UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Chemical: Sodium Acifluorfen PC Code: 114402 DP Barcode: 291740 SUBJECT: Addendum to EFED RED Chapter for sodium acifluorfen.

FROM: James Goodyear, Biologist Environmental Risk Branch 3 Thru: Stephanie Syslo, RAPL Environmental Risk Branch 3 Ben Smith, Chief Environmental Review Branch 3 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

TO: Michael Goodis, Risk Manager Christina Scheltema, Risk Manager Reviewer Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Branch ( 7508C)

DATE: September 15, 2003 The intent of this document is to provide a summary of the chronic risks to birds as addressed in the EFED RED chapter for sodium acifluorfen dated June 8, 2000 ( DP Barcodes D252561, D252563). It also provides tables of chronic RQs for birds that were omitted from the RED chapter. New text and tables are indicated in green.

A writeup on the effects of acifluorfen on endangered species will be addressed under a separate subbean ( D293692). Summary of chronic risk of acifluorfen to birds Page 34 of RED chapter Version dated June 8, 2000 CHAPTER 7. TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE AND RISK TOXICITY TO TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS Please see Appendix D for detailed tables of toxicity data.

Acute, Sub Acute, and Chronic Toxicity in Birds Acifluorfen is moderately to practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The Mallard duck's LD 50 ( MRID 083059) was 4,187 mg/ kg. The Bobwhite quail LD 50 ( MRID 122747) was 325 mg/ kg.

Four subacute dietary studies found that acifluorfen is practically nontoxic to the Bobwhite quail ( MRID 083059) and to the Mallard duck ( MRID 083060 and MRID 122749). The LC 50 ranged from > 5620 to > 10,000 ppm without mortality.

The Bobwhite quail's NOAEC was 20 ppm ( MRID 107491) and its LOAEC was 100 ppm based on a reduced number of viable embryos. The Mallard duck's NOAEC was > 100 ppm ( the highest dose level tested). An LOAEC was not determined ( MRID 107492).

* * * * Page 36 of RED chapter Version dated June 8, 2000 Chronic Risk Characterization for Birds In a preliminary screening assessment, based upon the above exposure table, the NOAEC of 20 ppm is exceeded for the maximum and mean residues for short grass, long grass, and broadleaf plants. Therefore, there is a potential for chronic effects. A refinement of this assessment uses a 30 day half life for foliar degradation and the FATE model for estimating residues in the terrestrial environment ( see Appendices B, C, and E).

Chronic risk for insectivorous and herbivorous birds is a potential problem from both single and multiple applications at 0.25 lbs ai/ A or more. A comparison over time of maximum residue levels to the NOAEC indicates birds may be at risk for more than 30 days. The risk is from eating the treated crop and the weeds in and around the edge of the field and insects in the field. When risk is based on mean residue levels in peanuts and soy beans, birds that eat short grass are at risk for 21 days from a single application ( at 0.375 lbs ai/ A). Risk to birds from a single application to rice ( at 0.25 lbs ai/ A) is for four days when they eat the rice seedlings and short grass in and around the field. Birds that eat short grass also will be at risk for two applications at 0.25 lbs ai/ A. The duration of the chronic risk will be for three days after the first application and more than 15 days after the second application.

Although, sensitive vegetation may become unpalatable a few days after spraying, tolerant weeds and crop foliage would remain palatable. This effect may occur within hours to a week or less. The residues may decline more rapidly than the dissipation curve suggests due to dilution resulting from a biomass increase as the plants grow. Therefore, the chronic risk may not be as severe as described in EFED's initial screen.

* * * * Page 49 of RED chapter Version dated June 8, 2000 Appendix D Two subacute dietary studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of acifluorfen to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Avian subacute dietary toxicity.

