Notes from Imazalil All-Registrant Focus Meeting
              Wednesday, October 23[th] at 9-10am (Eastern Time)
                    Location: Potomac Yards South, Rm. 9100

Color code: 	Black = included in the meeting agenda
		Purple = things stated during the meeting itself
      Red = outstanding action items

Purpose of Meeting:
The upcoming focus meeting is intended as an opportunity for the EPA science divisions to ask registrants use/usage related-questions that will help refine the problem formulation and scoping document, also to be published publically in December.  The final content of those two science documents will feed into the final draft of the preliminary work plan.
EPA Attendees:
AD: Sharon Carlisle, Timothy Dole, Tim McMahon, Sandra O'Neill, Laura Parsons, Marshall Swindell
BEAD: Tara Chandgoyal, Cynthia Doucoure, Andrew Lee, Arnet (Skee) Jones
EFED: Brian Anderson, Christine Hartless, RDavid Jones, Paul Mastradone
HED: Jaime D'Agostino, Zaida Figueroa, Dennis McNeilly, Karlyn Middleton, Christina Swartz, Jess Rowland
PRD: Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello, Meg Hathaway (Chemical Review Manager)
RD: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Tony Kish

Registrants (All Calling In):
Certis Europe
Marie Spirlet
Janssen PMF
Bill Goodwine
Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd
Jonathan Janis

Agenda:
   I. Introductions

   II. Upcoming regulatory milestones
         a. December 2013 = Docket opening & Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) publication
         b. February 2014 = Close of public comment period on Imazalil PWP
         c. May 2014 = Final Work Plan (FWP) publishes

   III. Brief review of type of data supplied thus far by registrants
         a. Sales data [general discussion only - CBI]
         b. EFED/HED studies
         c. Dietary assessment by Janssen
                 i. Has been supplied by registrant but not yet reviewed by HED.

   IV. Discussion of EPA science team concerns
         a. Egg hatchery use
                 i. Question relating to handler process and potential inhalation risks: What type of equipment is used in hatcheries for imazalil application, an automatic or a handheld fogger?
                     1. Janssen PMF says they will answer this question.
         b. Seed treatment use
                 i. Is imazalil still being used for seed treatment use (e.g. for barley or wheat)?  EPA data indicates low average usage from 2009-2011.
                     1. Certis Europe says seed treatment uses occur for imazalil in both Europe and the United States.  In the case of the US, Certis sell's the technical product to a formulator in the US.
         c. Postharvest use on citrus
                 i. Process questions
                     1. Describe how wash water is managed.
                           a. Janssen PMF and Makhteshim both say they will address this question.
                           b. Makhteshim notes that there is a difference between wash water and treating solution.  Notably, treating solution is recycled back into its storage tank, thereby minimizing environmental exposure.
                     2. Is imazalil used as a postharvest treatment on fresh market citrus only, citrus fruits used for juicing only, or both fresh market & juicing citrus?
                           a. If both, what % of citrus treated is processed citrus?  Data for juicing in particular would be helpful.
                                   i. Janssen and Makhteshim confirm that only fresh market citrus is treated, not citrus used for juicing/processing.
                                       1. However, some fresh fruit is treated and then diverted back for juicing when it is culled for cosmetic defects.  Janssen says they will provide an estimate for what % of treated fruit is culled and used for jucing.
                                   ii. Janssen PMF notes that the citrus market share for processed citrus is far greater than the market for fresh citrus.
                     3. Labeling ambiguity: Current labels permit two treatments.
                           a. HED requests clarification on what treatments are included in a postharvest context.  For example, a before and after long-term storage treatment, a dip and then a wax before treatment, or something else?
                                   i. Janssen says there are 2 possibilities:  the first is a is a dip wash (treatment 1) followed by a rinsing spray (no treatment, just a rinse), then being coated in a fungicide-impregnated wax (treatment 2).  The other possible scenario is of a pre- and then post-storage treatment.  Janssen notes that the "dip then wax" scenario is the one in which the fruit's exposure to imazalil is highest, and should be considered the "worst-case scenario" for risk management purposes.
                                   ii. EPA-BEAD asks if there is any circumstance in which fruit would receive a third treatment, such as after long-term storage.
                                       1. Janssen PMF answers: no.  No third treatment is allowed.  If fruit is brought out from long-term storage, the processing plants will reopen boxes and throw out bad fruit, but not retreat the remaining good fruit.
                                   iii. EPA asks whether the "no third treatment rule" applies to all types of citrus in addition to oranges.
                                   iv. Janssen PMF notes that facilities try to use different fungicidal chemicals for each of the two treatments.
                           b. Also, what is the required/allowed time interval between treatments?
                                   i. If it's not an immediate double-treatment scenario, such as a wash then wax, in the case of lemons there may be 3-6 months between pre- and post-storage treatments.
                 ii. Gaps in Sales Data provided
                     1. What volume of imazalil is used on citrus?
                           a. Janssen PMF will supply data.
                           b. The information provided so far by the registrants gives only the amount of AI sold in pounds.
                           c. Imazalil is not a typical field crop with a specific use in pounds per acre.  The active ingredient is put in spray solution and used. How much citrus is treated for a given solution (i.e. volume AI and dilution factor data)?
                                   i. Janssen PMF indicates that 2g ai is used to treat one ton of fruit.  They indicate that this amount of ai is for both treatments combined (e.g. a wash and a wax).  They will check with end-use registrants to clarify how this works in practice.  For example, Janssen will check whether the amount of ai used could double to 4 g ai/ton in the case of lemons receiving a pre- and post-storage treatment.
                           d. Janssen PMF notes that there is an overall market trend of declining imazalil use.  This is due to the recent registration of 4-5 other fungicides.  While imazalil has historically been the "workhorse" of agricultural fungicides, other fungicides are now replacing imazalil in various contexts.
                           e. EPA discusses the feasibility of bridging PDP data on oranges to lemons or other citrus.  It is noted that field trial residue studies find high q* values.
                     2. Of AI used on citrus, how much remains after treatment (residues)?
                           a. Janssen PMF will check their residue files.  They also refer EPA to the available PDP data.  EPA responds that due to the limitations of the PDP data, information on lemons would be especially helpful.
                           b. Janssen PMF notes that residues are desirable in the case of pre-storage treatments because they increase the shelf life of citrus.
                           c. EPA-RD asks whether all fresh market citrus is treated in some way (even if not treated with imazalil specifically.  Janssen PMF replies that unless the fruit is organic, the answer is yes.
         d. Other Concerns?

