[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52111-52114]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0364; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00119-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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that applied to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Trent
1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2,
Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-
K2, and Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan engines. This action revises the
NPRM by requiring revision of the engine Time Limits Manual (TLM) life
limits of certain critical rotating parts and direct accumulation
counting (DAC) data files, 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. Since these actions would impose an
additional burden over those in the NPRM, the agency is requesting
comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 4, 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; telephone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For RRD service information
identified in this SNPRM, 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>. The EASA
material is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0364.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0364; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM,
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-2020-0364; Project Identifier
MCAI-2019-00119-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 again
revise 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 proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kevin M. Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all RRD Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2,
Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent
1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2020
(85 FR 20216). The NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer revising the
engine TLM life limits of certain critical rotating parts and DAC data
files. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require operators to revise the
airworthiness limitation section (ALS) of their approved aircraft
maintenance program (AMP) by incorporating the revised tasks of the
applicable TLM for each affected model turbofan engine.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, RRD has revised the tasks of the TLM
for affected engines, updating the life limits of certain critical
rotating parts and updating the DAC data files. RRD published Rolls-
Royce Trent 1000 TLM T-Trent-10RRC, Chapters 05-10 and 05-20, Revision
20, both dated August 1, 2020.
    Additionally, since the FAA issued the NPRM, EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, superseded
AD 2019-0058R1, dated April 2, 2019, with AD 2020-0241, dated November
5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0241), to require updates to the life limits and
the DAC data files for affected engines.

Comments

    The FAA received one comment on the NPRM from The Boeing Company
(Boeing). The agency considered the comment received. Boeing supported
the NPRM without change.

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 SNPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design. Certain changes described
above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2020-0241. EASA AD 2020-0241 requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in RRD's updated TLM for
affected engines as specified in Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 TLM T-Trent-
10RRC, Chapters 05-10 and 05-20, Revision 20, dated August 1, 2020.
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.

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0241, 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, the FAA proposes
to incorporate EASA AD 2020-0241 in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0241 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 2020-0241 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 2020-0241. Service information specified in EASA
AD 2020-0241 that is required for compliance with it will be available
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0364 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-
0241. Where EASA AD 2020-0241 requires compliance from its effective
date, this proposed AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
Where EASA AD 2020-0241 requires operators revising the approved AMP
within 12 months from its effective date, this proposed AD requires
revising the approved AMP within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD. This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2020-0241.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 20 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 AMP........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $1,700
                                         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-2020-0364; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00119-
E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 4, 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) (RRD) Trent 1000-A2,
Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent
1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2,
and Trent 1000-L2 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 (TLM) life limits of certain critical rotating
parts, updating direct accumulation counting (DAC) data files, and
updating certain maintenance tasks. 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 2020-0241,
dated November 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0241).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0241

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0241 are not required by this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0241 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0241 specifies revising the
approved 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 2020-0241.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0241
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) 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
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about EASA AD 2020-0241, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone: +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-2020-0364.
    (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 RRD 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 September 14, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20234 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 33811-33813]
[DOCID:fr13jn08-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0414; FRL-8366-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for
Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects; EPA ICR No. 2195.03,
OMB Control No. 2070-0169

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
entitled: ``Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental
Research Involving Human Subjects'' and identified by EPA ICR No.
2195.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-0169, is scheduled to expire on
January 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0414, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0414. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://

www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hogue, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those that submit protocols and study reports for environmental
research involving human subjects under the pesticide laws, typically
registrants of pesticide products (NAICS 325320).
    Title: Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental
Research Involving Human Subjects.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2195.03, OMB Control No. 2070-0169.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: In January 2006, EPA issued a final rule to amend the
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (also known as the
Common Rule) at 40 CFR part 26. EPA's January 2006 final rule
significantly strengthens and expands the protections for subjects of
``third-party'' human research (i.e., research that is not conducted or
supported by EPA). The information collection activity imposed by this
final rule consists of activity-driven reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for those who intend to conduct research for submission to
EPA under the pesticide laws. If such research involves intentional
dosing of human subjects, these individuals (respondents) are required
to submit study protocols to EPA and a cognizant local human subjects
institutional review board (IRB) before such research is initiated so
that the scientific design and ethical standards that will be employed
during the proposed study may be reviewed and approved. Also,
respondents are required to submit information about the ethical
conduct of completed research that involved intentional dosing of human
subjects when such research is submitted to EPA. Responses to this
collection of information are mandatory.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 32
hours per response for research involving intentional exposure of human
subjects, and 12 hours per response for all other submitted research
with human subjects. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 62.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,404 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $84,674. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $84,674 with no additional cost for capital investment
or maintenance and operational costs.