Species % ai LC50 ( ppm) Toxicity Category MRID Author/ Year Study Classification Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) 39.8 Technical > 10000 Practically nontoxic 083059 Fink, 1976 Core Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) 39.8 Technical > 10000 Practically nontoxic 083060 Fink, 1976 Core Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) 25.6 Tackle > 5620 Practically nontoxic 122750 Fink, 1981 Core for formulation Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) 25.6 Tackle > 5620 Practically nontoxic 122749 Fink, 1981 Core for formulation Acifluorfen is categorized as practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis. The guideline ( 71 2) is fulfilled ( MRID 083059 and 083060).

Chronic Toxicity to Birds Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for acifluorfen because the following conditions are met: ( 1) birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, and ( 2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

The guideline ( 71 4) is fulfilled ( MRID 107491 and 107492). Avian reproduction.

Species/ Study Duration % ai NOAEC ( ppm) LOAEC Endpoints MRID Author/ Year Study Classification Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) 39.8 Technical 20 100 Reduced number of viable embryos 107491 Najarian, 1978 Core Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) 39.8 Technical > 100 N/ A (> 100) 107492 Najarian, 1978 Core * * * * Page 59 of RED chapter Version dated June 8, 2000 Appendix E RISK TO NONTARGET TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS Risk to Birds The Risk Quotients ( RQ) were calculated based upon the ecological toxicity data ( Appendix D).

The acute risk quotients for a single broadcast application of acifluorfen are tabulated below.

Avian acute risk quotients for single application of acifluorfen.

Site/ App. Method App. Rate ( lbs ai/ A) Food Items Maximum EEC ( ppm) LC50 ( ppm) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Aerial or ground broadcast 0.375 Short grass 90 > 5620 0.02 Tall grass 41 > 5620 0.01 Broadleaf plants and Insects 51 > 5620 0.01 Seeds 6 > 5620 0.00 Avian acute risk quotients for multiple applications of acifluorfen.

Site/ App. Method App. Rate ( lbs ai/ A/ Season) Food Items Maximum EEC ( ppm) 1 LC50 ( ppm) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Aerial or ground broadcast 0.50 Short grass 120 > 5620 0.02 Tall grass 55 > 5620 0.01 Broadleaf plants and Insects 68 > 5620 0.01 Seeds 8 > 5620 0.00 1 EEC using Fletcher et al. ( 1994) without degradation.

Although no avian acute LOCs are exceeded for multiple broadcast applications at the rate of 0.50 lbs ai/ A/ season, the chronic LOC is exceeded for both single and multiple broadcast applications. The chronic risk quotients for single and multiple broadcast applications of acifluorfen are tabulated below.

Avian chronic risk quotients for single application of acifluorfen.

Site/ App. Method App. Rate ( lbs ai/ A) Food Items Maximum EEC ( ppm) NOAEC ( ppm) Chronic RQ ( EEC/ NOAEC)

Aerial or ground broadcast 0.375 Short grass 90 20 4.50 Tall grass 41 20 2.05 Broadleaf plants and Insects 51 20 2.55 Seeds 6 20 0.30 Avian chronic risk quotients for multiple applications of acifluorfen.

Site/ App. Method App. Rate ( lbs ai/ A/ Season) Food Items Maximum EEC ( ppm) 1 NOAEC ( ppm) Chronic RQ ( EEC/ NOAEC)

Aerial or ground broadcast 0.50 Short grass 120 20 6.00 Tall grass 55 20 2.75 Broadleaf plants and Insects 68 20 3.40 Seeds 8 20 0.40 1 EEC using Fletcher et al. ( 1994) without degradation.

Further discussion of the duration of exposures at greater than the NOAEC for the individual crops ( peanuts, soybeans and rice) is presented in Appendix C. * * * * Page 81 of RED chapter Version dated June 8, 2000 APPENDIX H. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS DATA REQUIREMENTS Sodium Acifluorfen Chemical Number 114401 Guideline Data Requirement Are Data Requirements Satisfied? MRID Study Classification 71 1 Avian Oral LD50 Y 083058 Core 71 2 Avian Dietary LC50 Y 083059 083060 Core 71 4 Avian Reproduction Y 1074918 Core 71 3 Wild Mammal LD50 & LD50 Y 071887 122743 Core 72 1 Freshwater Fish LC50 Y 071901 107493 122751 Core 72 2 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute LC50 Y 071901 Core 72 3( a) Estuarine/ Marine Fish LC50 Y 124223 Core 72 3( b) Estuarine/ Marine Mollusk EC50 Y 111964 Core 72 3( c) Estuarine/ Marine Shrimp EC50 Y 111962 Core 122 2 Aquatic Plant Growth Tier I Y 416807 Core 123 1( a) Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence N 123 1( b) Vegetative Vigor N 123 2 Aquatic Plant Growth Tier II Y 416807 02 Core 141 1 Honey bee, acute contact N


