
activity on BOX. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed
electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on
intramarket competition because, when these fees are viewed in the
context of the overall activity on BOX, Market Makers: (1) Consume the
most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast
majority of the volume on BOX; and (3) require the high touch network
support services provided by BOX and its staff, including more costly
network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much
higher cost to BOX. The Exchange notes that the majority of customer
demand comes from Market Makers, whose transactions make up a majority
of the volume on BOX. Further, as discussed herein, other Participant
types (Broker Dealers, Professional Customers, and Public Customers)
take up significantly less BOX resources and costs. As such, the
Exchange does not believe charging electronic Market Makers higher
Trading Permit fees than other Participant types will impose a burden
on intramarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the tiered structure of the proposed
electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on
intramarket competition because the tiered structure takes into account
the number of classes quoted by each individual Market Maker. As
discussed herein, the BOX system requires increased performance and
capacity in order to provide the opportunity for each Market Maker to
quote in a higher number of options classes on BOX. Specifically, the
more

classes that are actively quoted on BOX by a Market Maker requires
increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for
optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application
layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and
monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the Market Maker
Trading Permit fee on the greatest number of classes quoted in on any
given day in a calendar month is reasonable and appropriate when taking
into account how the increased number of quoted classes directly impact
the costs and resources for BOX.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit Fees
do not place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not
necessary or appropriate. In particular, market making firms are not
forced to become market makers on all options exchanges. The Exchange
notes that it has far less Market Makers as compared to the much
greater number of market makers at other options exchanges. There are a
number of large market makers that are participants of other options
exchange but not Participants of BOX. The Exchange is also unaware of
any assertion that its existing fee levels or the proposed electronic
Market Maker Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition with
other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are
deemed too high by a market making firm, they can simply discontinue
their membership with BOX.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor one of the 15 competing options
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based
options, no single exchange has more than 17% market share. Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. For the month of
November 2021, BOX had a market share of approximately 5.58% of
executed multiply-listed equity options \20\ and BOX believes that the
ever-shifting market share among exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can discontinue or reduce use of
certain categories of products, or shift order flow, in response to fee
changes. In such an environment, BOX must continually adjust its fees
and fee waivers to remain competitive with other exchanges and to
attract order flow to the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Options Volume by Exchange available at https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Volume-by-Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\22\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2022-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2022-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2022-17, and should be submitted on
or before June 7, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10520 Filed 5-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54105-54107]
[DOCID:fr13se06-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54411; File No. SR-NASD-2004-171]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule
2340 Concerning Customer Account Statements

September 7, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On November 2, 2004, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to amend NASD Rule 2340, which
relates to customer account statements. On February 2, 2005, NASD filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed rule
change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 16, 2005.\5\ The Commission received fifteen comment
letters in response to the proposed rule change.\6\ This order

approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, NASD changed the proposed effective date
from 30 days following Commission approval to 180 days following
Commission approval, and changed the reference to ``each customer''
to ``the customer'' in the sentence proposed to be added as the
second sentence to paragraph (a) of Rule 2340.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51181 (Feb. 10, 2005),
70 FR 7990 (Feb. 16, 2005) (``Notice'').
    \6\ See letter dated February 17, 2005 from Christopher Charles,
President, Wulff, Hansen & Co. (``Wulff, Hansen''); email dated
April 21, 2005 from Geraldine Genco (``Genco''); eight letters
(dated February 28, 2005 from Lisa Roth, President, ComplianceMax
Financial, LLC, dated March 2, 2005 from Candy J. Lee, NCM, CFP,
President, Financial Services International Corp., dated March 7,
2005 from Rod P. Michel, World Trade Financial Corporation, dated
March 4, 2005 from Robert L. Savage, President, Leonard Securities,
Inc., dated March 7, 2005 from Robert J. Schoen, President, Quest
Securities, Inc., dated March 2, 2005 from Matthew S. Merwin, CFP,
President, FMN Capital Corporation, dated March 7, 2005 from Warner
Griswold, Chief Operating Officer, Green Street Advisors, Inc., and
dated March 11, 2005 from Craig Biddick, President, Mission
Securities Corporation) that were versions of a form letter that the
National Association of Independent Broker Dealers posted on its
website and encouraged its members to submit (``NAIBD''); letter
dated March 2, 2005 from John Miller (``Miller''); letter dated
March 9, 2005 from Rosemary J. Shockman, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA''); letter dated March 8, 2005
from Andrew C. Small, General Counsel, Scottrade, Inc.
(``Scottrade''); letter dated March 9, 2005 from John Polanin, Jr.,
Chairman, Self Regulation and Supervisory Practices Committee,
Securities Industry Association (``SIA''); and letter dated April 4,
2005 from Josephine Wang, General Counsel, Securities Investor
Protection Corporation (``SIPC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal and Comment Summary