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce
the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. E8-13346 Filed 6-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: August 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47822-47824]
[DOCID:fr15au08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0844; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-23-AD;
Amendment 39-15635; AD 2008-16-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PZL Swidnik S. A. Model W-3A
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the PZL
Swidnik S. A. (PZL) Model W-3A helicopters. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Community. The MCAI states: ``In
PZL W-3A helicopter S/N 37.07.05, and previously also in the PZL W-3AS
model helicopters, leakage was found in the pipe <IP_ADDRESS>.00
installed in the pressure line of hydraulic system 2, in the part
between the hydraulic block and the ground hydraulic unit panel. The
hydraulic system in the part between hydraulic blocks and the ground
hydraulic unit panel is used only during periodical inspections, for
the performance of which it is required to use the hydraulic power
unit. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fire
hazard.'' The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent this
unsafe condition.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on September 2, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of ``PZL-[Sacute]widnik'' S.A. Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-
07-192, dated January 12, 2007, and ``PZL-[Sacute]widnik'' Technical
Bulletin No. BT-37-07-196, dated April 24, 2007, as of September 2,
2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from WSK
``PZL-[Sacute]widnik'' S.A., Al. Lotnik[oacute]w Polskich 1, 21-045
[Sacute]widnik, Poland, telephone (+48 81) 468 09 01, 751 20 71, or fax
(+48 81) 468 09 19, 751 21 73, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is stated in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aerospace Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0110, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency
AD No. 2007-0072R1, dated July 6, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the PZL Model W-3A
helicopters. The MCAI states: ``In PZL W-3A helicopter S/N 37.07.05,
and previously also in the PZL W-3AS model helicopters, leakage was
found in the

pipe <IP_ADDRESS>.00 installed in the pressure line of hydraulic system
2, in the part between the hydraulic block and the ground hydraulic
unit panel. The hydraulic system in the part between hydraulic blocks
and the ground hydraulic unit panel is used only during periodical
inspections, for the performance of which it is required to use the
hydraulic power unit. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
a fire hazard.'' You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI and any related service information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    PZL has issued Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-07-192, dated January
12, 2007, and Technical Bulletin No. BT-37-07-196, dated April 24,
2007. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the
same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    This helicopter model has been approved by the aviation authority
of Poland, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Poland, they have notified us of the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.
    There are no products of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are
placed on the U.S. Registry in the future.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. This AD differs from the MCAI in
that it:
     Only applies to Model W-3A helicopters because the Model
W-3AS helicopters do not have a U.S. type certificate; and
     Does not allow compliance to be completed in accordance
with ``later approved revisions'' of the service information.
    These differences are highlighted in the ``Differences Between this
AD and the MCAI'' section in the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance since there are no helicopters of
this type design on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no affected U.S. registered helicopters,
we have determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
before issuing this AD are unnecessary and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send us any written data, views, or
arguments concerning this AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this AD. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-
0844; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-23-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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.
    Therefore, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 AD:

2008-16-17 PZL [Sacute]widnik S. A.: Amendment 39-15635. Docket No.
FAA-2008-0844; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-23-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on
September 2, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model W-3A helicopters, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states: ``In PZL W-3A helicopter S/N 37.07.05, and previously also
in the PZL W-3AS model helicopters, leakage was found in the pipe
<IP_ADDRESS>.00 installed in the pressure line of hydraulic system
2, in the part between the hydraulic block and the ground hydraulic
unit panel. The hydraulic system in the part between hydraulic
blocks and the ground hydraulic unit panel is used only during

periodical inspections, for the performance of which it is required
to use the hydraulic power unit. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in a fire hazard.'' The actions specified in this AD
are intended to prevent this unsafe condition.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3 months,
whichever occurs first, modify hydraulic systems 1 and 2 between the
hydraulic blocks and the hydraulic ground unit panel by
disconnecting the pipes, part number (P/N) <IP_ADDRESS>.00 and P/N
<IP_ADDRESS>.00, from the hydraulic blocks, plugging the blocks and
disconnected pipes, and securing the pipes, as specified in section
II, page 3, of PZL-[Sacute]widnik S. A. (PZL) Mandatory Bulletin No.
BO-37-07-192, dated January 12, 2007.
    (f) When the use of the hydraulic ground unit panel is necessary
for maintenance, for the duration of the maintenance activity, you
may temporarily remove the security tape and clips, unplug the pipes
and blocks, and reconnect the pipes that were disconnected in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.
    (g) At your discretion, modify both hydraulic systems by
replacing pipes, P/N <IP_ADDRESS>.00 and P/N <IP_ADDRESS>.00, with
pipes, P/N 37.59.333.00.00 and P/N 37.59.334.00.00, respectively,
and install a check valve, P/N 37.59.336.00.00, in each hydraulic
system in accordance with Section II, page 2, of PZL Technical
Bulletin No. BT-37-07-196, dated April 24, 2007 (PZL TB).

    Note: The PZL TB inconsistently refers to various P/Ns as either
``pipes'' or ``hoses.'' For consistency in the terminology in this
AD, we refer to all these P/Ned ``hoses'' as ``pipes.''

    (h) Modifying both hydraulic systems by replacing the pipes and
installing check valves as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD
constitute terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    (i) This AD differs from the MCAI in that it:
    (1) Only applies to Model W-3A helicopters because the Model W-
3AS helicopters do not have a U.S. type certificate; and
    (2) Does not allow compliance to be completed in accordance with
``later approved revisions'' of the service information.

Other Information

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aerospace Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive No. 2007-0072R1, dated July 6, 2007 contains related
information.