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60566-60570]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1808; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00906-E;
Amendment 39-22537; AD 2023-17-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-
715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 engines. This AD was prompted by reports
of malformed scallop edge geometry and surface conditions at the front
flange scallops of affected low-pressure compressor (LPC) booster
rotors. This AD requires repetitive fluorescent penetrant inspections
(FPIs)

of the front flange scallops of the LPC booster rotor for any cracks,
replacement or repair of the LPC booster rotor if necessary and, as an
optional terminating action to the repetitive FPIs, a visual inspection
for malformed scallop edge geometry and malformed surface conditions,
as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference (IBR). The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 20, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
20, 2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 20, 2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1808; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA service information identified in this final
rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]. You may find this
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1808.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1808; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00906-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule 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
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sungmo
Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0152, dated July 25, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0152) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all RRD Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and
BR700-715C1-30 engines. The MCAI states that occurrences have been
reported of finding malformed scallop edge geometry and surface
conditions at the front flange of scallops of certain LPC booster
rotors. To address this unsafe condition, the manufacturer published
service information that specifies procedures for inspecting the front
flange scallops of the LPC booster rotors with accept and reject
criteria.
    Prior to the issuance of EASA AD 2023-0152, the FAA issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD
that would apply to RRD Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and
BR700-715C1-30 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
June 14, 2023 (88 FR 38762). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-
0252, dated December 16, 2022 (later revised to EASA AD 2022-0252R1,
dated April 28, 2023 (EASA AD 2022-0252R1)). The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive FPIs of the front flange scallops of the LPC booster
rotor for any cracks, replacement or repair of the LPC booster rotor if
necessary and, as an optional terminating action to the repetitive
FPIs, a visual inspection for malformed scallop edge geometry and
malformed surface conditions to prevent failure of the LPC booster
rotor. However, since the NPRM was issued, the FAA has reviewed the
MCAI which supersedes EASA AD 2022-0252R1 and includes both reduced
compliance times for certain engines and extended compliance times for
certain other engines. Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is
necessary to withdraw the NPRM under a separate action; and instead
issue this final rule to address the unsafe condition.
    For further information, you may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1808.

Discussion of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Comments

    The FAA received comments from four commenters. Commenters included
Hawaiian Airlines (Hawaiian), Delta Air Lines (Delta), The Boeing
Company, and Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Boeing
and ALPA supported the NPRM without change. However, comments from
Hawaiian and Delta identified concerns with the NPRM. The FAA has
determined that it is necessary to withdraw the NPRM and instead issue
this final rule to address the unsafe condition. The following presents
the comments received on the

NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Revise the NPRM

    Delta suggested that the instructions for the FPI referenced in
EASA AD 2022-0252 do not provide procedures for the application of non-
aqueous aerosol developer (NAD). Additionally, Delta requested that the
FAA include an exception to the AD to allow this NAD or industry
equivalent for the FPI procedure.
    Delta pointed out that the manufacturer has published a revision to
the service information that was referenced in EASA AD 2022-0252 and
requested that the FAA include credit in the NPRM for actions
accomplished using RRD Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) SB-
BR700-72-A900738, Initial Issue, dated December 15, 2022. Delta
mentioned that the inspections specified in RRD NMSB SB-BR700-72-
A900738, Initial Issue, dated December 15, 2022, are equivalent to
those contained in RRD NMSB SB-BR700-72-A900738, Revision 1, dated July
11, 2023. The FAA infers that Delta is requesting that RRD NMSB SB-
BR700-72-A900738, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2023, as the required
service information for the actions specified in the NPRM.
    Hawaiian stated that the materials necessary to accomplish the
required actions listed in the NPRM are obsolete or otherwise
unavailable for use in the United States. Hawaiian requested that the
FAA revise the NPRM to include suitable materials for accomplishing the
required actions.
    After careful consideration of these comments, the FAA agrees to
withdraw the NPRM. However, the FAA will accomplish the withdrawal of
the NPRM as a separate action. The MCAI specified in this final rule
refers to the revised service information, and both now adequately
address the concerns Delta and Hawaiian. The FAA has updated this final
rule to include the revised service information which also contains the
change of materials necessary to support the required inspections.