A. Description

    Currently, clearing firms may include language in customer account
statements advising customers to immediately report to the firm any
discrepancies in balances or positions. However, these advisories may
not necessarily direct customers to report discrepancies in writing,
nor are the advisories required to be included on customer account
statements. In 2001, the U.S. General Accounting Office (``GAO'')
recommended, among other things, that self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs''), such as NASD, seek to inform investors that they should
document any unauthorized trading in their accounts in writing.\7\
Written documentation is important because, in the event a firm goes
into liquidation, SIPC and the trustee generally will assume that the
firm's records are accurate unless the customer can prove otherwise.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See GAO, Securities Investor Protection: Steps Needed to
Better Disclose SIPC Policies to Investors, GAO-01-653 (May 25,
2001). See also GAO-03-811 (July 11, 2003); GAO-04-848R Follow-Up on
SIPC (July 9, 2004). GAO has since been renamed the Government
Accountability Office.
    \8\ SIPC advises investors who discover an error in a
confirmation or statement to immediately bring the error to the
attention of their brokerage firm in writing and to keep a copy of
any such writing. See SIPC, ``Documenting Unauthorized Trading''
(available at http://www.sipc.org/how/unauthorized.cfm); SIPC, ``How SIPC Protects You'' (available at http://www.sipc.org/how/

brochure.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with GAO's recommendation, the proposed rule change
would amend NASD Rule 2340 to require general securities firms to
include in monthly account statements an advisory indicating that a
customer should report promptly any inaccuracy or discrepancy in its
account to its clearing firm and (if it is a different firm) its
introducing firm. The advisory statement also would inform customers
that any oral communications should be re-confirmed in writing to
further protect customers' rights, including rights under SIPA. The
proposed disclosure requirement would not impose any limitation on a
customer's right to raise concerns regarding inaccuracies or
discrepancies in his or her account at any time, either in writing or
orally. Further, a customer's failure to promptly raise such concerns,
either in writing or orally, would not preclude a customer from
reporting an inaccuracy or discrepancy in his or her account during any
SIPC liquidation of his or her brokerage or clearing firm.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice at 70 FR 7991. The NYSE has proposed a similar
rule change. See initial proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1
thereto in File No. SR-NYSE-2005-09 (available on the NYSE's Web
site).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 180-day delay in the rule's effectiveness requested in
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal is intended to give NASD member firms
time to make necessary changes to their customer documentation and
systems.

