[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47417-47419]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0690; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01495-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines

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 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (RRD) Trent 1000 model
turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the manufacturer
revising the engine Time Limits Manual (TLM) life limits of certain
critical rotating parts and direct accumulation counting data files.
This proposed AD would require the operator to revise the airworthiness
limitation section (ALS) of their existing approved aircraft
maintenance program (AMP) by incorporating the revised tasks of the
applicable TLM for each affected model turbofan engine, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (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 October 12,
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 EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For RRD service information identified in this NPRM,
contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: +44 (0)1332 242424 fax: +44 (0)1332
249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EASA material is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0690.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0690; 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, the EASA AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0690; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01495-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kevin M. Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0243, dated November 5, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0243), to correct an unsafe condition on RRD Trent 1000-
AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent
1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3,
Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 model turbofan engines.
    This proposed AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the
engine TLM life limits of certain critical rotating parts and updating
certain maintenance tasks. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent the
failure of critical rotating parts.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2020-0243. EASA AD 2020-0243 specifies
revising the approved AMP by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and
associated thresholds and intervals described in the TLM. 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 ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Chapter 05-10 of Rolls-Royce (RR) Trent 1000 TLM
T-TRENT-10RRT, dated August 1, 2020. RR Trent 1000 TLM T-TRENT-10RRT,
Chapter 05-10, identifies the reduced life limits of certain critical
rotating parts.
    The FAA also reviewed Chapter 05-20 of RR Trent 1000 TLM T-TRENT-
10RRT, dated August 1, 2020. RR Trent 1000 TLM T-TRENT-10RRT, Chapter
05-20, identifies the critical rotating part inspection thresholds and
intervals.

FAA's Determination

    These engines have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design
Authority, the FAA has been notified about the unsafe condition
described in the EASA AD referenced in this proposed AD. The FAA is
issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0243, 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 2020-0243
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0243 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 EASA
AD 2020-0243 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 EASA AD 2020-0243. Service information specified in EASA
AD 2020-0243 that is required for compliance with it will be available
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0690 after the FAA final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    This AD does not mandate the ``Maintenance Tasks and Replacement of
Critical Parts'' and ``Corrective Action(s)'' sections of EASA AD 2020-
0243. Where EASA AD 2020-0243 requires compliance from its effective
date, this proposed AD would require using the effective date of this
AD. Where EASA AD 2020-0243 requires revising the AMP within 12 months
from its effective date, this proposed AD would require revising the
existing AMP within 90 days after the effective date of this AD. This
AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2020-0243.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the ALS of the AMP.............  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85            $340
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate previously
held by Rolls-Royce plc): Docket No. FAA-2021-0690; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-01495-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (Type
Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) Trent 1000-AE3,
Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent
1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3,
Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 model turbofan
engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine
(Turbine/Turboprop).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the engine
Time Limits Manual life limits of certain critical rotating parts
and direct accumulation counting data files. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent the failure of critical rotating parts. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more
engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all
required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2020-0243,
dated November 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0243).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0243

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0243 are not required by this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0243 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0243 specifies revising the
approved aircraft maintenance program (AMP) within 12 months after
its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing
approved AMP within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2020-0243.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about EASA AD 2020-0243, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this material on the
EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this
material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781) 238-7759. This material may be found in the AD docket at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0690.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For Rolls-Royce Deutschland service information identified
in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O.
Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: +44 (0)1332 242424
fax: +44 (0)1332 249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on August 17, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17980 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4347-4349]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76936; File No. SR-ISE-2016-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Back-Up Primary Market Makers