Conclusion

    These products 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 this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comments received, and has determined to withdraw the
NPRM. Instead of publishing the NPRM, the FAA has also determined that
air safety requires adopting this final rule. Accordingly, the FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0152, which specifies procedures for
accomplishing repetitive FPIs (on-wing or in-shop) of the front flange
scallops of the affected part and, if any cracks are detected, removing
the engine from service and contacting the manufacturer for approved
corrective actions. EASA AD 2023-0152 also specifies procedures for
performing a visual inspection, taking photographs, and submitting
photograph documentation of the LPC booster rotor front flange scallops
for malformed scallop edge geometry and malformed surface conditions,
including validation of the results from the manufacturer, as
terminating action for the repetitive FPIs.
    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.

FAA's Determination

    These products 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 this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining
that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this AD, and except as discussed under ``Differences Between
this AD and the MCAI.'' This AD requires sending certain inspection
results, the Part C Accomplishment Form, and photographic evidence to
the manufacturer if operators elect to perform the optional terminating
action specified in Part C of the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2023-0152.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    Where paragraphs (2) and (3) of EASA AD 2023-0152 specify to
contact RRD for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those
actions accordingly, this AD requires replacement or repair of the LPC
booster rotor.
    Where paragraph (1) requires accomplishment of the initial
inspection to be determined by certain flight missions and engine
flight cycles (EFC), after the effective date of the EASA AD, but not
later than August 31, 2023, this AD requires accomplishment of the
initial inspection within 150 EFC after the effective date of this AD.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
due to a reassessment performed by the manufacturer that determined an
increased risk of a crack developing on the LPC booster. This unsafe
condition may result in release of high-energy debris, with consequent
engine in-flight shutdown, and reduced control of the airplane. Due to
this increased risk, the FPI of the LPC booster for cracking must be
accomplished within 150 flight cycles (which is equivalent to 30 days)
after the effective date of this AD. Accordingly, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good

cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis
is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 148 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPI front flange scallops of the LPC  5 work-hours x $85 per               $0             $425          $62,900
 booster rotor.                        hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement, repair, or visual inspection that would be required based
on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining
the number of engines that might need this replacement, repair, or
visual inspection:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the LPC booster rotor.................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $461,897        $462,747
                                                 $850.
Repair the LPC booster rotor..................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =           185,000         185,850
                                                 $850.
Visual inspection and photograph documentation  7 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  0             595
 of the LPC booster rotor front flange           $595.
 scallops.
Send Accomplishment Form (Part C) and           1 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  0              85
 photographs to RRD.                             $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

    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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2023-17-11 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Amendment 39-22537;
Docket No. FAA-2023-1808; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00906-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 20,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of malformed scallop edge
geometry and surface conditions at the front flange scallops of
affected low-pressure compressor (LPC) booster rotors. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPC booster rotor. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in release of high-
energy debris, with consequent engine in-flight shutdown, and
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023-0152, dated July 25, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0152).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0152

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0152 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the compliance times specified for
the initial fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) in paragraph (1)
and Table 1 of EASA AD 2023-0152. Instead, this AD requires the
initial FPI within 150 engine flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0152 specifies ``in
accordance with the instructions of EM task 72-38-12-200-801'' this
AD requires replacing those words with ``in accordance with the
instructions of EM task 72-38-18-200-801 or equivalent FAA approved
procedures.''
    (4) Where paragraphs (2) and (3) of EASA AD 2023-0152 specify to
contact RRD for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those
actions accordingly, this AD requires replacement of the LPC booster
rotor. In lieu of replacement of the affected LPC booster rotor,
operators may repair the affected LPC booster rotor using a method
approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or RRD's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-
0152 specifies to reject the engine if a crack is found, this AD
requires replacement or repair of the LPC booster rotor.
    (6) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2023-0152.