B. Comment Summary

    The Commission received fifteen comments in response to the
proposed rule change.\10\ Four commenters generally supported the
proposal.\11\ Eleven generally opposed it.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 6, supra.
    \11\ Genco; Scottrade; SIA; and SIPC.
    \12\ Miller, NAIBD (eight commenters submitted letters based on
the NAIBD form letter), PIABA, and Wulff, Hansen. Wulff, Hansen
suggested abandoning the proposal or, in the alternative, modifying
it to require the new advisory statement only at account opening and
annually thereafter, to reduce printing costs and other burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Investors
    Three commenters argued that the proposal could lead to claims that
customers who do not promptly report errors or document them in writing
would give up rights to assert claims against brokerage firms, or that
brokerage firms could misuse the proposed advisory statement by arguing
that customers who fail to follow it are barred from bringing
claims.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Miller, PIABA, and Wulff, Hansen. Miller recommended
clarifying that a customer's failure to make a report does not limit
the customer's right to raise concerns regarding account
inaccuracies or discrepancies at any time, including during a SIPC
liquidation. PIABA also recommended clarifying that the proposed
additional statement shall not be used to defend against a customer
claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Information
    Four commenters suggested that the advisory statement direct
customers to address reports to a specific area within a firm where
responses could be managed and supervised, rather than to an address or
phone number that might cause a report to be received initially by the
registered representative handling the account of the customer making
the report.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Genco, Miller, PIABA, and SIPC. Miller also recommended
that the statement identify a person at a clearing firm to whom
errors should be reported, if the clearing and introducing firms for
the account are different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Including Advisory Statement on Confirmations
    Three commenters suggested requiring that the proposed advisory
statement be included not only in account statements, but also in trade
confirmations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Miller, PIABA, and SIPC. Miller and PIABA also suggested
requiring that the statement be presented in bold type. PIABA
recommended requiring that the statement be presented in plain
language on the first page of account statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Statement
    Two commenters believed that the proposed statement is overbroad
and suggested narrowing it to apply only to unauthorized trades.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Miller and PIABA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Role of Clearing Firms
    Two commenters sought clarification as to the role clearing firms
would have in connection with disputed transactions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Genco and NAIBD. For example, Genco asked whether the
proposal is intended to require clearing firms to escalate a
complaint to the proper party in the executing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of Delivering Notice
    One commenter recommended amending the proposal to allow brokers to
deliver the proposed advisory statement ``with'' (rather than ``in'')
account statements, which the commenter believes would better
accommodate certain click-through processes for delivering regulatory
disclosures to customers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Scottrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Reporting Discrepancies
    Two commenters recommended setting a specified period within which
investors should report discrepancies to avoid customer abuses, such as
using post-settlement market information to undo transactions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NAIBD and SIPC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level Playing Field
    One commenter maintained that the proposal would subject brokerage
firms to a standard not applicable to commercial banks.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Wulff, Hansen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar NYSE Proposal
    One commenter \21\ recommended that, in the interest of regulatory
consistency, the proposal be conformed to a similar proposed NYSE rule
change.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ SIA.
    \22\ See footnote 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act, and in particular, with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\23\
which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of

trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provision of the Act noted above because it will help
investors understand procedures for preserving their rights in the
event of erroneous or unauthorized transactions in their accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission believes that the proposal would improve
NASD's current customer account disclosure requirements, we believe
that the disclosure would be more beneficial to investors if it
required NASD members to include on account statements both introducing
and clearing firm contact information sufficient to allow investors to
timely report unauthorized transactions or other account discrepancies
to both firms (if the firms are different). We believe such disclosure
would be consistent with current Commission guidance on this issue.\24\
We also believe that such disclosure would address the concerns of some
commenters that the current proposal could be enhanced to ensure that a
customer's concern is delivered to the most appropriate person at the
firm.\25\ The Commission therefore encourages NASD to issue a Notice to
Members regarding the proposed change to Rule 2340 that reminds member
firms of their current obligations with respect to customer account
statements.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24,
1992), 57 FR 56973 (Dec. 2, 1992) (amending the SEC's net capital
rule and explaining the staff's interpretation that to avoid more
stringent capital requirements under the rule, an introducing firm
must have in place a clearing agreement with a registered broker-
dealer that, among other things, contains ``the name and telephone
number of a responsible individual at the clearing firm whom a
customer can contact with inquiries regarding the customer's
account.''). See also NYSE Interpretation Handbook at 4105 (carrying
organization phone number may appear on the back of the customer
account statement, but, if so, it must be in ``bold'' or
``highlighted'' text).
    \25\ See footnote 14, supra.
    \26\ See footnote 24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2004-171), as amended, be,
and hereby is, approved,\28\ effective 180 days from the date of this
order. NASD has committed to announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later
than 30 days following approval of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \28\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). In
particular, the Commission considered and granted NASD's request to
delay effectiveness of the proposal by 180 days to allow NASD member
firms sufficient time to implement the change required by the
proposal.
    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15186 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27160]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10834]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0206; FRL-9809-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Approval of Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Parish of Pointe Coupee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning a maintenance plan addressing the
1997 8-hour ozone standard for the parish of Pointe Coupee. On February
28, 2007, the State of Louisiana submitted a SIP revision containing a
maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone standard for Pointe Coupee Parish.
This plan ensures the continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. On
March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard. Today's action,
however, is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 ozone
standard. Requirements for this area under the 2008 standard will be
addressed in future actions. This maintenance plan meets statutory and
regulatory requirements, and is consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk or Ms. Sandra Rennie,
Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214) 665-2164 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-10834 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 33255]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13700]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging
Companies will hold a public meeting on Friday, June 8, 2012, in Multi-
Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (EDT) and will be
open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served
basis. Doors will open at 8:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to
security checks. The meeting will be Webcast on the Commission's Web
site at www.sec.gov.
    On May 22, 2012, the Commission issued notice of the Committee
meeting (Release No. 33-9325), indicating that the meeting is open to
the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the
Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority
of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes discussions of provisions of
the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act and other matters relating to
rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the
federal securities laws.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: June 1, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13700 Filed 6-1-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13284-13285]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-87-000.
    Applicants: AES Alamitos Energy, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of AES Alamitos Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5385.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-88-000.
    Applicants: AES Huntington Beach Energy, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of AES Huntington Beach
Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5386.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1482-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of SRP Construct Agmt
for Cove Fort Meter to be effective 6/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1483-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEOK submits revisions to
OATT, Att. H-22A re: Depreciation Rates to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1485-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NIMECA Formula Rate to be
effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1486-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rev. to Tariff, Reserve
Market Enhancements--Req. 5/15/2019 Extended Comments to be effective
12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1487-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Powerex PTP SA 918 to be
effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5317.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1488-000.
    Applicants: Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, Inc.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Rate Schedule for Reactive Power
Revenue Requirement to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5383.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1489-000.
    Applicants: Exelon Corporation.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver, et al. of Exelon
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20190329-5389.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 29, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06595 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date: December 18, 2002 ( revised April 30, 2003)

Subject: MACT Floor for Partially Soluble and Mixed HAP in Wastewater Streams From: Brenda Shine, North State Engineering, Inc.

To: MON Project file I. Introduction The MACT floor for wastewater originally evaluated all wastewater streams in a single group. 1 Public comments on the proposed rule suggested that wastewater streams that contain only soluble HAP should be considered separately from all other streams ( i. e., those containing partially soluble HAP or a mix of partially soluble and soluble HAP). This memorandum presents the results of the analysis of wastewater streams that contain partially soluble or mixed HAP compounds. The results of the analysis of streams that contain only soluble HAP is presented in a separate memorandum. 2 II. Discussion Of the 364 wastewater streams in our database, 192 streams at 45 facilities contain only partially soluble HAP or both partially soluble and soluble HAP compounds. Table 1 summarizes the results from various queries for these streams. As in the previous analysis, this analysis shows that more than 12 percent of the wastewater streams with partially soluble and mixed HAP concentrations

10,000 ppmw ( at any flow) are managed and treated using HON equivalent procedures. Both analyses also indicate that more than 12 percent of the wastewater streams containing partially soluble and mixed HAP concentrations

1,000 ppmw and < 10,000 ppmw at flowrates

10 lpm are managed and treated to a level consistent with the HON requirements. Unlike the previous analysis, however, this analysis also shows that more than 12 percent of the streams with concentrations in this range and flows as low as 1 lpm are managed and treated in a manner consistent with the HON ( i. e., 5 of 30 streams in this range). At flows lower than 0.5 lpm, only one stream is managed and treated to this level. Therefore, we would set the floor for wastewater streams that contain partially soluble HAP as HON equivalent management and treatment for streams that contain

10,000 ppmw at any flow or that contain

1,000 ppmw and < 10,000 ppmw at a flow

1 lpm. All wastewater streams in our database that contain partially soluble or mixed HAP in concentrations between 1,000 ppmw and 10,000 ppmw are presented in Attachment 1. All wastewater streams that contain partially soluble or mixed HAP in concentrations greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw are presented in Attachment 2. 2 Table 1. Wastewater Streams that Contain Partially Soluble or Mixed HAP Concentration, ppmw Flowrate, lpm Number of Streams Streams managed and treated as in the HON Number Percent