January 20, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 6, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to correct, and clarify, .03 of Supplementary
Material to Rule 803, Obligations of Market Makers, which describes the
responsibilities and privileges of a Back-Up Primary Market Maker
(``Back-Up PMM'') that takes the place of a Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') when that PMM fails to have a quote in the system. This
amendment will specify the PMM responsibilities and privileges that do
not apply to Back-Up PMMs. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make corrections to,
and clarify, .03 of Supplementary Material to Rule 803, Obligations of
Market Makers, which describes the responsibilities and privileges of a
Back-Up PMM that takes the place of a PMM when that PMM fails to have a
quote in the system. This amendment will specify the PMM
responsibilities and privileges that do not apply to Back-Up PMMs.
    In 2006, ISE adopted a rule change that permits Competitive Market
Makers (``CMMs'') that are also PMMs on the Exchange to voluntarily act
as Back-Up PMMs when the appointed PMM has technical difficulties that
interrupt its participation in the market.\3\ Then, in 2015, the
Exchange amended the process by which a Back-Up PMM is

chosen to replace a PMM that fails to have a quote in the System.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-53419 (March 6,
2006), 71 FR 12758 (March 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-50).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-76508 (November 30,
2015), 80 FR 74826 (November 30, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these situations, a Back-Up PMM assumes the responsibilities and
privileges of a PMM under ISE rules with respect to any class in which
the appointed PMM fails to have a quote in the ISE System, except that
a CMM does not become subject to the PMM's requirement in ISE Rule
804(e)(1) to enter continuous quotations in all of the series of all of
the options classes to which it is appointed. Instead, under ISE Rule
804(e)(2), the CMM (or Back-Up PMM) is required to maintain continuous
quotations in that class or series for 60% of the time the options
class is open for trading on the Exchange, provided, however, that a
CMM (or Back-Up PMM) is required to maintain continuous quotations for
90% of the time the class is open for trading on the Exchange in any
options class in which it receives preferenced orders.\5\ Additionally,
while PMMs are required to quote LEAPS and adjusted series, a CMM that
has been appointed as the Back-Up PMM is not subject to these
requirements due to their initial status as a CMM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 804(e)(2)(iii).
    \6\ See .02 of Supplementary Material to Rule 804 (The CMM
quoting obligation ``does not include adjusted option series, nor
series with a time to expiration of nine (9) months or greater for
options on equities and exchange-traded funds or with a time to
expiration of twelve (12) months or greater for index options.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, .03 to Supplementary Material to Rule 803 states that,
when a PMM fails to have a quote in the System, a Back-Up PMM ``assumes
all of the responsibilities and privileges of a'' PMM. Unlike the
wording of this rule text, however, ISE's practice has always been to
hold CMMs that are appointed as Back-Up PMMs to the above standards/
exceptions. ISE now proposes to amend .03 to Supplementary Material to
Rule 803 to reflect ISE's longstanding standards/exceptions applicable
to a CMM that has been appointed as the Back-Up PMM in a particular
class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, and would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market, because it makes a correction and clarifies ISE's rule text to
more accurately reflect the responsibilities and privileges of a Back-
Up PMM. This will provide members with a better understanding of their
responsibilities and privileges when acting as a Back-Up PMM in
situations where a PMM fails to have a quote in the System.
Additionally, Back-Up PMMs that are CMMs are not held to the heightened
standards of PMMs for continuous quoting, LEAPS, and adjusted series
due to the difficulty associated with meeting the standards for each on
a short-term basis. For example, for continuous quoting, when a Back-Up
PMM assumes responsibility for quoting a series or class, a Back-Up PMM
could have problems meeting the continuous quoting requirement during
such a short period of time. Similarly, a CMM that is a Back-Up PMM is
not required to quote LEAPS because of the difficulty in pricing these
options due their 9 month or greater time to expiration. Also, for
adjusted series, the effect corporate actions have on certain
underlying equity prices makes pricing these options challenging.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act because ISE is correcting and clarifying its rule text
to accurately reflect the responsibilities and privileges of a Back-Up
PMM when a PMM fails to have a quote in the System.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\ The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, as
required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2016-02 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-ISE-2016-02. 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 Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2016-02 and should be submitted by February 16,
2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01392 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Meeting with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Date: June 16, 2003 Attending: from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( PSCAA): Claude Williams, Agata McIntyre, Steven Van Slyke, Gerry Pade from US EPA: Margaret Sheppard from Garrett Services, Inc.: Andy Garrett from Albemarle Corporation: Joe Miller Andy Garrett opened the meeting with introductions. He said that he had set up a meeting because Margaret Sheppard from EPA was in the area and she could talk about EPA's proposed ruling on n propyl bromide ( nPB). Ms. Sheppard provided information on the environmental and health effects of nPB ( see attachment/ Docket A 2001 07, item IV B 3). PSCAA inquired about the ozone depletion potential, the toxicological studies, and who developed them, and whether nPB is considered a hazardous air pollutant ( HAP).

