[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27259-27261]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88793; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2020-13, SR-NYSENAT-2020-09,
SR-NYSEArca-2020-17, SR-NYSEAMER-2020-12; SR-NYSECHX-2020-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
National, Inc.; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; NYSE Chicago, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Repricing
of Depth-of-Book Orders in Response to a Locked or Crossed Market

May 1, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 28, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), and NYSE Chicago Inc. (``NYSE
CHX'', and collectively, the ``Exchanges'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes regarding their rules on the re-
pricing of orders in certain market situations and related rules
relevant to each Exchange. The proposed rule changes were published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 18, 2020.\3\ The Commission
has received no comments on the proposed rule changes. The Commission
is approving the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88362 (March 12,
2020), 85 FR 15538 (SR-NYSE-2020-13) (``NYSE Notice''); 88368 (March
12, 2020), 85 FR 15510 (SR-NYSENAT-2020-09); 88369 (March 12, 2020),
85 FR 15515 (SR-NYSEArca-2020-17) (``NYSE Arca Notice''); 88363
(March 12, 2020), 85 FR 15544 (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-12) (``NYSE American
Notice''); 88367 (March 12, 2020), 85 FR 15551 (SR-NYSECHX-2020-06)
(collectively, the ``Notices''). For ease of reference, page
citations in this order are from the NYSE Notice, as published in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Each Exchange's current rules provide that, if an away market
(``Away Market'') updates its Protected Best Bid and Offer (``PBBO'')
and crosses not only the BBO of the Exchange, but also displayed orders
in the Exchange's Book not represented in the Best Bid or Offer
(``BBO''), (i.e., depth-of-book orders), and then the Exchange's BBO
cancels or trades, the Exchange will not disseminate its next-best
priced depth-of-book order as its new BBO to the securities information
processor (``SIP''). Instead, the Exchange will reprice such order
before it is disseminated to the SIP.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Notice, 85 FR at 15538-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, consider a scenario where NYSE's Best Bid (``BB'') is
$10.05, and on the NYSE Book there is an order to buy 100 shares ranked
as a Priority 2--Display Order at $10.04 (``Order A''). Currently,
Order A is displayed in the NYSE's proprietary depth-of-book market
data at that $10.04 price, but is not disseminated to the SIP. If an
Away Market subsequently publishes a Protected Best Offer (``PBO'') of
$10.03, NYSE's BB of $10.05 will not reprice (i.e., it will ``stand its
ground''). However, if that $10.05 BB trades, cancels, or routes, NYSE
will not disseminate Order A to the SIP as the new BB at $10.04.
Instead, Order A will be assigned a display price of $10.02 and a NYSE
working price of $10.03, which is equal to the Away Market PBO, and
will be disseminated to the SIP as the NYSE BB at $10.02. Order A
subsequently will be repriced to $10.04 once the Away Market PBO no
longer locks or crosses the NYSE BB. Each time Order A is repriced,
including back to its original price, it is assigned a new working
time. In addition, NYSE currently applies this repricing functionality
to other order types (specifically, D Orders and Primary Pegged
Orders), and following an auction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. The rules of the other Exchanges do not provide for
D Orders, but, except for NYSE American, they do provide for Primary
Pegged Orders and apply the same repricing functionality to those
orders. Similarly, the other Exchanges that provide for auctions on
their markets (NYSE American and NYSE Arca) apply the same repricing
functionality following an auction; NYSE CHX and NYSE National do
not have auctions on their markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to eliminate their existing rules requiring
the repricing functionality described above, and to add new rule text
that provides that, if an Away Market locks or crosses the BBO, the
Exchange would not change the display price of any Limit

Order ranked Priority 2--Display Orders (which would include previously
displayed depth-of-book orders) and that any such orders would be
eligible to be disseminated as the Exchange's BBO.\6\ As a result, in
the example set forth above, Order A instead would not be repriced
before being displayed and disseminated to the SIP following the prior
Exchange BB being executed or cancelled.\7\ Accordingly, Order A would
be disseminated to the SIP as the Exchange's new BB at $10.04, even if
that price would cross the Away Market Protected Bid of $10.03.\8\ The
Exchanges also propose other changes to their rules related to this
proposal, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Notice, 85 FR at 15540.
    \7\ Because such resting orders no longer would be repriced if
locked or crossed by an Away Market, such orders would not need to
be assigned new working times and would therefore retain priority at
their original price. See id.
    \8\ The Exchanges also propose that Primary Pegged Orders and D
Orders (where applicable, as noted in supra note 5) not be subject
to the repricing functionality, but propose instead that such orders
be eligible to trade at their current working price; however, they
would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before the
display and working price of those orders are adjusted. See NYSE
Notice, 85 FR at 15540-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd-Lot Orders