10,000 any 59 13 22%

1,000 to < 10,000

10 23 4 17%

1,000 to < 10,000

1 53 9 17%

1,000 to < 10,000

.5 71 9 13%

1,000 to < 10,000

.1 95 10 10%

III. References 1. Memorandum from D. Randall and J. Fields, MRI, to Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP Project File. MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternative, and Impacts for Wastewater at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. May 17, 2000.

2. Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI International, to MON Project File. MACT floor for Wastewater Streams That Contain Only Soluble HAP. March 20, 2003. A 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Wastewater Streams that Contain Partially Soluble or Mixed HAP in Concentrations Between 1,000 ppmw and 10,000 ppmw This page intentionally left blank. A 3 Number Flow Rate ( l/ min) PPMW Load ( lb/ yr) Treatment Code HAP Name MACT 1 1.01 5800 6,763 HT, OF Xylenes False 2 1.20 4700 6,498 BI, CL Methanol, toluene False 3 1.20 9900 13,771 BI, CL Toluene and xylenes False 4 1.27 1000 1,463 BI Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 5 1.30 6800 10,195 BI, CL Chlorobenzene False 6 1.39 5000 8,028 OF Xylenes False 7 1.39 5000 8,028 OF Xylenes False 8 1.44 8000 13,327 CL, OP Methanol, methyl ethyl ketone False 9 1.56 9800 17,632 BI, CL Methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, xylenes False 10 1.91 7900 17,438 BI, CL Xylenes False 11 2.04 1700 4,014 BI, CL Toluene False 12 2.50 5000 14,451 OF Xylenes False 13 2.74 2000 6,338 BI Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 14 2.79 3300 10,665 BI, CL Toluene False 15 2.86 1500 4,954 BI Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 16 2.88 5000 16,659 OF Xylenes False 17 3.27 1000 3,785 BI, CL Toluene False 18 3.49 2700 10,885 BI, CL Toluene False 19 4.16 2000 9,615 BI Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 20 4.67 8500 45,951 BI, CL Methanol, toluene False 21 5.68 2597 17,046 HT, OF Xylenes False 22 8.38 1700 16,486 BI, CL Toluene False 23 9.66 2000 22,334 BI Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 24 11.09 8700 111,602 BI, CL Methanol, toluene False 25 14.40 3751.5 62,498 OF Naphthalene, toluene, xylenes False 26 17.01 1300 25,577 BI, CL Toluene False 27 18.41 1700 36,194 BI, CL Toluene False 28 20.35 6400 150,655 BI, CL Toluene, xylenes False 29 30.86 5000 178,481 BI Methyl isobutyl ketone False 30 33.23 1000 38,436 BI, CL Styrene False 31 33.31 3856 36,225 BI Methyl Methacrylate False 32 77.78 1700 152,934 BI, CL Toluene False 33 94.63 1000 73,168 BI Ethyl Acrylate False 34 94.63 1000 73,168 BI Methyl Methacrylate False 35 132.49 1100 36,482 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, xylenes False 36 132.49 1100 46,180 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, xylenes False 37 132.49 1100 67,884 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, xylenes False A 4 Number Flow Rate ( l/ min) PPMW Load ( lb/ yr) Treatment Code HAP Name MACT 38 136.27 4821 416,355 CL, EQ, BI, AS ( no incin) Methanol, methyl chloride, methyl methacrylate, toluene False 39 151.41 5200 197,099 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, nitrobenzene, xylenes False 40 151.41 5200 249,492 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, nitrobenzene, xylenes False 41 151.41 5200 366,754 Bi Ethylbenzene, methanol, nitrobenzene, xylenes False 42 165.61 4074 562,276 DP Methyl Ethyl Ketone False 43 2.88 3800 12,661 HT, CL, SS, DP Toluene False1 44 5.04 3000 17,492 HT, CL, SS, DP Toluene False1 45 1.04 9800 11,781 TT, AS ( incin), DP Dimethyl Aniline, xylenes True 46 1.87 5000 10,828 O( onsite destruc) Xylenes True 47 1.98 8900 20,352 TT, AS ( incin), DP Methanol, xylenes True 48 2.16 5000 12,494 O ( Onsite destruction) Xylenes True 49 5.36 5000 30,986 O Onsite incineratio Toluene True 50 10.08 3400 39,649 SS Xylenes True 51 48.25 8240 459,869 0 ( after burner) Acrylonitrile, methanol True 52 94.63 8000 875,623 SS, DP Ethylene dichloride True 53 144.04 2051 341,686 SS, DP Naphthalene, o toluidine, xylenes True 1 This facility does not have completed enclosed sewers; therefore, we did not consider its controls MACT equivalent. A 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Wastewater Streams that Contain Partially Soluble or Mixed HAP in Concentrations Greater Than or Equal to 10,000 ppmw This page intentionally left blank. A 7 Plant Flow rate, lpm HAP Conc, ppmw Load, lb/ yr Treatment code HON equivalent?