Claude Williams asked if EPA has a policy of " once in, always in" for following the National Emission Standard for HAPs ( NESHAP) for halogenated solvent cleaning. For example, if a company was currently using a chlorinated solvent and switched to nPB, would they still be required to meet all the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the NESHAP? Mr. Williams said that people would want to know EPA's official policy on this, and that EPA should let state and local agencies know.

PSCAA staff asked some practical questions about the use of nPB, including the odor threshold and the possibility of recycling spent solvent or using spent nPB as an additive in construction. Joe Miller of Albemarle said that in Japan, nPB users distill and recycle the solvent. This is not yet happening in the U. S. because there is not quite enough volume of nPB to make recycling viable. However, it is possible that this could happen in the future if the volume of nPB use increases slightly. Currently, Albemarle recommends to its customers that the spent solvent is incinerated. Albemarle has even offered free pickup and disposal of spent solvent for its customers.

Andy Garrett asked the PSCAA about how a company would apply for a permit if they are switching solvents. PSCAA staff said that the company must demonstrate that they have looked at different options, including changing their process. This would be like an analysis of alternatives to the best available control technology. The users would need to determine " How clean does clean need to be?" The company must provide an estimate of volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions. Mr. Garrett asked about the time and cost involved for approval of the permit application. PSCAA responded that, once a permit application is truly complete, they aim to complete the review in 60 days. They said that it could cost up to $ 1000 for an application with a solvent regulated under New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) Subpart T or a NESHAP. For a new application for a Notice of Construction permit, a typical cost might be $ 2500 to $ 3000. If there is an existing permit, there is no change to annual fees ( on the order of 2 $ 800/ year). PSCAA commented that this is relatively small compared to Title V permitting fees. In December 2005, major sources will need to apply for a Title V operating permit if they fall under NSPS Subpart T or a NESHAP. This would cost at least $ 15,000 for the application, and there would be additional fees based on emissions. According to PSCAA staff, the application is over 60 pages long. PSCAA staff noted that this cost might well be more than the cost of using a more expensive, but less toxic chemical that is not a HAP.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83152-83154]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number: DOT-OST-2020-0254]

Request for Information for the Inclusive Design Reference Hub

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: In July 2020, as part of an event celebrating the 30th
anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DOT committed to
undertake a new initiative to establish a library of resources for
accessibility in automation, and work with outside experts to study
voluntary best practices for ensuring accessibility in automated
vehicles. DOT invites stakeholders to provide input on critical first
steps in this process, the qualifications of entities that are best
suited to perform this work, and considerations to ensure long-term
sustainability of this initiative. This notice is not a Solicitation,
and it does not seek the submission of formal, binding quotations/
proposals. In the event OST-P determines that services will be
procured, a formal Request for Quote/Proposal will be issued. OST-P
cannot and will not reimburse any organization for its time, effort, or
costs expended in responding to this RFI.

DATES: Responses to the RFI must be received by January 20, 2021, no
later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) to ensure consideration of your views.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Electronic mail: Email comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with a courtesy copy to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Responses must be provided
as attachments to an email. It is recommended that attachments with
file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure
message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word
(.docx) attachment to the email, and be no more than 5 pages in length,
with 12-point font and 1-inch margins.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov. Search by
using the docket number (DOT-OST-2020-0254). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Respondents may answer as many or as few questions (see the
questions below) as they wish.
    DOT will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly
a compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as
a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas
discussed.
    Respondents are requested to provide the following information at
the beginning of their response to this RFI:

 Company/institution name
 Company/institution contact
 Contact's address, phone number, and email address