(i) Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0152
specifies to submit the Accomplishment Forms, Parts A and B, to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. If
operators elect to perform the optional terminating action specified
in Part C of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-
0152, this AD requires submission of the Part C Accomplishment Form
and photographic information to the manufacturer.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety 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 International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (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) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2023-0152, dated
July 25, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0252, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]. You may find EASA AD 2022-0252 on the EASA
website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 25, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19164 Filed 8-31-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44949-44950]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-170-000.
    Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment,
Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of Evergreen Wind Power
II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150716-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-171-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin River Power Company.
    Description: Application for Approval of Transaction Under Section
203(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Power Act and Request For An Order Within
30 Days of Wisconsin River Power Company.
    Filed Date: 7/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150717-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-172-000.
    Applicants: SEIF/Co-Invest Generation Holdings, LLC, Burgess
Biopower, LLC.
    Description: Application of SEIF/Co-Invest Generation Holdings,
LLC, et. al. for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power
Act for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Requests for
Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 7/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150720-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-519-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 676-H Compliance Filing
to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150720-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-531-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2015_7_17_Order676HCompliance to be
effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150717-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-696-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing per 6/18/15 Order
in Docket No. ER15-696-000 to be effective 6/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150720-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1985-000; ER15-1986-000; ER15-1987-000; ER15-
1988-000; ER15-1989-000; ER15-1990-000; ER15-1991-000; ER15-1992-000;
ER15-1993-000; ER15-1994-000; ER15-1995-000; ER15-1996-000; ER15-2029-
000; ER15-2030-000; ER15-2031-000; ER15-1997-000; ER15-2032-000; ER15-
1998-000; ER15-1999-000; ER15-2000-000; ER15-2001-000; ER15-2002-000;
ER15-2003-000; ER15-2007-000; ER15-2004-000; ER15-2005-000; ER15-2006-
000.
    Applicants: AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company,
Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, Constellation Power Source Generation,
LLC, Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Criterion Power
Partners, LLC, Exelon Framingham, LLC, Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon
West Medway, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Exelon Wyman, LLC, Handsome Lake
Energy, LLC, Harvest II Windfarm, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, Michigan
Wind 1, LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
LLC, PECO Energy Company, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Shooting
Star Wind Project, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 26, 2015 AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, et.
al. tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 7/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150717-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2224-000.
    Applicants: Solar Star Colorado III, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Solar Star Colorado III, LLC
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150717-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2225-000.
    Applicants: Erie Power LLC.
    Description: Request of Erie Power LLC for Limited Tariff Waiver
and Motion for Expedited Action and Supporting Affidavit of John
Marczewski.
    Filed Date: 7/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150716-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/15.

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

    Dated: July 20, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18489 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 15151-15152]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 18, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: CP07-4-001.
    Applicants: Mississippi Hub, LLC.
    Description: Abbreviated Application for Limited Amendment of
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080305-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 28, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-271-000.
    Applicants: Black Marlin Pipeline Company.
    Description: Petition for Temporary Exemptions from Tariff
Provisions and Request for Expedited Action submitted by Black Marlin
Pipeline Company.
    Filed Date: 03/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080314-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 21, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5765 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3555-3556]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2012-0006-N-2]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below are being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
ICRs describe the nature of the information collections and their
expected burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collections of information
was published on November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71432).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Kimberly
Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone
numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On November 17, 2011, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on these ICRs for which the agency
is seeking OMB approval. 76 FR 71432. FRA received no comments in
response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to