1 26.50 Toluene 40,000 873,225 SS/ DP True 8 0.00230 Methyl isobutyl ketone 18,000 48 TT False 8 0.00288 Methyl isobutyl ketone 18,000 60 TT False 10 15.10 2,4 Dinitrophenol 15,200 265,379 BI, CL False 10 0.000288 Methanol, methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes 35,000 12 BI, CL False 10 9.651 Methanol, toluene 20,100 224,354 BI, CL False 10 0.187 Methyl isobutyl ketone 15,200 3,292 BI, CL False 10 0.0288 Methyl isobutyl ketone 41,100 1,369 BI, CL False 10 0.00216 Tetrachloroethylene 27,300 68 BI, CL False 10 2.067 Toluene 10,100 24,145 BI, CL False 10 0.374 Toluene 39,000 16,893 BI, CL False 10 0.00720 Toluene 48,800 406 BI, CL False 10 0.0504 Xylenes 12,600 735 BI, CL False 29 0.00312 Chlorobenzene 450,000 1,623 BI False 31 0.508 benzene 12,751 7,492 OF, OP, EQ, BI, CL False 31 0.408 benzene 15,745 7,423 OF, OP, EQ, BI, CL False 31 1.266 Toluene 20,972 30,715 OP, EQ, BI, CL False 34 5.898 Methanol, toluene 30,000 204,662 O Onsite incineration True 34 2.369 Methanol, toluene 150,000 411,073 O Onsite incineration True 34 0.979 Methanol, toluene 600,000 679,708 O Onsite incineration True 34 0.677 Toluene 440,000 344,519 O Onsite incineration True 43 0.0404 Methanol, xylenes 740,000 34,580 OF ( incin) True 53 1.536 Methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, xylenes 124,800 221,641 OF False 54 1.167 Acetonitrile, carbon disulfide, triethylamine 19,800 26,719 BI, CL False 54 0.00238 Methylene chloride 15,000 41 BI, CL False 54 0.233 Methylene Chloride 19,000 5,128 BI, CL False 60 7.20E 06 Vinyl Acetate 49,000 0 BI False 63 0.0829 o Xylene 11,561 1,108 Bi False 81 0.00512 Methylene Chloride 550,000 3,257 OF False 90 0.0115 Xylenes 10,000 133 EQ, DP False 91 2.139 Methanol, Methylene Chloride 37,030 91,610 HT, BI False 92 0.0720 Toluene 10,000 833 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 92 0.432 Toluene 10,000 4,998 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 92 0.504 Toluene 10,000 5,831 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 92 0.288 Toluene 10,000 3,332 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 92 0.288 Toluene 19,000 6,331 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 92 0.648 Toluene 19,000 14,244 HT, CL, SS, DP False1 A 8 Plant Flow rate, lpm HAP Conc, ppmw Load, lb/ yr Treatment code HON equivalent?