Proprietary Information

    Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to
structure future programs and/or otherwise be made available to the
public, respondents are strongly advised to NOT include any information
in their responses that might be considered business sensitive,
proprietary, or otherwise confidential. However, respondents may choose
to include such information in their submissions if they believe it
will significantly assist DOT in the design of the program.
    Responses containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged
information must be conspicuously marked as described below. Failure to
comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of
the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552.
    If a response contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information, the respondent must include a cover sheet
identifying the specific pages containing that information. The cover
sheet must also provide evidence that the respondent actually or
customarily treats the information as private.
    In addition, the respondent must (1) mark the header and footer of
every page that contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information with ``Contains Confidential Information Exempt
from Public Disclosure'' and (2) identify every line and paragraph
containing such information with double brackets or highlighting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The monitored inbox at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact the Contracting Officer,
Robin Gates, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please reference ``RFI for Inclusive Design Reference Hub'' in the
subject line when submitting your response.
    DOT looks forward to your submission in response to this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary

    The purpose of this RFI is to collect input on a proposed
initiative to establish and curate a library of existing technical
specifications, voluntary consensus or consortia standards, and best
practices and a roadmap of such resources that may be needed to enable
accessibility of automated vehicles for persons with physical, sensory,
and cognitive disabilities. This initiative, tentatively entitled the
Inclusive Design Reference Hub, will involve consultation with a range
of stakeholders. This RFI will serve to refine DOT's vision, next
steps, and long-term ownership and maintenance plan for this
initiative. Respondents are encouraged to visit https://www.transportation.gov/accessibility for more information on DOT's
accessibility initiatives.

Background

    As transportation evolves, DOT is committed to a more accessible
future and exploring accessibility opportunities that may materialize
as vehicles and mobility services evolve. DOT encourages research into
technologies that have the potential to remove barriers to
accessibility in the transportation system and will seek to complement
research done by leading academic institutions, the private sector and
other entities to fill gaps that industry is not already covering. To
this end, DOT recently announced its intent to establish a library of
resources for accessibility in automation, and to work with outside
experts to study voluntary best practices for ensuring accessibility in
automated vehicles.

Needs Statement

    DOT has made early investments intended to begin unlocking this
potential through its Accessible Transportation Technologies Research
Initiative (ATTRI), the Inclusive Design Challenge, the Complete Trip--
ITS4US Deployment Program, and numerous research projects. Industry
stakeholders and others have reported difficulty in

finding existing technical specifications and best practices for
designing accessible vehicle features, or in prioritizing development
of new resources where there are knowledge gaps. In addition, the
expertise for developing such resources is fragmented across
traditional organizational and sectoral bounds, making it difficult to
begin new technical resource development. Early and widespread action
by a coalition of industry, disability advocacy, academia, and
government partners can help ensure shared understanding of the needs
of individuals with a range of disabilities and corresponding technical
specifications and best practices. An open and inclusive partnership to
develop voluntary, consensus-based technical specifications, best
practices, and standards can provide a foundation for consistently and
comprehensively meeting the needs of people with disabilities and
inform the design of future automated vehicles (AVs).
    A robust research pipeline can accelerate the accumulation of
knowledge and encourage private sector experimentation. Tracking and
sharing less mature, early stage research through technical
specifications and best practices--in addition to developing and
maintaining published technical standards--can help clarify where
technical consensus is emerging and where investment and attention is
most needed to fill long-term gaps.
    Numerous voluntary consensus standards, technical specifications,
recommended practices, and other technical resources currently exist
that relate either directly to vehicle accessibility or could
indirectly inform future automated vehicle accessibility. For example,
the former category includes numerous voluntary consensus standards
focused on the safety, functionality, and interoperability of
wheelchair-accessible vehicles, while the latter includes voluntary
consensus and consortia standards from the consumer electronics sector
that provide insights into how to design interfaces that are useable by
people with sensory or cognitive disabilities. A list of such resources
is included at the end of this RFI for reference. While these existing
resources form a starting point for considering the accessibility of
passenger vehicles, DOT also recognizes that gaps likely exist between
current technical standards and specifications and best practices and a
set of resources that would comprehensively address the physical,
sensory, and cognitive accessibility needs of future vehicle users,
including users of automated vehicles.