   V. Questions from the Registrants

   VI. Conclusion (Next Steps/Repetition of Action Items)
         a. Scheduling follow-up meeting with Janssen PMF to discuss cancer risk concerns.
                 i. EPA-PRD schedules a meeting for Nov. 6, 2013.
                 ii. EPA-AD notes that the sales volume of imazalil products used for antimicrobial purposes is low enough that cancer is not a major concern for AD's risk assessment.
         b. Other items as discussed in today's meeting


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26203-26204]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12079]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0221; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Van Nuys, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time
status from the legal description of the Class E airspace area
designated as an extension at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, and adds
NOTAM part-time status information to Class E surface area airspace.
These actions bring the airspace descriptions in line with the airspace
hours listed in the applicable Chart Supplement. Also, an editorial
change is made to the Class D airspace legal description replacing
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Farnsworth, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends NOTAM part-time information for Class D and E airspace to
ensure the efficient use of airspace at Van Nuys Airport.

History

    The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E
airspace designated as an extension at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA,
as published in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, does not require part time status. In addition, NOTAM part-time
status is required for Van Nuys Airport in Class E surface area
airspace. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D airspace
legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term
Chart Supplement.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated
August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal
description of Class E airspace designated as an extension at Van Nuys
Airport, Van Nuys, CA, ``This Class E airspace is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen.
The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published
in the Airport/Facility Directory''.
    This action also would add NOTAM part-time status information to
the regulatory text in Class E surface area airspace for Van Nuys
Airport. This brings the airspace descriptions published in the Order
in line with the airspace hours listed in the Chart Supplement.
    Lastly, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D airspace legal
description.
    This is an administrative change and does not affect the
boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace,
therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is
unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures'', paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017,
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA D Van Nuys, CA [Amended]

Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'35'' N, long. 118[deg]29'24'' W)
Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'03'' N, long. 118[deg]21'31'' W)
Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'34'' N, long. 118[deg]24'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 3,000 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C
airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius
of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Van Nuys, CA [Amended]

Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'35'' N, long. 118[deg]29'24'' W)
Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'03'' N, long. 118[deg]21'31'' W)
Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'34'' N, long. 118[deg]24'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the
Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that
airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E4 Van Nuys, CA [Amended]