96 9.87E 05 methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate 10,000 1 BI False 96 0.000104 vinyl acetate 10,000 1 BI False 96 4.32E 06 vinyl acetate 10,000 0 BI False 106 8.780 Dimethyl Aniline 15,900 161,458 TT, AS ( incin), DP True 106 0.979 Dimethyl Aniline 39,000 44,160 TT, AS ( incin), DP True 106 7.760 Dimethyl Aniline, xylenes 16,400 147,191 TT, AS ( incin), DP True 106 7.760 Dimethyl Aniline, xylenes 16,400 147,191 TT, AS ( incin), DP True 108 17.41 Epichlorohydrin 15,000 287,193 BI False 130 11.36 Benzene 360,000 4,663,596 AS, TT, HT, O ( Offsite treat at WW TSDF) True 130 0.108 Xylenes 300,000 37,484 O ( Off site treatment) False 136 0.0240 Methyl chloride 136,698 3,796 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 136 0.00281 Methyl isobutyl ketone 242,331 787 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 136 0.000598 Methylene Chloride 30,580 21 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 136 0.00265 Toluene 27,876 85 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 136 0.153 Toluene 224,404 39,732 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 136 0.211 Toluene 228,416 55,763 EQ, TT, CL, BI, OP False 138 0.173 Acrylonitrile 63,063 12,607 SS True 143 23.05 Toluene 10,000 266,552 TT, OF ( off site trashto steam) True 147 0.144 Benzyl chloride 10,000 1,666 DP False 153 28.77 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 19,000 48,498 BI False 153 2.271 Methyl Methacrylate 59,120 33,188 BI False 153 1.893 Methyl Methacrylate 103,650 38,541 BI False 155 0.0432 Acetaldehyde 70,000 3,498 OF, HT False 1 Not HON equivalent because the sewers are not closed.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12862-12865]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1183; Project Identifier 2019-SW-008-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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 Airbus Helicopters Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-
365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters, as identified in a European
Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight
loss of engine and main gearbox (MGB) cowlings. This proposed AD would
require inspecting the MGB fixed cowling front fitting (MGB front
fitting), and depending on findings, corrective action. This proposed
AD would also require a new modification, which would constitute a
terminating action for the inspection. These proposed AD requirements
are as specified in an EASA AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference (IBR). 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 April 19,
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 material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-1183.

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-
1183; 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. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer,
Los Angles ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1183; Project Identifier
2019-SW-008-AD'' 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 proposal.

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
Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance
& Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California
90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0008, dated January 22, 2019
(EASA AD 2019-0008), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus
Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale,
Model EC 155 B, EC 155 B1, SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, and AS 365
N3 helicopters.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of an in-flight loss of
engine and MGB cowlings. Subsequent investigations revealed that the
MGB cowling attachment fittings failed because of mounting stress in
the MGB front fitting and air intake bulkhead. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address failure of the MGB front fitting and subsequent
detachment of the MGB or engine cowlings. See EASA AD 2019-0008 for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0008 requires inspecting the MGB front fittings within
110 flight hours after April 14, 2017 (the effective date of EASA AD
2017-0055, dated March 31, 2017). If there is a discrepancy, the EASA
AD requires applicable corrective action(s) before next flight. EASA AD
2019-0008 also requires modification of the MGB fixed cowling
attachments within 660 flight hours or 23 months, whichever occurs
first, after the effective date described in EASA AD 2019-0008.
Accomplishing the modification constitutes a terminating action for the
required inspection.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. AS365-53.00.62 and EC155-53A038, each Revision 0 and dated
December 20, 2018 (ASB AS365-53.00.62 and ASB EC155-53A038). ASB AS365-
53.00.62 applies to Model AS365-series helicopters. ASB EC155-53A038
applies to Model EC155-series helicopters. This service information
specifies replacing the front bracket, inspecting for stress of the MGB
fixed cowlings on the radiator bulkhead, and installing an additional
locking system.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country, and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the EASA
AD referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all
the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these
same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0008, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0008
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0008 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2019-0008 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-
0008 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1183 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 19 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
    Inspecting the MGB front fittings would take about 2 work-hours for
an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $3,230 for the U.S. fleet.
If required, replacing an MGB front fitting would take about 2 work-
hours and parts would cost about $590 for an estimated total cost of
$760 per fitting. Other repairs could take up to 8 work-hours
(excluding drying time) and parts would cost a minimal amount for an
estimated cost of up to $680 per helicopter.
    Modifying the MGB fixed cowling attachments would take about 5
work-hours and parts would cost about $630 for an estimated cost of
$1,055 per helicopter and $20,045 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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2020-1183; Project Identifier
2019-SW-008-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 19, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC 155B, EC155B1,
SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters, certificated
in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2019-0008, dated January 22, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0008).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 7110, Engine
Cowling System.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight loss of main
gearbox (MGB) and engine cowlings. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address a failure of the MGB fixed cowling front fitting, and
subsequent MGB cowling or engine cowling detachment, which could
result in damage to the helicopter, loss of helicopter control, and
possible injury to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0008.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0008