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Tracking Code

    (l) ATA Code: 2910, Hydraulic System, Main.
    (m) You must use the specified portions of PZL-[Sacute]widnik S.
A. Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-07-192, dated January 12, 2007, and
PZL-[Sacute]widnik S. A. Technical Bulletin No. BT-37-07-196, dated
April 24, 2007 to do the actions required.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact WSK
``PZL-[Sacute]widnik'' S.A., Al. Lotnik[oacute]w Polskich 1, 21-045
[Sacute]widnik, Poland, telephone (+48 81) 468 09 01, 751 20 71, or
fax (+48 81) 468 09 19, 751 21 73, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 7, 2008.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-18805 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62745-62751]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24642]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70637; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-92]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.31, 7.32,
7.37, and 7.38 in Order To Comprehensively Update Rules Related to the
Exchange's Order Types and Modifiers

October 9, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 30, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.31, 7.32,
7.37, and 7.38 in order to comprehensively update rules related to the
Exchange's order types and modifiers. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.31, 7.32,
7.37, and 7.38 \4\ in order to update its rules related to the
Exchange's order types and modifiers. Given the ever complex nature of
equities trading, the Exchange has undertaken a comprehensive review of
its rules related to order functionality to assure that its various
order types, which have been adopted and amended over the years,
accurately describe the functionality associated with those order
types, and more specifically, how different order types may
interact.\5\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes these rule changes in
order to provide additional specificity and transparency to NYSE Arca
Equities ETP Holders regarding the operation of NYSE Arca Equities
order types and modifiers, to better align its rules with currently
available functionality, and to organize and define order types and
modifiers in a more intuitive manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All references to rules in this filing are to the rules of
NYSE Arca Equities.
    \5\ Commission staff has noted the increased complexity of the
equities markets. See Gregg E. Berman, Senior Advisor to the
Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, Market Structure:
What we Know, and What we Need to Know (Sept. 21, 2011) (``This is
because our present market structure is itself the product of
evolutionary advancements in regulations, technologies, products,
venues, news, investor sentiment, and probably even twitter. It is
not a simple mosaic of different actors operating in isolation. The
interdependencies of every participant and every system has led to
an exponential growth in complexity.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make specific rule changes as follows:

Rule 7.31(a)--Market Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(a) to expressly provide
that Market Orders will not trade through the NBBO and that Market
Orders shall be rejected if there is no bid or offer. A Market Order is
an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be
executed at the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO''). Therefore,
Market Orders will not trade through the NBBO, and the Exchange
believes expressly stating as such in its Rules will provide additional
specificity to Users. Additionally, Market Orders will be rejected if
there is no bid or offer because a Market Order cannot be executed
pursuant to the Users expectations--at the NBBO. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate to reject a Market Order when there is no bid or
offer because it assures that an unexecutable order will not be entered
into the Exchange's book.
Rule 7.31(c)--Time in Force Modifiers
    The Exchange proposes to make the following changes with respect to
the description of Time in Force Modifiers:
     The Exchange proposes to describe the functionality found
in Rule 7.31(c) as ``Modifiers,'' and as such, revise the title of Rule
7.31(c) to read ``Time in Force Modifiers.'' Similarly, the Exchange
proposes to revise the names and descriptions of the functionality
described in Rule 7.31(c) to reflect the usage of the term
``Modifiers'' rather than ``Orders.'' The Exchange believes that these
proposed rule changes more clearly describe the function of the time-
in-force instructions, i.e., that they are modifiers that can be used
with order types as opposed to distinct order types.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(c)(1) to clarify
that the Day Modifier cannot be combined with any other Time in Force
Modifier. As is the case today, an order type that is required to
include a Day Modifier cannot also have a Good Till Cancelled
(``GTC''), Good Till Date (``GTD''), Timed, Immediate-or-Cancel
(``IOC''), or Fill-or-Kill (``FOK'') Time in Force Modifier.
     The Exchange proposes to move the description of the Timed
Modifier from its current location in Rule 7.31(q) to become new Rule
7.31(c)(2)(C). The Timed Modifier is used in conjunction with the GTD
Modifier in order to specify an exact time until which a limit order
will remain in effect, after which such order or the portion thereof
not executed is to be treated as cancelled. As such, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to relocate the Timed Modifier to Rule
7.31(c) as a Time in Force Modifier.
     The Exchange proposes to move the description of the IOC
Modifier from its current location in Rule 7.31(e) to become new Rule
7.31(c)(3). The Exchange also proposes to expand the description of the
IOC Modifier in Rule 7.31(c)(3) to provide that the IOC Modifier will
override any posting or routing instructions of orders that include the
IOC Modifier. This rule change makes clear to ETP Holders that Exchange
systems give priority to the IOC Modifier and ignore any other posting
and routing instructions submitted with the order. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to specify that orders designated with an IOC
Modifier never route. Further, the Exchange proposes to delete the
subparagraphs under old Rule 7.31(e) as redundant. The determination as
to what away quotes will not be traded through is based on the order
type and not the IOC designation. Therefore, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate for Users to review the applicable order type
descriptions to determine which away quotes will be respected.
     The Exchange proposes to move the description of the FOK
Modifier from its current location in current Rule 7.31(ll) to become
new Rule 7.31(c)(4). The Exchange believes that the FOK instructions on
an order are a time-in-force condition, and therefore it is more
intuitive to include this modifier with other time in force
descriptions.
     Because the Exchange proposes to define the term ``IOC,''
the Exchange proposes to replace references to the term ``immediate or
cancel'' with the term ``IOC'' in Rules 7.31 and 7.37.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed changes to Rules 7.31(h)(6), (h)(7), (s)(6),
(aa), and 7.37(d)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(d)--Inside Limit Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(d) to specify that an
Inside Limit Order may not be designated as a Discretionary Order and
will not trade through either the NBBO or Protected Quotations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NBBO includes quotes from a market that may not be
automated and therefore would not be a Protected Quotation pursuant
to Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Inside Limit Order is a limit order routed to the market
participant with the best displayed price, and any unfilled portion
will not be routed to the next best price level until all quotes at the
current best bid or offer are exhausted. Once each current best bid or
offer is exhausted, Exchange systems reevaluate the next best displayed
price and route to that single price point and continue such assessment
at each new best displayed price level until the Inside Limit Order is
filled or no longer marketable. An Inside Limit Order is marketable
when priced to buy (sell) at or above (below) the NBBO for the
security. Therefore, the Inside Limit Order's functionality relies on a
single-price to determine when it is no longer marketable. A
Discretionary Order, however, is an order with two prices: a specified,
undisplayed price and a specified, displayed price. The Exchange
believes that it could cause confusion if Discretionary Orders were
combined with Inside Limit Orders because Users might not know whether
it is the limit price or the discretionary price which determines when
the Inside Limit Order is no longer marketable. Therefore, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to reject Discretionary Orders when combined
with Inside Limit Orders to reduce confusion, thus prohibiting an order
combination which could result in an execution at odds with the
expectations of a User.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
specify that Inside Limit Orders will not trade through either the NBBO
or Protected Quotations. Inside Limit Orders are designed to execute
against the best displayed price level, whether or not quotes at such
level are automatic or manual. As such, Inside Limit Orders will
respect the NBBO and Protected Quotations, routing to away markets as
necessary.
Rule 7.31(h)(2)--Discretionary Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(2) to specify that
Discretionary Orders designated IOC and sell short Discretionary Orders
shall be rejected.
    Similar to why a Discretionary Order and an Inside Limit Order
cannot be combined, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject a
Discretionary Order designated IOC in order to reduce confusion
regarding whether the order's functionality is based on the limit price
or the discretionary price. A limit order designated IOC will execute
in whole or in part as soon as such order is received at prices better
than its limit price; adding a discretionary price only serves to add
confusion as to whether the IOC will execute at prices better than its
limit price or at prices better than its discretionary price. As such,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject Discretionary Orders
designated IOC, thus prohibiting an order combination which could
result in an execution at odds with the expectations of a User.
    Additionally, Exchange systems currently do not accept sell short