OMB within 30 days of publication of this Notice to best ensure having
their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29,
1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden being submitted
for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Control of Alcohol and Drug Use in Railroad Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0526.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a previously approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Abstract: The information collection requirements contained in pre-
employment and ``for cause''testing regulations are intended to ensure
a sense of fairness and accuracy for railroads and their employees. The
principal information--evidence of unauthorized alcohol or drug use--is
used to prevent accidents by screening personnel who perform safety-
sensitive service. FRA uses the information to measure the level of
compliance with regulations governing the use of alcohol or controlled
substances. Elimination of this problem is necessary to prevent
accidents, injuries, and fatalities of the nature already experienced
and further reduce the risk of a truly catastrophic accident.
    Form Number: FRA F 6180.73, 6180.74, 6180.94A, 61880.94B.
    Total Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 31,797 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding this information collection to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the
following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18, 2012.
Michael Logue,
Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-1380 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44168-44170]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75493; File Nos. SR-NYSEArca-2015-43; SR-NYSEMKT-2015-
41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEArca, Inc.; NYSEMKT LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Changes Relating to the Complex Order Auction
Process and Order Exposure Requirements

July 20, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On May 21, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'') (each, an ``Exchange'' and, together, the ``Exchanges'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ proposed rule changes
to amend NYSE Arca Rules 6.47A and 6.91(c) and NYSE MKT Rules 935NY and
980NY(e), respectively, to (1) allow Users to utilize the Complex Order
Auction (``COA'') to satisfy the order exposure requirements of Rules
NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and NYSE MKT Rule 935NY; (2) allow any OTP Holder
or ATP Holder, as applicable, to participate in a COA; and (3) provide
for a COA Response Time Interval of no less than 500 milliseconds.\4\
The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the in the
Federal Register on June 8, 2014.\5\ The Commission received no