    The Exchanges propose to extend the same processing of orders,
discussed above, to odd-lot orders. Currently, the working and display
prices of odd-lot orders are bound by the PBBO, which means that
resting odd-lot orders can be repriced if the PBBO changes or becomes
locked or crossed. Under the proposals, odd-lot sized orders would be
priced in the same manner as orders of a round-lot size or higher.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Notice, 85 FR at 15542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserve Orders

    The Exchanges also propose several related changes for the
processing of Reserve Orders. First, in a scenario when the PBBO is
crossed and the display quantity of a resting, non-routable Reserve
Order is decremented to an odd-lot size, the Exchanges propose that the
display price and working price of the remaining odd-lot quantity of
the Reserve Order would not change.\10\ The Exchanges state that this
proposed change is consistent with the above-described changes
establishing how resting, displayed orders, including odd-lot sized
orders, will be disseminated to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchanges propose this change only for non-routable
Reserve Orders, stating that it is not necessary for routable
Reserve Orders because when such orders replenish, the replenish
quantity is evaluated for routing to Away Markets (i.e., it would be
routed) and thus would not be displayed at a price that crosses an
Away Market. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Exchanges propose that the reserve interest that
replenishes the display quantity (which interest was not previously
displayed) would be assigned a display price one MPV below (above) the
PBO (PBB) and a working price equal to the PBO (PBB). Because this is
the first time such interest would be displayed, the Exchanges propose
to adjust the display and working price so that the replenished
quantity would not lock or cross the Away Market, which is the same
manner in which an arriving Non-Routable Limit Order is priced.\11\
Similarly, the Exchanges propose that the working price of the reserve
interest of resting Reserve Orders that are not displayed be adjusted
in the same manner that the working price of Non-Displayed Limit Orders
are adjusted.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 7.31(e)(1) (describing how an arriving
Non-Routable Limit Order is priced).
    \12\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(2)(A) (describing how the
working price of a Non-Displayed Limit Orders is adjusted). If the
limit price of a Non-Displayed Limit Order to buy (sell) is at or
below (above) the PBO (PBB), it will have a working price equal to
the limit price. If the limit price of a Non-Displayed Limit Order
to buy (sell) is above (below) the PBO (PBB), it will have a working
price equal to the PBO (PBB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading After UTP Regulatory Halts or Auctions

    Finally, the Exchanges propose changes to their order processing
rules following UTP Regulatory Halts or auctions, if the PBBO becomes
locked or crossed, as described in further detail below.
    Specifically, when transitioning to continuous trading following a
UTP Regulatory Halt, the Exchanges' proposals provide that before
publishing a quote, previously-entered orders would be routed (if
routable) or cancelled (if non-routable) if such orders would be
marketable against protected quotations on Away Markets.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Notice, 85 FR at 15541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When transitioning to continuous trading following an auction on
NYSE--and, on NYSE American and NYSE Arca, following specifically an
auction not preceded by continuous trading \14\--before publishing a
quote, these Exchanges would also route (if routable), or cancel (if
not routable), any orders that are marketable against a PBBO on an Away
Market (except for Primary Pegged Orders on NYSE and NYSE Arca, D
Orders on NYSE, and, during a Short Sale Price Test, sell short orders
on all three exchanges). Then, the Exchanges would (i) trade any orders
that are marketable against any other orders on their book; (ii)
replenish the display quantity of any Reserve Orders, (iii) assign
Primary Pegged and D Orders (for those Exchanges, where applicable) a
display and working price as noted above, provided that if the PBBO is
locked or crossed or if there is no PBBO to peg to, they would be
cancelled; and (iv) price any sell short orders (for the Exchanges,
where applicable) to a Permitted Price.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Such auctions include a Trading Halt Auction, a Closing
Auction if not preceded by continuous trading, and an IPO Auction on
NYSE American. With respect to auctions preceded by continuous
trading on NYSE American and NYSE Arca, see next paragraph.
    \15\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 7.16(f)(5) (describing the Permitted
Price for sell short orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On NYSE American and NYSE Arca, to specify how orders would be
processed before publishing a quote when transitioning from a prior
trading session or following the Core Open or Closing Auction, which
are transitions preceded by continuous trading and where the exchange
has a published quote immediately preceding the transition, these
Exchanges propose that those displayed orders are eligible be
disseminated to the SIP at their then-current price.\16\ These
Exchanges state that this proposed change is consistent with the other
proposed changes, described above, about how orders will be
disseminated to the SIP even if crossed by an Away Market.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ To effect this change, NYSE American proposes to amend Rule
7.35E(h)(3)(A)(i)--its provision governing transitioning from a
prior trading session or following the Early Open Auction, Core Open
Auction, or Closing Auction--by specifying that it applies only to
such auctions if preceded by continuous trading, and deleting its
last clause, which provides that, if the new published quote is
worse than the previously-published quote and would lock or cross
the PBBO, the display price of Limit Orders will be adjusted in
accordance with the rule describing the repricing functionality that
is proposed to be deleted. NYSE Arca proposes to make the equivalent
amendment to its Rule 7.35-E(h)(3)(A)(i). NYSE American and NYSE
Arca also propose a non-substantive change to their respective
definitions of ``previously-live orders''.
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 15518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with these proposed
rule changes, the Exchanges propose to announce the implementation date
of the proposed rule changes by Trader Update and to implement these
changes in Spring 2020.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule changes, the
Commission finds that the Exchanges' proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges. In
particular, the Commission finds that