Discretionary Orders because of the complexity of offering such
functionality, and the Exchange believes that it will provide
transparency in its rules to specify that such orders will be rejected.
Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A)--Passive Discretionary Order
    A previous rule change filed with the Commission inadvertently
deleted portions of the definition of a Passive Discretionary Order.\8\
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A) to correct the
inadvertent deletion and to provide that a Passive Discretionary Order
will route to an away market if marketable upon entry. Additionally,
the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A)(i) as there no
longer is a distinction in how Passive Discretionary Orders are treated
between Exchange-listed and non-Exchange-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63584 (Dec. 21,
2010), 75 FR 81685 (Dec. 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B)--Discretion Limit Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B) to insert
language that was inadvertently deleted by a filing previously made
with the Commission to provide that a Discretionary Order may be
designated as a Discretion Limit Order.\9\ The inserted language
conforms the first sentence of Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B) with the first
sentence of Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A), which describes a Passive Discretionary
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(h)(3)--Reserve Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(3) to specify that
Reserve Orders cannot be combined with an order type that could never
be displayed on the Corporation and must be in round lots. A Reserve
Order is a limit order with a portion of the size displayed and with a
reserve portion of the size (``reserve size'') that is not displayed on
the Corporation. Therefore, the description of a Reserve Order
contemplates a displayed portion. If an order type is never displayed
on the Corporation, then it will not have the displayed portion
required by the Reserve Order description. As a result, such order
types are incompatible with a Reserve Order, and their combination with
a Reserve Order is rejected. Additionally, because of its original
design, Exchange systems currently do not accept Reserve Orders not
entered in round lots, and the Exchange believes that it will provide
transparency in its rules to specify that Reserve Orders not entered in
round lots would be rejected.
Rule 7.31(h)(4)--Passive Liquidity Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(4) to specify that
Passive Liquidity (``PL'') Orders must be designated as Inside Limit
Orders. Exchange systems require that a PL Order must be designated as
an Inside Limit Order or it will be rejected. A PL Order is entered by
ETP Holders into Exchange systems by using two order tags, one for the
order type and one for an execution instruction. The order type tag for
PL Orders is the same as that for an Inside Limit Order. The execution
instruction tag is one specifically for PL Orders. If the execution
instruction tag specifically for PL Orders is not combined with an
Inside Limit Order, then Exchange systems reject such an order. Thus,
the combination is required to ensure proper entry of a PL Order, and
the rule change is meant to add transparency to the order entry
process. With the order entry for PL Orders designed in this manner,
the combination of PL Orders with Inside Limit Orders permits PL Orders
to respect not only protected quotations, but also manual quotations in
its functionality.\10\ A PL Order is designed to permit passive
interaction with incoming orders; thus, the Exchange believes that
respecting manual quotations, in addition to protected quotations, is
consistent with the passive nature of a PL Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Inside Limit Order is defined as ``[a] Limit Order, if
routed away pursuant to Rule 7.37(d), will be routed to the market
participant with the best displayed price.'' See Rule 7.31(d)
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(4) to
specify that PL Orders designated IOC shall be rejected. The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to reject a PL Order designated IOC because
an IOC designation would be inconsistent with the nature of a PL Order.
A PL Order is designed to permit passive interaction with incoming
orders; however, an IOC designation is seeking immediately available
liquidity and then cancelling. As a result, the combination is
incompatible and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject a PL
Order designated IOC.
Rule 7.31(h)(5)--Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order (``MPL Order'')
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(5) to clarify that MPL
Orders entered without a limit price shall be rejected. MPL Orders are
limit orders and therefore must be entered with a limit price. If a
User fails to include a limit price with its MPL Order, the MPL Order
will be rejected.
    Additionally, in order to use consistent language in its rules, the
Exchange proposes to change language referring to a ``No Midpoint
Execution'' designator in the MPL Order description to a ``No Midpoint
Execution'' Modifier.
Rule 7.31(i)--Directed Order; Rule 7.31(j)--Directed Fill
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 7.31(i) and (j), as the
Directed Order and Directed Fill are order types no longer available to
Users on Exchange systems and thus should be removed from the rule. The
Exchange also proposes to eliminate references in other rules to
Directed Orders and Directed Fills.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.31(h)(4), (v), (w);
7.38(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(k)--Q Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(k)(4) to clarify that, in
addition to being rejected when designated as an Intermarket Sweep
Order, a Q Order will be rejected if it is marketable or is an odd lot.
Both of these rejections reflect the fact that Q Orders are designed to
be used by Market Makers to satisfy their obligation to maintain
continuous, two-sided interest in securities in which they are
registered to trade. As such, Q Orders are meant to act as a means to
post quotes, and trades are to occur against them. Therefore, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject Q Orders that are
marketable upon entry since such orders would be taking liquidity
rather than providing liquidity. Additionally, a Market Maker's
obligation to maintain continuous, two-sided interest requires that the
interest ``shall have a displayed size of at least one normal unit of
trading (or a larger multiple thereof).'' \12\ In order to satisfy this
requirement, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject Q Orders
that do not have a displayed size of at least one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.23(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(n)--Do Not Reduce; Rule 7.31(o)--Do Not Increase
    For consistency, the Exchange proposes to describe the ``Do Not
Reduce'' and ``Do Not Increase'' functionality as ``Modifiers'' rather
than ``orders.'' The Exchange believes that the use of the term
``Modifier'' more accurately describes the functionality, since these
modifiers can be added to any order type.