comment letters regarding the proposals. This order approves the
proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ An OTP Holder is the holder of an Options Trading Permit
issued by NYSE Arca. See NYSE Arca Rules 1.1(p) and (q). Under NYSE
Arca's rules, a User is any OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or Sponsored
Participant that is authorized to obtain access to OX, NYSE Arca's
electronic order delivery, execution and reporting system for
designated option issues, pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.2A. See NYSE
Arca Rules 6.1A(13) and 6.1A(19). An ATP Holder is the holder of an
Amex Trading Permit issued by NYSE MKT. See NYSE MKT Rules
900.2NY(4) and (5). Under NYSE MKT's rules, a User is any ATP Holder
that is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to NYSE
MKT Rule 902.1NY. See NYSE MKT Rule 900.2NY(87).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75096 (June 2,
2015), 80 FR 32420 (``NYSE Arca Notice''); and 75095 (June 2, 2015),
80 FR 32427 (``NYSE MKT Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT each operate a COA auction process, which
allow an entering trading permit holder to initiate an auction for an
eligible complex order.\6\ At the commencement of a COA auction, an
Exchange sends an automated request for response message (``RFR'') to
all trading permit holders that subscribe to RFR messages.\7\ During
the Response Time Interval, trading permit holders that are eligible to
respond to a COA may respond to an RFR message, indicating the price
and number of contracts they would be willing to trade in the COA.\8\
Under the current rules, the Exchanges may determine the length of the
Response Time Interval, which has no minimum duration and will not
exceed one second.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each Exchange may determine, on a class-by-class basis,
which electronic orders are eligible for a COA, based on
marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the current
market), size, number of series, and complex order origin types
(i.e., Customers, broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange). See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(1)
and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(1).
    \7\ The RFR message identifies the component series, size, and
side of the market of the order being auctioned, and any
contingencies. See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(2) and NYSE MKT Rule
980NY(e)(2).
    \8\ See NYSE Arca Rules 6.91(c)(3) and (4) and NYSE MKT Rules
980NY(e)(3) and (e)(4). See also NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32421
and NYS MKT Notice, 80 FR at 32427.
    \9\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges' order exposure rules currently prohibit Users from
executing as principal orders they represent as agent unless certain
conditions are satisfied.\10\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A provides that Users
may not execute as principal orders they represent as agent unless (i)
the agency orders are first exposed on NYSE Arca for at least one
second; or (ii) the User has been bidding or offering on NYSE Arca for
at least one second prior to receiving an agency order that is
executable against such bid or offer. NYSE MKT Rule 935NY provides that
Users may not execute as principal orders they represent as agent
unless (i) the agency orders are first exposed on NYSE MKT for at least
one second; (ii) the User has been bidding or offering on NYSE MKT for
at least one second prior to receiving the agency order that is
executable against such bid or offer; or (iii) the User utilizes the
NYSE Amex Options Customer Best Execution (``CUBE'') auction.\11\ The
Exchanges propose to amend their rules to add the use of the COA as a
means for a User to satisfy the order exposure requirements.\12\ Thus,
an electronic complex order subject to a COA would not be subject to
the one-second order exposure requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A or
NYSE MKT Rule 935NY, and a User that utilizes the COA pursuant to NYSE
Arca Rule 6.91(c) or NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e) would be able to submit a
principal order during the Response Time Interval to trade against an
order it represents as agent.\13\ The Exchanges note that this
exclusion from the order exposure requirement is consistent with the
treatment of orders in the CUBE Auction, which, like the COA, has a
minimum duration of 500 milliseconds, and with the treatment of orders
in the BOX Options Exchange's Complex Order Price Improvement Period
(``COPIP'') auction.\14\ In addition, the Exchanges note that,
consistent with NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A, Commentary .01, and NYSE MKT Rule
935NY, Commentary .01, trading permit holders may only use the COA
where there is a genuine intention to execute bona fide
transactions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and NYSE MKT Rule 935NY.
    \11\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A; and NYSE MKT Rule 935NY.
    \12\ The proposals also make conforming changes to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.91(c)(3) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(3) to delete sentences
stating that the obligations of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and 935NY are
separate from the duration of the Response Time Interval.
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32422 and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
    \14\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32422; and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
    \15\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32422; and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, only market makers with an appointment in the relevant
options class, and trading permit holders acting as agent for orders
resting at the top of the Consolidated Book in the relevant options
series, may submit RFR Responses.\16\ The Exchanges propose to amend
their rules to allow any trading permit holder to submit an RFR
Response. The Exchanges believe that this could increase participation
in COAs, which could foster greater competition and provide additional
price improvement opportunities for COA-eligible orders.\17\ In
addition, the Exchanges believe that this change would benefit market
participants by enabling the Exchanges to better compete with options
exchanges that permit all members to participate in electronic auctions
for crossing transactions that are similar to the COA.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(4) and NYSE MKT Rule
980NY(e)(4).
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32421; and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
    \18\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 723(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges also propose to revise their rules to provide that
the Response Time Interval will not be less than 500 milliseconds. The
maximum possible duration of the Response Time Interval will continue
to be one second. The Exchanges believe that it is important to
establish a minimum duration for the Response Time Interval to assure
that orders entered into a COA are exposed for a sufficient time period
to allow auction participants to submit RFR Responses.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32421 and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Exchange surveyed its trading permit holders to determine
whether the proposed minimum Response Time Interval would provide
sufficient time to respond to a COA.\20\ Based on the survey
responses--in which 77% of the respondents indicated that they would be
able to respond to an auction lasting 100 milliseconds--the Exchanges
believe that the proposed Response Time Interval duration of at least
500 milliseconds would provide a meaningful opportunity for Exchange
participants to respond to a COA and, at the same time, facilitate the
prompt execution of orders.\21\ In addition, the Exchanges believe that
a minimum Response Time Interval of 500 milliseconds would provide
sufficient time to submit RFR Responses and would encourage competition
among participants, thereby enhancing the potential for price
improvement in the COA.\22\ The Exchanges note that the 500 millisecond
minimum duration is comparable to the response time interval for the
CUBE Auction for single-leg orders, which disseminates an RFR message
for an auction lasting for a random period of time of between 500 and
750 milliseconds.\23\ The Exchanges note, further, that the BOX Options
Exchange's COPIP auction lasts for only 100 milliseconds.\24\ Although
both the CUBE and the COPIP, unlike the COA, are auctions of paired
orders that provide for a guaranteed execution, the