Van Nuys Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'35'' N, long. 118[deg]29'24'' W)
Van Nuys VOR/DME
    (Lat. 34[deg]13'24'' N, long. 118[deg]29'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.2 miles
each side of the Van Nuys VOR/DME 350[deg] radial, extending from
the 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport to 8.3 miles north of the
Van Nuys VOR, excluding that airspace within the Whiteman, CA, Class
D airspace area.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 29, 2018.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-12079 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69504-69508]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0377; FRL-10015-79-OAR]

Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required
for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a final
action to find that four states and territories (Indiana, Louisiana,
Guam, and Puerto Rico) failed to submit State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to satisfy certain nonattainment area planning requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
purpose of the development and implementation of nonattainment area
SIPs is to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable following the designation of an area as nonattainment. This
action triggers certain CAA deadlines for the EPA to impose sanctions
if a state or territory does not submit a complete SIP addressing the
outstanding requirements and for the EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) if the EPA does not approve a state's or
territory's SIP.

DATES: The effective date of this action is December 3, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Ms. Sydney Lawrence, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code:
C539-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; by
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. Where do I go if I have specific state or territory
questions?
    D. How is the preamble organized?
II. Background
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for States That Failed To Make a
Nonattainment Area SIP Submittal
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    M. Judicial Review

I. General Information

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when
an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for
making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making
findings of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by
the CAA, where states and territories have made no submissions, or
incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and
public procedures are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0377. All documents in the docket are listed on
http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or information whose disclosure is restricted by statue.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form
through http://www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for
members of the public and our staff, EPA Docket Center and Reading Room
are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

C. Where do I go if I have specific state or territory questions?

    For questions related to specific states or territories mentioned
in this notice, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 2: Mr. Kirk Wieber, Air Programs       Puerto Rico.
 Branch, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th
 Floor, New York 10007<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA Region 5: Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief,         Indiana.
 Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section,
 Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West
 Jackson Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA Region 6: Mr. Michael Feldman, Chief, SO2     Louisiana.
 and Regional Haze Section, EPA Region 6, 1201
 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA Region 9: Ms. Anita Lee, Manager, Air         Guam.
 Planning Office, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
 Street, San Francisco, California 94105;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    In June 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met when
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-
hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 40 CFR 50.17(a and
(b). On January 9, 2018, the EPA, as part of the third round of area
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, designated five areas
of the country as nonattainment for the 1-hour primary 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\1\ See 83 FR 1098, codified at 40 CFR part 81,
subpart C. These area designations had an effective date of April 9,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA completed its first round of initial area
designations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS on
August 5, 2013, with an effective date of October 4, 2013. Under a
court order issued on March 2, 2015, the EPA has completed two out
of three additional rounds of designations, required to be completed
by no later than December 31, 2020. The findings in this document
apply only to those areas that were designated as a part of the
third round of designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on
January 9, 2018, with an effective date of April 9, 2018, and where,
as of signature of this action, the affected states failed to submit
required complete implementation plans to address attainment of the
1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas designated nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS are
subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA
section 172 and to the SO2-specific planning requirements of
subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192). All
components of the SO2 part D nonattainment area SIP,
including the emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT), enforceable emissions limitations and control
measures, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) plan, nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) program, and contingency measures, are due to the
EPA within 18 months of the effective date of designation of an area
under CAA section 191. Thus, the nonattainment area SIPs for areas
designated effective April 9, 2018, were due on October 9, 2019. These
SIPs are required to demonstrate that their respective areas will
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5
years from the effective date of designation, or April 9, 2023.

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    If the EPA finds that a state or territory has failed to make the
required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA
section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, after a period of
time, including the imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected
area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA
section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years
after the finding of failure to submit if the affected state or
territory has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required
SIP submittal.
    If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state or
territory has made the required complete SIP submittal for an area
within 18 months of the effective date of this rulemaking, then,
pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset
sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected
nonattainment area. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that
the state or territory has made a complete submission within 6 months
after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction
will apply in the affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA
section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The sanctions will not take effect,
if, within 18 months after the effective date of these findings, the
EPA affirmatively determines that the affected state or territory has
made a complete SIP submittal addressing the deficiency for which the
finding was made. Additionally, if the state or territory makes the
required SIP submittal and the EPA takes final action to approve the
submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these findings, the
EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment
area.

IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for States That Failed To Make a
Nonattainment Area SIP Submittal

    As of the date of signature of this action, the four states and
territories listed in Table 1 failed to make complete SIP submittals
required under part D of Title I of the CAA by October 9, 2019, for the
five areas designated nonattainment effective April 9, 2018. The
specific components of the SO2 part D nonattainment area SIP
that the four states and territories failed to submit include: An
accurate inventory of current emissions for all sources of
SO2 in the nonattainment area, an attainment demonstration,
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available
control technology (RACT), enforceable emissions limitations and
control measures, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) program, and contingency measures. Therefore,
the EPA is issuing findings of failure to submit SO2
nonattainment area SIPs for four states and territories responsible for
these areas.

 Table 1--States or Territories and SO2 Nonattainment Areas Affected by
                   These Findings of Failure To Submit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     State or
      EPA regional office           territory        Nonattainment area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 2......................  Puerto Rico......  Guayama-Salinas:
                                                   --Salinas
                                                    Municipality (p).
Region 2......................  Puerto Rico......  San Juan:
                                                   --Cata[ntilde]o
                                                    Municipality.
                                                   --Toa Baja
                                                    Municipality (p).
                                                   --San Juan
                                                    Municipality (p).
                                                   --Guaynabo
                                                    Municipality (p).
                                                   --Bayam[oacute]n
                                                    Municipality (p).
Region 5......................  Indiana..........  Huntington:
                                                   --Huntington County
                                                    (p).
Region 6......................  Louisiana........  Evangeline Parish:
                                                   --Evangeline Parish
                                                    (p).
Region 9......................  Guam.............  Piti-Cabras:
                                                   --Piti-Cabras (p).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Partial counties are indicated in the table as (p).

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risks
addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it does not directly affect the level
of protection provided to human health or the environment under the
SO2 NAAQS. The purpose of this rule is to make findings that
the affected states and territories named failed to submit the required
SIPs to provide for timely attainment of the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. In finding that certain states and territories
failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area
planning requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of
Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS, this action does not directly affect the level of
protection provided for human health or the environment. Moreover, it
is intended that the actions and deadlines resulting from this notice
will in fact lead to greater protection for U.S. citizens, including
minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, by ensuring that
states and territories meet their obligation to develop and submit SIPs
to ensure that areas make progress toward attaining the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from what is already required
by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states and
territories to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of
Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) which address the statutory
requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for the
SO2 NAAQS.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The rule is
a finding that the named states and territories have not made the
necessary SIP submission for nonattainment areas to meet the
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
territorial, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the named states or territories, on the
relationship between the national government and named the states or
territories, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that the named states and
territories failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the
nonattainment area plan requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of
part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to
submit an implementation plan under section 172 or under subpart 5 of
part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a finding that the named states and territories failed to
submit a complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area plan
requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of
the CAA for the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS and does not
directly or disproportionately affect children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations. In finding that the named states and
territories have failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the
nonattainment area plan requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of
part D of Title I of the CAA for the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS, this action does not directly affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA
under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of
``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) such action is locally or
regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a
determination.''
    This final action is nationally applicable. To the extent a court
finds this final action to be locally or regionally applicable, the EPA
finds that this action is based on a determination of ``nationwide
scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This
final action consists of findings of failure to submit required SIPs
from four states and territories for five named nonattainment areas for
the 2010 primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, located in four of the 10
EPA Regions, and in four different federal judicial circuits. This
final action is also based on a common core of factual findings
concerning the receipt and completeness of the relevant SIP submittals.
For these reasons, this final action is nationally applicable or,
alternatively, to the extent a court finds this action to be locally or
regionally applicable, the Administrator has determined that this final
action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect for
purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this
final action is published in the Federal Register.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final action does not affect the finality of the action for the
purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of
implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 8, 2020.
Anne L. Austin,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-22947 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30247-30249]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0574; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models 228-100,
228-101, 228-200, 228-201, and 228-202 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent installation of
A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main landing gear with
P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not approved for
installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD D-1994-042 or
Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0574;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-028-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2009-0062, dated March 13, 2009 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent installation of
A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main landing gear with
P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not approved for
installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD D-1994-042 or
Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

    The MCAI requires inspection of the main landing gear (MLG) and, if
applicable, replacement of the MLG stub axle. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology has issued Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin SB-228-276, dated October 16, 2008. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 15 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $1,200 or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $23,734, for a cost
of $25,014 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:

    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2009-0574; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-028-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 27, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models Dornier 228-100, Dornier 228-101,
Dornier 228-200, Dornier 228-201, and Dornier 228-202 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent installation of
A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main landing gear with
P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not approved for
installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD D-1994-042 or
Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

The MCAI requires inspection of the main landing gear (MLG) and, if
applicable, replacement of the MLG stub axle.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions following RUAG
Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin SB-228-
276, dated October 16, 2008:
    (1) Within the next 14 days after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the main landing gear (MLG) stub axle.
    (2) If any P/N A-511000B28B stub axle is found, upon
accumulation of 9,500 total landings on the axle or before further
flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
replace the axle or the housing assembly with a new axle P/N A-
511000C28B. If the total number of landings accumulated by the stub
axle cannot be positively determined, the stub axle must be
considered to have accumulated more than 9,500 total landings.

    Note 1: Operators that do not have landing (or cycle) records
may determine the number of landings (or cycles) by dividing the
number of hours time-in-service of each airplane by the time of the
average flight for the aircraft of that type in the operator's
fleet.

    Note 2: P/N A-511000C28B axle together with the housings P/N A-
511000C27B and P/N A-521000C27B form the Axle Assemblies P/N
AD511010A00C and P/N AD521010A00C, which are life limited to 48,000
landings per the Dornier 228 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual
(TLMCM) Chapter 05-10-10.

    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install MLG
assemblies P/N A-511000C00F and P/N A-521000C00F fitted with a P/N
A-511000B28B stub axle on any airplane.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to EASA AD No.: 2009-0062, dated March 13, 2009; and
RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin SB-
228-276, dated October 16, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 19, 2009.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14994 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24257-24258]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69403; File No. SR-OCC-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Implement a Revised Method of
Calculating Clearing Members' Respective Contributions to OCC's
Clearing Fund

April 18, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 19, 2013 The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-02 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 8, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69026 (March 4,
2013), 78 FR 15088 (March 8, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's By-Laws
and Rules to implement a revised method of calculating Clearing
Members' contributions to OCC's Clearing Fund. Currently, Clearing
Members contribute to the Clearing Fund in proportion to average daily
open interest, i.e., the total number of cleared contracts and open
positions plus units of stock underlying open stock loan or borrow
positions, over the calendar month preceding the date of calculation,
subject to a $150,000 minimum contribution.
    OCC has developed a new allocation formula that it believes will
equitably allocate contributions among its Clearing Members based on
each Clearing Member's particular activities and use of OCC's
facilities.\4\ The revised formula will include the following
components and weights: (1) Open interest (50% of total); (2) total
risk charge (35% of total); and (3) volume (15% of total).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC believes the new allocation formula generally reflects
similar practices that are in place at the other clearing agencies
registered with the Commission. See supra note 3, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 34-69026 (March 4, 2013), 78 FR 15088
(March 8, 2013).
    \5\ Because Execution-Only Clearing Members do not clear their
own trades, the measure of volume applicable to them would be
executed volume rather than cleared volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total risk charge is intended to measure the economic
significance of the activities of a Clearing Member. The total risk
charge is equal to the margin requirement, as determined by OCC, of the
accounts of the Clearing Member exclusive of the net asset value of
those accounts. OCC notes that a range of factors influence the
relationship between the open interest in a Clearing Member's account
and its associated risk charge. For example, for each Clearing Member
these factors include, but are not limited to, the types of positions,
number of long positions versus short positions, value of the
securities underlying the contracts, volatility of the underlying,
diversification, number of accounts of the Clearing Member, and the
extent to which the Clearing Member's options positions are in-the-
money or out-of-the-money.
    Volume, like open interest, is a measure of a Clearing Member's
level of usage of OCC's facilities. However, volume is distinct from
open interest in that it is a function of the average turnover of the
positions in the Clearing Member's account. Therefore, according to
OCC, market-making, high frequency trading, and execution-only services
are all examples of activities that might elevate volume relative to
open interest. By contrast, holding long term positions in long term
contracts is an example of activity that might lower a Clearing
Member's volume relative to its open interest.
    OCC believes that its proposed allocation formula is preferable to
its current formula because, by incorporating measurements of volume
and certain risk charges, it will apportion contributions based on more
sophisticated measurements of Clearing Members' usage of OCC's
facilities and recognize demands on OCC's services and facilities that
are not captured by open interest alone.
    OCC believes it is appropriate for open interest to continue to
serve as the most heavily weighted component because open interest,
generally speaking, is a measure of a Clearing Member's overall usage
of OCC's facilities. The definition of open interest in proposed Rule
1001(d) is different than the definition of open interest in existing
Rule 1001(b), which OCC is deleting, in a non-material way as a result
of the use of the defined term ``cleared contract'' in proposed Rule
1001(d) instead of specifically naming the individual types of
contracts that make up ``cleared contracts.''