Proposed Approach

    This initiative will serve as a ``one-stop shop'' for engineers,
designers, and individuals with disabilities to find and to collaborate
on technical resources for an inclusive future. The Hub could either be
a stand-alone resource or built within an existing platform. All
content will need to be compliant with requirements stated in Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and accompanying standards
developed by the U.S. Access Board.
    An initial investment to launch this initiative will seek to
establish a process to maintain this resource in regular consultation
with stakeholders, including relevant standards development
organizations, primarily through existing forums. DOT will assess
potential approaches in terms of how likely they are to result in a
self-sustaining long-term effort that includes active participation
from all stakeholders with relevant expertise and perspective.

Request for Information

    In launching the proposed initiative outlined above, DOT is seeking
input from its stakeholders and potential partners on defining its
scope, the most critical first steps, the necessary qualifications and
expertise to support it, and how to ensure long-term ownership and
maintenance of the resulting resources. To clarify input provided in
response to this notice, DOT may seek additional follow-up information.
Through this notice specifically, DOT seeks input on the following
questions:

Background and Current Condition Information

    1. What existing initiatives, industry activities, best practices,
or other resources/actions could help to inform this initiative?
    2. What existing technical standards and specifications and best
practices are relevant or potentially relevant to the accessibility of
vehicles for people with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities?
What dependencies exist between existing resources and needed
resources?
    3. What information could help stakeholders understand the user
population, potential market, and business case for inclusive design
solutions? What information does not exist but could potentially help
fill gaps in knowledge regarding the user population, potential market,
and business case for inclusive design solutions?
    4. What existing and needed resources are applicable to all
vehicles? What existing and needed resources are specific to automated
vehicles and when will they be needed?
    5. How can this initiative support improved accessibility of
conventional vehicles in the short-term while also enabling the
accessibility of automated vehicles in the long-term?

Initiative Scope, Focus, and Proposed Initial Steps

    1. Are there any technical references in this area that do not
currently exist and should be prioritized for development?
    (a) Please describe the need and ways to expedite the development
of needed references with relevant stakeholders, including consumers.
    (b) Please also discuss the extent to which the topic(s) identified
are at an appropriate stage for voluntary standards development in
terms of industry consensus and technological maturity.
    2. Are there any existing resources or programs on which DOT could
build or model this effort? Should the Inclusive Design Reference Hub
be developed as a stand-alone resource, or integrated into an existing
platform?
    3. Are there any aspects of DOT's vision for this effort that could
be clarified or improved ahead of a potential procurement?
    4. Should the DOT directly host the resource, or should it be
hosted by a third-party organization or coalition of organizations
serving as the convener(s) and technical curator(s) on behalf of DOT?
    5. How can this initiative be maintained in the long term with more
limited federal involvement? What conditions need to be met in order
for partner organizations to continue support for this initiative
following an initial phase?
    6. How could DOT assess the success of this activity over a two-
year period? How can processes to support long-term sustainability be
established in this timeframe?

Performing Organization Qualifications--General Input

    1. What entities, organizations, groups, or Government agencies are
most qualified and appropriate to perform this work?
    2. What perspectives need to be represented in the execution of
this initiative? Which groups should represent these perspectives?
    3. What partnerships are critical?
    4. What organizations currently play a role with respect to the
development of standards around automated vehicles, transportation
accessibility, and the

intersection of the two? For responding organizations that currently
have a role, please discuss your organizational and technical
capabilities and experience in this area. Please also discuss how you
might augment your qualifications with those of potential partner
organizations.