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0008 refers to April 14, 2017 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2017-0055, dated March 31, 2017), this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2019-0008 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2019-0008 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (4) Where EASA AD 2019-0008 requires the modification within 660
flight hours or 23 months, whichever occurs first, this AD requires
the modification within 660 hours time-in-service instead.
    (5) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0008 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service instead.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0008 specifies to use tooling, equivalent tooling may be used.
    (7) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0008 does not apply
to this AD.
    (8) Where paragraph (1) states to, ``inspect the MGB fixed
cowling front fittings in accordance with the instructions of
paragraph 1.E.2 of the applicable inspection ASB or in accordance
with the instructions of the applicable modification ASB,'' this AD
requires determining if Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
No. 53.00.55, Revision 0, dated March 13, 2017, or Revision 1, dated
December 20, 2018, has or has not been complied with and following
the instructions, ``For helicopters on which ALERT SERVICE BULLETIN
No. 53.00.55 has not been complied with'' or ``For helicopters on
which ALERT SERVICE BULLETIN No. 53.00.55 has been complied with,''
as applicable, in paragraph 1.E.2, of Airbus Helicopters Alert
Service Bulletin No. AS365-53.00.62 or EC155-53A038, each Revision 0
and dated December 20, 2018 (ASB AS365-53.00.62 or ASB EC155-
53A038), as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (9) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0008 states to,
``accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with
paragraph 1.E.2 of the applicable inspection ASB or in accordance
with the instructions of the applicable modification ASB,'' this AD
requires accomplishing the applicable corrective actions by
following ASB AS365-53.00.62 or ASB EC155-53A038, as applicable to
your model helicopter.
    (10) Where paragraph 3.B.2.e.3 of the applicable modification
ASB referenced in EASA AD 2019-0008 refers to paragraph 3.B.e.3,
this AD requires referring to paragraph 3.B.3 of ASB AS365-53.00.62
or ASB EC155-53A038, as applicable to your model helicopter.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are not allowed.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Manager, Strategic
Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2019-0008 contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may
view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1183.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Blaine Williams,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California
90712; telephone

562-627-5227; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on January 25, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03689 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 22669]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2394-002; ER10-2395-002; ER10-2422-002; ER10-
2389-001.
    Applicants: BIV Generation Company, L.L.C., Colorado Power
Partners, Rocky Mountain Power, LLC, San Joaquin Cogen, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of BIV
Generation Company, L.L.C., et al.
    Filed Date: 4/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140416-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1135-003.
    Applicants: Renewable Power Direct, LLC.
    Description: Original Volume No. 1 to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140416-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1711-000.
    Applicants: TC Ravenswood, LLC.
    Description: Oil Burn Rate Schedule to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/11/14.
    Accession Number: 20140411-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1711-000.
    Applicants: TC Ravenswood, LLC.
    Description: Errata to April 11, 2014 TC Ravenswood, LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 4/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140416-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1724-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-04-15 SA 6507 White Pine SSR Agreement to be
effective 4/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140415-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1725-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-04-15--Schedule 43H--White Pine SSR to be
effective 4/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140415-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1726-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Original Service Agreement
No. 2207 of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140415-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1727-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Conform Sections to Approved Language to be effective
4/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140416-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES14-34-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140416-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09268 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P