Rule 7.31(p)--Fill-or-Return; Rule 7.31(r)--Fill-or-Return Plus
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 7.31 (p) and (r), as the
Fill-or-Return Order and Fill-or-Return Plus Order are order types not
available to Users on Exchange systems and thus should be removed from
the rule. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate references in other
rules to the Fill-or-Return or Fill-or-Return Plus functionality.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.32; 7.37(d)(1)-(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(t)--Auction-Only Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(t) to specify that, in
addition to being incompatible with a GTC designation, an Auction-Only
order cannot be designated as a discretionary order. A Discretionary
Order is an order with a specified, undisplayed price, in addition to a
specified, displayed price. Thus, a Discretionary Order contains two
different prices. The Exchange believes permitting a Discretionary
Order to combine with an Auction-Only order may cause confusion
regarding the price at which the order would participate in the auction
process. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject
such a combination, thus prohibiting an order combination which could
result in an execution at odds with the expectations of a User.
    The Exchange also proposes to move the descriptions of a Market-on-
Close Order (``MOC'') and a Limit-on-Close Order (``LOC'') from their
current locations in Rules 7.31(dd) and (ee), respectively, to new
subparagraphs (3) and (4), respectively, of Rule 7.31(t). The Exchange
believes that because MOC and LOC Orders are a form of Auction-only
Orders, it is more logical to include these order types with other
Auction-only order types. The Exchange also proposes to amend the
descriptions of MOC and LOC Orders to conform them to the descriptions
of Limit-on-Open and Market-on-Open Orders.
Rule 7.31(u)--Cleanup Order
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(u), as Cleanup Orders are
not available to Users on Exchange systems and thus should be removed
from the rule.
Rule 7.31(v)--NOW Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(v) to specify that
combining a NOW Order with another order type will override the posting
or routing instructions of the order with which it is combined. This
rule change makes clear to ETP Holders that Exchange systems give
priority to the NOW Order and ignore any other posting and routing
instructions submitted with the order.
    In order to conform its rule set, the Exchange also proposes to
amend the description of a NOW Order such that it is described as a
``Limit Order'' rather than a ``Limited Price Order.''
Rule 7.31(x)--Primary Only (``PO'') Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(x) to specify that, in
addition to being incompatible with a GTC designation, a PO Order
cannot be designated as a Reserve Order. A Reserve Order is a limit
order with a portion of the size displayed, and with a reserve portion
of the size that is not displayed, on the Exchange. Therefore, the
Reserve Order's functionality is dependent on being on the Exchange. A
PO Order, however, is a market or limit order that is routed to the
primary market and will never have a size displayed on the Exchange. As
a result, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to specify that a PO
Order may not be combined with a Reserve Order because the two orders
are incompatible.
Rule 7.31(z)--Midpoint Directed Fill
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(z), as Midpoint Directed
Fills are not available to Users on Exchange systems and thus should be
removed from the rule.
Rule 7.31(cc)--Pegged Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(cc) to specify that Pegged
Orders may be entered only during the Core Trading Session.
Additionally, the Exchange is clarifying that Pegged Orders will be
rejected where an NBBO does not exist at time of entry or where the
Pegged Order is to sell short during a Short Sale Period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 7.16(f)(ii) provides that Exchange systems ``shall not
execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered
security at a price that is less than or equal to the current
national best bid if the price of that security decreases by 10% or
more . . . .'' Once triggered, this Short Sale Price Test, pursuant
to Rule 7.16(f)(iv), will remain in effect until the close of
trading on the next trading day (the ``Short Sale Period'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject a Pegged Order
where an NBBO does not exist because Pegged Orders are limit orders to
buy or sell at a displayed price set to track the current bid or ask of
the NBBO. If no NBBO exists, then a Pegged Order cannot function
properly. Further, because a Pegged Order is rejected where an NBBO
does not exist, Exchange systems will reject a Pegged Order entered
outside of the Core Trading Session. Additionally, Exchange systems
reject a sell short Pegged Order during a Short Sale Period because of
the complexity of offering such functionality, and the Exchange
believes it will provide clarity to ETP Holders to specify that such
orders are rejected.
    The Exchange also proposes to add subparagraphs (1) and (2) to Rule
7.31(cc) to specifically describe the two variations of Pegged Orders
available to Users: Market Pegged and Primary Pegged. A Market Pegged
Order is a buy order that is pegged to the National Best Offer or a
sell order that is pegged to the National Best Bid. Because a Market
Pegged Order is tracking the contra-side NBB or NBO, an offset value is
required to avoid locking the market. A Primary Pegged Order is a buy
order that is pegged to the NBB or a sell order that is pegged to the
NBO. An offset value is permitted, but not required, on a Primary
Pegged Order. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule
7.31(cc) to clarify that the offset value for Pegged Orders may be
specified up to two decimals. The Exchange notes that the Primary and
Market Pegged Orders are not new or novel, and the proposed revisions
to the Exchange rule are consistent with the operation of pegging
functionality at other markets.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(4); BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8); NYSE Rule
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.31(gg)--Don't Arb Me Modifier
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(gg), as the Don't Arb Me
Modifier is not available to Users on Exchange systems and thus should
be removed from the rule.
Rule 7.31(hh)--Proactive if Locked Modifier
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(hh) to clarify that the
Proactive if Locked Modifier may be used in conjunction with order
types other than Reserve Orders. Under current Rule 7.31(hh), the
Proactive if Locked Modifier is described as a Proactive if Locked
Reserve Order, and its description is tailored to the modifier's
combination with a Reserve Order. The Exchange proposes to amend the
description to make clear that the Proactive if Locked Modifier is not
limited to use with only a Reserve Order, and may be combined with a
limit order to cause the limit order to be routed to another market
center in instances where the other market center has locked the order
and the locking market has not resolved the locked market situation in
a timely manner.