the Exchanges' proposed rule changes are consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchanges state that their proposed rule changes will make
their rules consistent with the rules and functionalities of other
exchanges.\19\ Accordingly, the proposals remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination to the extent that they promote
consistency among the rules of the equity exchanges regarding how
orders are priced, processed, and disseminated to the SIP. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Notice, 85 FR at 15543. See also IEX Rules
11.190(h)(3)(A)(i) and (h)(3)(B)(i), and LTSE Rules
11.190(g)(3)(A)(i) and (g)(3)(B)(i).
    \20\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2020-13, SR-NYSENAT-
2020-09, SR-NYSEArca-2020-17, SR-NYSEAMER-2020-12; and SR-NYSECHX-2020-
06) be, and hereby are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09711 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The following information is provided to OSHA as a result of an agency
request to MACOSH for information on electrical arc flash hazards
including safety abatement methods and case histories. The following
information in full or part is intended to be used in a SHIPS (Safety
and Health Injury Prevention Sheets) document on maritime electrical
safety.

Submitted by MACOSH on July 14, 2010

Arc Flash

Electrical shock is not the only hazard associated with working on
energized equipment or circuits. Even though electric shock may be the
most recognized hazard among workers, arc flash can cause serious burns
and even death. Arc flash and arc blast are two hazards that are
generated when what is commonly referred to as an electrical explosion
occurs. There are several causes for electrical explosions. Among them
are:

A short (the inadvertent connection between two or more conductors such
as a wrench falling across the buss work in an energized panel)

A fault (the inadvertent connection between an energized conductor and
ground)

Making or breaking a connection under a load condition (such as hooking
up shore power with energized shore power leads while the main
switchboard breakers are in the on or closed position).

The flash is generated by an arc or flashover. The temperature of the
arc can exceed 35,000° F. This is four times hotter than the surface of
the sun. No material on earth can survive this temperature. In fact, not
only do materials melt at this temperature, they vaporize.

Water expands 1,670 times when it vaporizes to become steam. Steam is
well known as a very powerful energy source. Copper expands 67,000 times
as it vaporizes. This vaporization happens instantly during an arc flash
event. Other examples of a solid instantly vaporizing are explosives
such as gun powder or C4. This is where the term “Electrical
Explosion” comes from. This explosion results from the expulsion of
near-vaporized droplets of molten metal from the arc. It also generates
plasma (ionized vapor) outward from the arc for distances proportional
to the arc energy and can create extreme pressures that can actually
knock a person across the room. The magnitude of the explosion is
determined by several factors such as voltage and duration (the amount
of time it takes for the circuit breaker or fuse to clear the circuit).
It is actually possible to generate a greater arc flash at 480 volts
than with higher voltages.

The magnitude of an arc flash is measured in calories per square
centimeter (cm). One calorie is equivalent to the flame of a butane
lighter exposed to one square centimeter the skin for one second.
However, 100 of those flames exposed to 100 square centimeters
(approximately 4”x4”) for one second is still just one calorie. When
you take into account the entire front of a person’s torso, we are
then talking about over 1,000 of those flames. Unfortunately, very few
arc flash events are rated at just one calorie. Flammable clothing is
instantly ignited and the person is dazed, temporarily blinded by the
bright flash, or knocked unconscious by the arc blast. Therefore not
even realizing they are on fire. This greatly worsens the extent of the
injury. Clothing made with synthetic fabric can become permanently
bonded to the skin through burning and melting of the material.