Exchanges believe that the CUBE and COPIP are analogous to the COA in
that they are designed to attract liquidity and provide opportunities
for price improvement.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In May 2015, NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT surveyed their
respective trading permit holders to determine whether they could
respond to an auction lasting 100 milliseconds. Of the trading
permit holders that have electronic access to NYSE Arca and NYSE
MKT, and are able to submit responses to a COA, 13 responded to the
surveys. In both surveys, ten respondents (77%) said that they could
respond to an auction lasting 100 milliseconds. See NYSE Arca
Notice, 80 FR at 32421; and NYSE MKT Notice, 80 FR at 32428.
    \21\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32421; and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See NYSE MKT Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(B).
    \24\ See Box Rule 7245(f)(1).
    \25\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32421; and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\26\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which requires that the
rules of the exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users trading as principal on the Exchanges may not trade with
orders they represent as agent unless the one-second order exposure
requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A or NYSE MKT Rule 935NY, as
applicable, are satisfied. The proposals amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and
NYSE MKT Rule 935NY to allow Users to utilize the COA to satisfy the
order exposure requirements.\28\ Thus, an electronic complex order
subject to a COA would not be subject to the one-second order exposure
requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A or NYSE MKT Rule 935NY, and a User
that utilizes the COA pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c) or NYSE MKT
Rule 980NY(e) would be able to submit a principal order during the
Response Time Interval to trade against an order it represents as
agent.\29\ The proposals also amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(4) and NYSE
MKT Rule 980NY(e)(4) to allow all trading permit holders--rather than
only market makers in the relevant options class and trading permit
holders representing orders at the top of the Consolidated Book in the
relevant series--to respond to a COA. Finally, the proposals amend NYSE
Arca Rule 6.91(c)(3) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(3) to establish a
minimum duration of 500 milliseconds for the Response Time
Interval.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The proposals also make conforming changes to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.91(c)(3) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(3) to delete sentences
stating that the obligations of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and 935NY are
separate from the duration of the Response Time Interval.
    \29\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 80 FR at 32422 and NYSE MKT Notice,
80 FR at 32428.
    \30\ The rules will continue to provide that the Response Time
Interval will not exceed one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the changes establishing a minimum
duration for the Response Time Interval and providing for expanded
participation in the COA could enhance competition in the COA. As noted
above, each Exchange surveyed its trading permit holders to determine
whether they would be able to respond to a COA auction lasting 100
milliseconds. According to the Exchanges, 77% of the survey respondents
indicated that they would be able to respond to an auction lasting 100
milliseconds.\31\ Based on the Exchanges' statements, the Commission
believes that establishing a minimum duration of 500 milliseconds for
the Response Time Interval should provide market participants with an
opportunity to compete for exposed bids and offers in a COA auction
while facilitating the prompt execution of orders in the COA.\32\ In
addition, allowing all trading permit holders to submit RFR Responses
could result in greater participation and increased competition in the
COA, potentially leading to greater opportunities for price improvement
for orders submitted to a COA. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that it is consistent with the Act to allow Users to utilize the COA to
satisfy the order exposure requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A and
NYSE MKT Rule 935NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See notes 20-21, supra, and accompanying text.
    \32\ The Commission notes that it has previously approved 500-
millisecond response periods for other auctions, as well as a
response period of 100 milliseconds for BOX's COPIP auction. See ISE
Rules 716, Supplementary Material .04 (providing 500 milliseconds to
submit Responses in the Block Order Mechanism, the Facilitation
Mechanism, and the Solicited Order Mechanism); and 723(c)(1)
(establishing a 500-millisecond exposure period for the Price
Improvement Mechanism); and BOX Rule 7245(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-NYSEArca-2015-43
and SR-NYSEMKT-2015-41) are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18129 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P