Rule 7.31(jj)--Intermarket Sweep Order (``ISO'')
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(jj) to clarify that an ISO
is never routed to an away market and may trade through a Protected
Quotation. Although the Exchange's reference to the requirements of
Regulation NMS provides Users with sufficient information to understand
the ISO functionality, the Exchange believes that the amended language
will provide additional clarity to Users.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(jj) to
clarify that when designated ISO, an order will not be rejected or
cancelled even though it would lock, cross, or be marketable against an
away market. Several Exchange order types will be rejected or cancelled
if they were to lock, cross, or be marketable against an away market;
however, marking such orders as ISOs will cause the combination to be
accepted by Exchange systems. The restriction against locking,
crossing, or being marketable against away markets, and thus rejecting
the order, generally relates to the fact that such orders would be
violating the restrictions found in Regulation NMS as locking,
crossing, or trading through Protected Quotations. Because the ISO
designation signifies that the User is complying with SEC Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS with respect to ISOs--routing ISOs to better-priced
Protected Quotations for the full displayed size--the concerns are no
longer applicable, and therefore, the Exchange will not cancel or
reject such orders when designated ISO.
Rule 7.31(kk)--Primary Sweep Order (``PSO'')
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(kk) to update the
description of PSOs. Currently, Rule 7.31(kk)(1) describes the process
by which PSOs are routed to NYSE; however, such process is also
applicable to PSOs routed to NYSE MKT. As such, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 7.31(kk)(1) to include NYSE MKT.
Rule 7.31(mm)--Post No Preference Blind (``PNPB'')
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(mm) to clarify that a PNPB
Order is an PNP Order that is placed undisplayed on the NYSE Arca book
at the price of the contra-quote of the PBBO if the order would lock or
cross a protected quotation. The current rule text references the term
``displayed,'' however, that term is intended to modify the Protected
Best Bid or Protected Best Offer. The Exchange proposes to amend the
rule text to make clear that a PNPB order is undisplayed if it is
priced at or through the PBBO. The proposed rule change does not change
the functionality of the PNPB Order.
    The Exchange proposes to further amend Rule 7.31(mm) to clarify
that a PNPB Order combined with an Add Liquidity Only (``ALO'') Order
will not be cancelled if it is marketable against the PBBO. Currently,
Rule 7.31(nn)(1) states that an ALO Order will be rejected where, at
time of entry, the ALO Order is marketable. This restriction is
designed to prevent (1) the order from locking or crossing an away
quote and (2) the order from taking liquidity rather than being a
provider of liquidity. However, an ALO Order, when combined with a PNPB
Order will not be rejected when it is marketable against the NBBO. An
ALO Order that is combined with a PNPB Order may be marketable against
the NBBO upon arrival. However, pursuant to the order instructions
associated with a PNPB Order, if the PNPB ALO Order is marketable
against the PBBO, it is placed undisplayed in the NYSE Arca book and
therefore would not lock or cross an away quote. Additionally, because
the order is undisplayed, it can rest in Exchange systems as a
liquidity provider, despite being marketable against away quotes. A
PNPB ALO Order would still be rejected if it would be marketable
against liquidity resting in Exchange systems.
Rule 7.31(nn)--ALO Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(nn) to clarify that an ALO
Order must be designated as either a PNP or MPL Order. The Exchange
notes that the reference to PNP Orders includes all types of PNP
Orders, including PNPB Orders. An ALO Order is a limit order that is
accepted and placed in the NYSE Arca book only where the order adds
liquidity. ALO Orders do not route to away market centers. Such
functionality is accomplished by designating the ALO Order as a PNP
Order. As described in Rule 7.31(w), a PNP Order is a limit order to
buy or sell that is to be executed in whole or part on the Corporation,
without routing any portion of the order to another market center. An
ALO Order can also be designated as an MPL Order, an order type
combination whose functionality has previously been described by the
Exchange.\16\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the rule language
stating that an ALO Order may not be designated as GTC. Because an ALO
Order must be designated with a Day Modifier and no other Time in Force
Modifiers may be combined with the Day Modifier, the Exchange believes
that it is unnecessary to also state that an ALO may not be designated
as GTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67652 (Aug. 14,
2012), 77 FR 50189 (Aug. 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.31(nn)(3) to explicitly
provide that an MPL-ALO Order may lock another MPL or MPL-ALO Order and
not be rejected. Currently, Rule 7.31(nn)(3) states that ``ALO Orders
will ignore MPL Orders and proceed to be placed in the NYSE Arca Book .
. . .'' For clarity, the Exchange is amending this provision to state
that an ALO Order, designated as MPL and therefore undisplayed, will be
accepted even if it is at the same price level as a contra-side MPL or
MPL-ALO Order.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A User may designate an MPL or MPL-ALO Order as eligible to
interact with an arriving marketable MPL-ALO Order. If so
designated, the two orders will execute and the arriving marketable
MPL-ALO will be designated as the liquidity provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplementary Material .01--Order Type and Modifier Combination
    The Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .01 to Rule
7.31 in order to provide guidance to Users as to the possible order
type combinations available and how to interpret Rule 7.31 to aid in
determining what order type combinations will be accepted.
Specifically, Supplementary Material .01 will provide the general
proposition that, unless the terms of a proposed combination are
inconsistent, Users are generally able to combine order types and
modifiers. Additionally, the explicit rules that the Exchange has
developed to aid Users are meant to provide guidance, but not provide
an exhaustive list, of the permissible and impermissible order type and
modifier combinations.
    Given the number of order types and modifiers, the number of
potential order type and modifier combinations is too numerous to
effectively describe every possible combination without producing an
unwieldy rule. The revisions appearing in this proposed rule change are
meant to provide additional clarity as to combinations NYSE Arca
reasonably believes that Users, in practice, enter. In addition,
Supplementary Material .01 is designed to provide Users with the
general rule for deciding when order types and modifiers may be
combined.
Supplementary Material .02--Incoming/Resting Functionality
    The Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .02 to Rule
7.31