The most effective way to protect from the hazards of electric arc flash
is to de-energize electrical systems utilizing compliant (1910.147,
1910.333, 1915.181) lockout/tag out procedure and verifying the
de-energized condition with approved test instruments.   Until the
de-energized condition is verified or when work must be performed
energized, the appropriate PPE must be utilized.

Selecting protective equipment for electric arc flash protection while
simple in concept is a complex process, several references can aid in
the selection of the proper equipment.  NFPA 70E, Electrical Safety in
the Workplaces should be consulted to assist in the calculations to
determine if an arc flash hazard is present for a given electrical
circuit  and the selection of PPE necessary to protect against the
hazard.

Properly worn and maintained Fire Resistant (FR) Clothing can be
instrumental in reducing the extent of injury during an arc flash event.
For proper maintenance of FR Clothing, see the manufacturer’s
instructions. There is FR clothing specifically designed for protection
from arc flash. FR rated face shields and gloves can greatly enhance the
protection provided by the FR clothing. DO NOT USE STANDARD PLASTIC FACE
SHIELDS! They will burn and melt causing greater injury. In some cases,
it would be best to utilize a flash suit, which will provide even
greater protection. The tremendous pressure and noise created during an
arc flash event can also cause ear damage. Therefore, it is also
advisable to use hearing protection while working on energized
equipment.

Since arc flash and blast can reach distances of ten feet or greater, it
is advisable to barricade the area and use warning signs around where
the work on energized equipment is taking place in order to prevent
injury to personnel in the area.

Please remember, the only time personnel are permitted to work on
energized shipboard equipment or circuits is when testing or adjusting.
For more information, see 29CFR Part 1915.181(b).

ARC FLASH SCENARIOS

Scenario One

An electrician was tasked to replace a 480 volt motor controller and
locked out the upstream circuit breaker per the company's energy control
policy.   As the electrician removed the power leads to the motor
controller an electric arc flash occurred.  The momentary release of
energy ignited the electrician’s clothing and caused second and third
degree burns to his face, arms, and hands.   The pressure wave created
from the blast threw the electrician against a bulkhead, injuring his
leg. Crew members and coworkers extinguished the fire and provided
assistance until medical aid arrived.  The electrician was diagnosed
with burns over twenty five percent of his body, a broken femur, and
internal injuries.

Although the electrician had locked out the upstream electrical breaker,
he did not to perform a voltage check on each phase at the motor
controller.  The upstream breaker had failed to disconnect one phase,
leaving the work area energized.  While the electrician did not receive
an electrical shock, as he removed the power leads the energized phase
passed closed enough to an equipment ground or grounded structure to
draw an electric arc.  Within milliseconds, thermal and radiant energy
engulfed the electrician and work area.

Proper selection and use of arc flash rated personal protective
equipment (PPE) would have prevented or reduced the extent of the
electrician’s injuries. Testing to ensure the circuit was de-energized
should also have been done.

Scenario Two

An electrical worker was assigned to pull additional wiring leads for
new equipment in an existing electrical panel.  While the leads the
worker is installing are de-energized, the supervisor and worker decided
not to de-energize other 240 volt leads in the panel.    Later in the
shift, a mechanic working in the overhead accidently dropped a spanner
wrench that fell into the open panel shorting across the exposed
energized components.  An arc flash created a fire ball momentarily
engulfing the area and ignited a fire requiring a fire response team.
The worker received second degree burns to his hands and face as a
result of the arc flash.  The mechanic dropping the spanner was also
treated for burns.

Energized electrical panels, cabinets, or enclosures open during repairs
pose obvious shock hazards.  Less obvious arc flash hazards are also
present and can be controlled by either lockout/tag out or by the
selection and use of arc flash rated PPE for hazards present. Electrical
cabinets which are open and energized should be protected from items or
untrained personnel coming in contact with the electrical energy.