    OCC also believes that risk and volume are relevant factors because
they distinctly measure material aspects of clearance and settlement
activity and therefore a Clearing Member's use of OCC's resources. OCC
notes that Clearing Members whose OCC accounts contain positions that
are well-diversified and/or exhibit relatively little exposure to
overall market direction will likely have a smaller required
contribution under the proposed formula. Clearing Members exhibiting a
relatively large exposure to market direction, a concentration in
contracts that individually present high amounts of risk, and
undiversified accounts will generally experience a larger required
contribution than is the case under the current formula.
    OCC notes that most Clearing Member Groups\6\ will experience a
material change (i.e., an increase or decrease of 10% or greater in the
dollar amount of a Clearing Member Group's aggregated Clearing Fund
requirement) under the new formula. OCC notes that smaller single firms
with lower initial Clearing Fund requirements may experience an
increase under the new allocation formula because (i) they may have
portfolios lacking the diversification that lowers the risk compared
with open interest for larger firms, and (ii) the new formula adds a
Clearing Fund share on top of the $150,000 minimum as opposed to
instead of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Clearing Member Group'' is defined in Article I,
Section 1 of OCC's By-Laws as ``a Clearing Member and any Member
Affiliates of such Clearing Member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clearing Fund requirements under the new allocation formula
will be communicated to Clearing Members with significant lead time to
allow Clearing Members to review and prepare for any changes they may
experience in their specific Clearing Fund contribution amount. OCC
will contact those Clearing Members that will be negatively impacted in
a material manner (i.e., an increase of 10% or greater in the dollar
amount of a Clearing Member Group's aggregate Clearing Fund
requirement) to confirm such Clearing Members have reviewed the pro
forma Clearing Fund requirement numbers and they are ready to meet the
new requirement upon implementation. OCC will then begin a two stage
phase in process for the new Clearing Fund requirements. The first
stage of implementation will occur within 180 calendar days from the
date that OCC provides notice to Clearing Members of its intent to
implement the new formula. At that stage, open interest, total risk
charge, and volume will be applied in the formula with weightings of
75%, 17.5%, and 7.5%, respectively. The second stage of implementation
and the final weightings of 50%, 35%, and 15% will then be implemented
within 360 days from the same date of the original notice to Clearing
Members concerning implementation of the new formula.
    The proposed rule change will also create a defined term in OCC's
By-Laws, ``Futures-Only Affiliated Clearing Member,'' to refer to a
Clearing Member that is admitted solely for the purpose of clearing
transactions in security futures, commodity futures, and/or futures
options.\7\ While the definition is new, there will be no substantive
change to Section 2 of Article VIII, under which, if such a Clearing
Member is a member affiliate of an earlier-admitted Clearing Member,
the Clearing Member's initial Clearing Fund contribution may be fixed
by the Board as an amount that excludes the minimum Clearing Fund
component of $150,000, so long as the earlier-admitted Clearing Member
already satisfies that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Article VIII, Section 2 of OCC's By-Laws actually refers
also to ``commodity options,'' but options directly on an underlying
commodity--as opposed to options on futures--are now included in
Section 1a(47) of the Commodity Exchange Act to fall within the
definition of a ``swap.'' 7 U.S.C. 1a(47). Since OCC does not
currently have rules for the clearing of swaps, the reference to
commodity options is being omitted from the new definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and to the extent applicable derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and to protect
investors and the public interest. Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \10\
requires that the rules of the clearing agency provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its participants. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) \11\ requires a registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to use risk-based models and parameters
to set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the
related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change accomplishes these purposes by enhancing
the Clearing Fund allocation methodology by incorporating measures that
OCC believes will apportion contributions based on more sophisticated
measurements of Clearing Members' usage of OCC's facilities and
recognize demands on OCC's services and facilities that are not
captured by the current methodology.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-02) be and
hereby is APPROVED.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09632 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P