to provide additional guidance to Users as to certain order type
combinations. Specifically, Supplementary Material .02 will provide
that if two order types are combined that include instructions for
operation on arrival and for how the order operates while resting on
the Exchange's book, the instructions governing functionality while
incoming will be operative upon arrival. Further, functionality
governing how the order operates while resting on the Exchange's book
will govern any remaining balance of the order that is not executed
upon arrival. While such functionality may be intuitive, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to explicitly state such functionality in
order to ensure that its rules are clear and properly interpreted by
Users.
Rule 7.32--Order Entry
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.32 to specify that orders
with a size greater than one million shares shall be rejected. Exchange
systems currently do not accept orders with a size greater than one
million shares, and the Exchange believes that it will provide
transparency in its rules to specify that orders with a size greater
than one million shares would be rejected.
Rule 7.38--Odd and Mixed Lots
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38(a)(2) to clarify that
specific language in the descriptions of individual order types
override the general rule that mixed lot orders may be any order type
supported by the Exchange. Rule 7.38(a)(2) currently provides that
mixed lot orders submitted by Users to the NYSE Arca Marketplace may be
any order type supported by the NYSE Arca Marketplace. The Exchange
believes explicitly stating that specific language in the individual
order types is controlling will provide guidance to those Users who may
be confused by the broad language in Rule 7.38(a)(2).
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to make technical amendments to various
provisions in Rules 7.31 and 7.37. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to conform its usage of abbreviations such that common abbreviations
for order types and modifiers will be inserted throughout Rules 7.31
and 7.37 where appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \18\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\19\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities because the specificity, transparency, and
more intuitive descriptions and organization will assist regulators to
understand how the affected order types and modifiers are being used by
market participants. As such, the proposed rule change will help
regulators in the identification of any potential misuse by market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system because, by providing specificity and
transparency, the proposed rule change will provide greater clarity
with respect to the use and potential use of the functionality. With
greater clarity regarding what a specific order type or modifier does
and its proper use, greater competitive forces can be brought to bear
on, and help to foster the proper functioning of, the market.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will protect
investors and the public interest. The increased transparency and
specificity resulting from the proposed rule change will enable
investors and the public to understand the tools available to the
agents handling their orders as well as those available to professional
market participants who may be competing with their orders.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. By enhancing transparency, specificity, and
clarity, the proposed rule change will reduce any potentially
discriminatory or unfair use of Exchange functionality. By providing
the functionality, making it available to the public, and providing
clear explanations to help facilitate a complete understanding of the
functionality, the proposed rule change will reduce any discriminatory
or unfair use by a subset of the market.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change will increase competition between market
participants by providing greater transparency and specificity to
market participants who may wish to take advantage of the functionality
offered by the Exchange. The greater transparency and specificity will
allow market participants to utilize the tools made available by the
Exchange to accomplish their trading strategies and investment goals in
an efficient manner. An increase in the knowledge of market
participants regarding the functionality offered by the Exchange can
only serve to improve the competition in the marketplace by creating a
more transparent trading environment.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-92 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-92. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-92 and should
be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24642 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85560-85561]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28517]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0078; FRL-9955-34-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
Annual Measures Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program Annual Measures Reporting'' (EPA ICR No. 2415.03,
OMB Control No. 2070-0188) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through November 30, 2016. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 15105) on
March 21, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2016-0078, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily G. Negash, Office of Pesticide
Programs,