Gary Gramp < gramp@ hpva. org> To: Lynn Dail/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA; Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Please respond to Gary Gramp Subject: Cold Pressing of Hardwood Plywood 12/ 02/ 03 03: 51 PM Dear Mary Tom and Lynn,

Our industry is concerned with the proposition of having the manufacture of hardwood plywood covered under two NESHAPs. The letter attached to this E mail suggests a simple solution to this dual applicability. Changing the definition of plywood in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP to " Plywood means a panel product consisting of layers of wood veneers hot or cold pressed together with resin. Plywood includes panel products made by hot or cold pressing ( with resin) veneers to a substrate such as particleboard, MDF, or lumber".

Based on information supplied to Lynn last August, we believe the intent of both rulemakings was to cover the manufacture of hardwood plywood substrates exclusively under the PCWP NESHAP. We respectfully request that a change be made in the definition of plywood in the PCWP NESHAP to include cold pressing, and subsequently elimination of the manufacture of hardwood completely from applicability under the WBP Surface Coating NESHAP.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Gary Gary D. Gramp Technical Director HPVA PO Box 2789, Reston, Virginia, 20195 0789 1825 Michael Faraday Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20190 5350 Phone: 703 435 2900 Fax: 703 435 2537 http:// www. hpva. org ( See attached file: MACT Overlap Letter. doc) Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association P. O. Box 2789, Reston, VA 20195 0789 1825 Michael Faraday Drive, Reston, VA 20190 5350 Phone: 703 435 2900; FAX: 703 435 2537 E mail: gramp@ hpva. org Web Site: www. hpva. org December 2, 2003 Ms. Mary Tom Kissell Mr. Lynn Dail Waste and Chemical Processes Group Coatings and Consumer Products Group Emissions Standards Division Emissions Standards Division ( C539 03) U. S. EPA U. S. EPA Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Re: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule Dear Mary Tom and Lynn,

As you are aware there is an overlap issue between the Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) NESHAP and the Wood Building Products ( WBP) Surface Coating NESHAP as far as the manufacture of hardwood plywood is concerned. Based on Lynn's interpretation letter of September 25, 2003, hardwood plywood manufactured using a hot press is covered by the PCWP NESHAP, while hardwood plywood manufactured by cold pressing is covered by the WBP NESHAP. Our industry is concerned by this dual coverage, and would like to find a way to incorporate both processes into the PCWP MACT.

The split applicability decision was apparently influenced by one major factor. The definition of plywood in the PCWP NESHAP includes a reference to hot pressing with no mention of cold pressing. Did the Coatings and Consumer Products Group interpret this to mean production of hardwood plywood by cold pressing was not covered by the PCWP MACT? If yes, is there a way to include the cold pressing process in the PCWP NESHAP to avoid dual applicability?

To the best of our knowledge, cold pressing represents less than two percent of hardwood plywood production. HPVA has one member that cold presses 100 percent of their plywood production using ureaformaldehyde resins. This member shut down their hot press operation because they could not meet the formaldehyde emission requirements under Title V. They have no problem with formaldehyde emissions using the cold press process, so formaldehyde emissions should not be a factor in this decision.

One solution would be to add cold pressing to the definition of hardwood plywood in the PCWP NESHAP. If this approach were acceptable to both of you, we would also like to see another interpretation letter indicating lamination of a wood veneer to any substrate is exclusively covered by the PCWP NESHAP. We believe this was the original intent of both rulemakings from the start.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Gramp Technical Director


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70487-70489]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0750; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-25-AD;
Amendment 39-17672; AD 2013-23-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Rolls-
Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, -535E4-B-37, -535E4-C-37, RB211Trent
768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. This AD requires removal
of certain high-pressure (HP) and intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine
discs before their accumulated cyclic lives have reached the revised
limits. This AD was prompted by a report of an HP disc contaminated
with a steel inclusion. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the HP or IP turbine disc, uncontained engine failure, and damage to
the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 10, 2014.

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 http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, UK; phone:
44-0-1332-242424; fax: 44-0-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD 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, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the Mail
address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2013-0155, dated July 18, 2013 (referred to herein after as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During a recent inspection of a high pressure (HP) turbine disc
forged by a specific supplier, the disc was found to be contaminated
with a steel inclusion, due to an inadequate cleaning procedure in
the operation of the melt furnace, following a steel melt. Analysis
of melt and inspection data concluded that all discs manufactured
from the batch of material in which this steel inclusion was found,
had a significant risk of containing steel inclusions. Rolls-Royce
has carried out an analysis of the effect of the

steel inclusions on the Declared Safe Cyclic Lives (DSCL) of the
affected HP and intermediate pressure (IP) turbine discs. This
analysis concluded that the currently published DSCL cannot be
supported for several discs containing the subject inclusions.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncontained
HP or IP turbine disc failure, possibly resulting in damage to, and
reduced control of, the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires removal from
service of certain HP and IP turbine discs before their accumulated
cyclic lives have reached the revised limits.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0750.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. Therefore,
we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before
issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in fewer 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. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0750; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NE-25-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
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 20 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0
hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85
per hour. Required parts will cost about $4,000 per engine. Based on
these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators
is $80,000.