Additional Information

    Below are existing resources that might be featured in the
Inclusive Design Reference Hub.
 Automated Driving Systems:
    [cir] SAE J3171: Identifying Automated Driving Systems-Dedicated
Vehicles (ADS-DVs) Passenger Issues for Persons with Disabilities (SAE)
 Vehicles:
    [cir] 49 CFR 571.141: Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles (NHTSA)
    [cir] 49 CFR 571.206: Door locks and door retention components
(NHTSA)
    [cir] 49 CFR 571.222: School bus passenger seating and crash
protection (NHTSA)
    [cir] 49 CFR 571.403: Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles
(NHTSA)
    [cir] 49 CFR 571.404: Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles
(NHTSA)
    [cir] 49 CFR part 38: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)--
Accessibility Specifications For Transportation Vehicles (U.S. Access
Board/U.S. DOT)
    [cir] QAP-103: National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
Quality Assurance Program Guidelines (NMEDA)
    [cir] SAE J1725: Structural Modification for Personally Licensed
Vehicles to Meet the Transportation Needs of Persons with Disabilities
(SAE)
    [cir] SAE J1903: Automotive Adaptive Driver Controls, Manual (SAE)
    [cir] SAE J2092: Testing of Wheelchair Lifts for Entry to or Exit
from a Personally Licensed Vehicle (SAE)
    [cir] SAE J2093: Design Considerations for Wheelchair Lifts for
Entry to or Exit from a Personally Licensed Vehicle (SAE)
    [cir] SAE J2094: Vehicle and Control Modifications for Drivers with
Physical Disabilities Terminology (SAE)
    [cir] SAE J2603: Recommended Practice for Powered Gas Brake Control
Systems (SAE)
 Mobility Equipment:
    [cir] ANSI/RESNA WC-4:2017: Wheelchairs and Transportation (RESNA)
    [cir] ISO 10542-1: Technical systems and aids for disabled or
handicapped persons--Wheelchair tiedown and occupant-restraint systems
(ISO)
    [cir] ISO 10865: Wheelchair containment and occupant retention
systems for accessible transport vehicles designed for use by both
sitting and standing passengers (ISO)
    [cir] ISO 10865: Part 1: Systems for rearward-facing wheelchair-
seated passengers (ISO)
    [cir] ISO 10865: Part 2: Systems for forward-facing wheelchair-
seated passengers (ISO)
    [cir] ISO 16840-4: Wheelchair seating--Part 4: Seating systems for
use in motor vehicles (ISO)
    [cir] ISO 7176-19: Wheeled mobility devices for use as seats in
motor vehicles (ISO)
    [cir] RESNA SP-3 (under development): Universal Docking Interface
Guidelines (UDIG) (RESNA)
    [cir] SAE J2249: Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint Systems
for Use in Motor Vehicles (SAE)
 Electronic Interfaces/Devices:
    [cir] 36 CFR 1194.1: Standards for Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act (U.S. Access Board)
    [cir] ANSI/RESNA CA-1: Universal Criteria for Reporting the
Cognitive Accessibility of Products and Technologies (RESNA)
    [cir] CTA-CEB27: Recommended Practice for Audio Accessibility of
Audiovisual Devices (CTA)
    [cir] ISO 21801-1: Cognitive accessibility--Part 1: General
guidelines (ISO)
    [cir] ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of human-system interaction--Part
171: Guidance on software accessibility (ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 24786: Information Technology--User interfaces--
Accessible user interface for accessibility settings (ISO/IEC)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 29138-1: Information technology--User interface
accessibility--Part 1: User accessibility needs (ISO/IEC)
    [cir] ISO/IEC TS 20071-21:2015: Information technology--User
interface component accessibility--Part 21: Guidance on audio
descriptions (ISO/IEC)
    [cir] WCAG 2.1: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Overview (W3C)
 General Product Usability and Accessibility:
    [cir] ISO/IEC 20282: Ease of operation of everyday products (ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 20282-1: Part 1: Design requirements for context and
use and user characteristics (ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 20282-2: Part 2: Summative test method (ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 20282-3: Part 3: Test method for consumer products
(ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 20282-3: Part 4: Test method for the installation of
consumer products (ISO)
    [cir] ISO/IEC 24756: Framework for specifying a common access
profile (CAP) of needs and capabilities of users, systems, and their
environments (ISO)

    Issued on: December 15, 2020.
Thomas Finch Fulton,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27994 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P