Field & External Affairs Division, 7605P, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number
for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about
EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA is requesting renewed approval to offer voluntary
participation in the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP). The program uses the information collected to establish partner
membership, develop stewardship strategies, measure progress towards
stewardship goals, and award incentives. PESP is an EPA partnership
program that encourages the use of integrated pest management (IPM)
strategies to reduce pests and pesticide risks. IPM is an approach that
involves making the best choices from among a series of pest management
practices that are both economical and pose the least possible hazard
to people, property, and the environment.
    While most PESP members are entities that are pesticide end-users,
several others are organizations which focus on training, educating, or
influencing pesticide users. To become a PESP member, a pesticide user
entity or an organization submits an application and a five-year
strategy. The strategy outlines how environmental and human health risk
reduction goals will be achieved through IPM implementation or
education. The program encourages PESP members to track progress
towards IPM goals such as: Reductions in unnecessary use of pesticides,
cost reductions, and knowledge shared about IPM methodologies. Entities
participating in PESP also benefit from technical assistance, and
through incentives for achievements at different levels.
    PESP is EPA's non-regulatory approach to meeting the goals of the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to
reduce pesticide risks in agricultural and non-agricultural settings.
Section 2(b) of the PPA of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101(b), sets forth ``the
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented
or reduced at the source whenever feasible.'' Section 3 defines source
reduction as any practice that ``reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance . . . released into the environment'' and ``reduces the
hazards to public health and the environment associated with the
release of such substances.''
    Section 3 of FIFRA requires EPA to regulate pesticides to prevent
``unreasonable adverse effects'' on human health and the environment.
Further, FQPA of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136r-1) requires the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and EPA to implement programs in research, demonstration,
and education to support the adoption of IPM, make information on IPM
widely available to pesticide users, use IPM techniques in carrying out
pest management activities, as well as promote IPM through procurement,
regulatory policies and other activities.
    Form Numbers: Strategy/Progress Reporting Form for PESP Members
that are Not Commercial/Residential Pest Control Services (EPA Form No.
9600-01); PESP Membership Application Form (EPA Form 9600-02); and PESP
Strategy/Progress Reporting Form for Residential/Commercial Pest
Control Service Providers (EPA Form No. 9600-03).
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are pesticide user companies and organizations, or entities
that practice IPM or promote the use of IPM through education and
training.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain
or retain a benefit.
    Estimated number of respondents: 419 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually and on occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 47,665 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,126,949 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 4,642 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is an adjustment of EPA's projection
based on historical information about PESP membership.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-28517 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P