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.
    For the reasons discussed above, 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-23-17 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-17672; Docket No. FAA-2013-
0750; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-25-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 11, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, -535E4-
B-37, -535E4-C-37, RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan
engines with turbine disc part numbers (P/Ns) and serial numbers (S/
Ns) listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

   Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--New Reduced Cyclic Life Limits for High-Pressure (HP)/Intermediate-Pressure (IP)
                                                  Turbine Discs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                New reduced cyclic life
                Engine                           P/Ns                     S/Ns                    limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RB211-535E4-37,-535E4-B-37, -535E4-C-  UL39767................  LDRCZ19900.............  11,400 flight cycles
 37.                                                                                (FCs).
                                       UL39767................  LDRCZ19903.............
                                       UL39767................  LDRCZ19904.............
RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-  FK26893................  LDRCZ19901.............  8,687 FCs.
 60.
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20081.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20082.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20084.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20088.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20089.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20090.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20093.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20094.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20097.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20099.............
                                       FK26893................  LDRCZ20100.............
                                       FK20795 or FW53118.....  LDREB12176.............  9,270 FCs.
                                       FK20795 or FW53118.....  LDREB12177.............
                                       FK20795 or FW53118.....  LDREB12178.............
                                       FK20795 or FW53118.....  LDREB12179.............
                                       FK20795 or FW53118.....  LDREB12180.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an HP disc contaminated with
a steel inclusion. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
HP or IP turbine disc, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Remove from service, within 30 days, any HP or IP disc
identified in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD that has exceeded
the new cyclic life limit, or before the disc accumulates flight
cycles that equal the new reduced cyclic life limit listed in Table
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, whichever is later.
    (2) Do not approve for return to service any engine with any
installed HP or IP turbine disc listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c)
of this AD, if the disc exceeds the new reduced cyclic life limit
listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Frederick Zink,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0155,
dated July 18, 2013. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0750.
    (3) Rolls-Royce plc, Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin No.
RB.211-72-AH215, dated December 6, 2012 and RB.211-72-AH152,
Revision 1, dated July 3, 2013, which are not incorporated by
reference in this AD, can be obtained from RR using the contact
information in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24
8BJ, UK; phone: 44-0-1332-242424; fax: 44-0-1332-249936; email:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 8, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-28221 Filed 11-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 44728-44729]
[DOCID:fr07au06-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X-17F-1A; SEC File No. 270-29; OMB
Control No. 3235-0037.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
     Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X-17F-1A: Reporting of missing,
lost, stolen, or counterfeit securities.
    Rule 17f-1(c) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(c)) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Act'') requires
approximately 26,000 entities in the securities industry to report
lost, stolen, missing, or counterfeit securities certificates to the
Commission or its designee, to a registered transfer agent for the
issue, and, when criminal activity is suspected, to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. Such entities are required to use Form X-17F-1A (17
CFR 249.100) to make such reports. Filing these reports fulfills a
statutory requirement that reporting institutions report and inquire
about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen securities. Since these
reports are compiled in a central database, the rule facilitates
reporting institutions to access the database that stores information
for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program.
    We estimate that 26,000 reporting institutions will report that
securities certificates are either missing, lost, counterfeit, or
stolen annually and that

each reporting institution will submit this report 50 times each year.
The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to comply
with Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X-17F-1A is five minutes per submission.
The total burden is 108,333 hours annually for the entire industry
(26,000 times 50 times 5 divided by 60).
    Rule 17f-1(c) is a reporting rule and does not specify a retention
period. The rule requires an incident-based reporting requirement by
the reporting institutions when securities certificates are discovered
to be missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen. Registering under rule
17f-1(c) is mandatory to obtain the benefit of a central database that
stores information about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen
securities for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program. Reporting
institutions required to register under Rule 17f-1(c) will not be kept
confidential; however, the Lost and Stolen Securities Program database
will be kept confidential. Please note that 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 control number.
    Comments should be directed to (i) the Desk Officer for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: July 31, 2006
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12700 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P