[Federal Register: April 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18931-18932]
[DOCID:fr13ap10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61857; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Add a Note to Rule 4.11 Advising the Delta-Based Equity
Hedge Exemption Is Not Currently Available for Customers

April 7, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 26, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one
constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect
to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder, which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to add a note to the beginning of Interpretation and
Policy .04 (c) to Rule 4.11, Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption,
advising that this exemption is not currently available to customers.
The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary
and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission previously approved CBOE's proposed rule change, as
modified [sic] Amendment No. 1, to extend the delta hedging exemption
from equity option position limits to positions of customers who hedge
those positions in accordance with a pricing model maintained and
operated by the Options Clearing Corporation.\3\ Consistent with
Amendment No. 1 and the approval order, which provided that CBOE was
adopting the delta hedging exemption for customers but not implementing
it immediately, the purpose of this rule change is to add a note the
beginning of Interpretation and Policy .04 (c) to Rule 4.11, Delta-
Based Equity Hedge Exemption, advising that this exemption is not
currently available to customers. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to add the following language,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60555 (August 21,
2009), 74 FR 43741 (August 27, 2009).

    * Note: The Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption for customers is
not currently available and customers may not seek to rely on the
Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular to announce when the Delta-Based Equity Hedge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemption is available to customers.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes this rule proposal is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \5\
requirements that the rules of an

exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule
change seeks to provide an advisory note to notify customers that the
Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption for customers is not currently
available and that the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular
announcing when the exemption becomes available for customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change will take effect upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \6\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\7\ because it constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-030. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2010-030 and should be submitted on or before May 4, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8366 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64805-64807]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0508; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00070-T;
Amendment 39-21747; AD 2021-20-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-03-
03, which applied to certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR72 airplanes. AD 2021-03-03 required revising
the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since
the FAA issued AD 2021-03-03, the FAA has determined that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 27, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 27,
2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March
31, 2021 (86 FR 11103, February 24, 2021).

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0508.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0508; 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 address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3220; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0020, dated January 15, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0020) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR72
airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-03-03, Amendment 39-21406 (86 FR
11103, February 24, 2021) (AD 2021-03-03). AD 2021-03-03 applied to
certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR72
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2021
(86 FR 38239). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM
proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0020.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking and damage
in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0020 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD also requires EASA AD 2020-0173, dated August 5, 2020,
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of March 31, 2021 (86 FR 11103, February 24, 2021).
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 the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2021-03-03 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-03-03, Amendment 39-21406
(86 FR 11103, February 24, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-20-09 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Amendment
39-21747; Docket No. FAA-2021-0508; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00070-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 27,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-03-03, Amendment 39-21406 (86 FR 11103,
February 24, 2021) (AD 2021-03-03).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes,
certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or before October 9, 2020.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking and damage in principal
structural elements, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2021-03-03, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before December 12, 2019, except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required
actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with,
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0173, dated
August 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0173). Accomplishing the revision of
the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph
(j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0173, With Revised Exceptions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2021-03-03, with revised exceptions.
    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0173 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using March 31, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-03-
03).
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA
AD 2020-0173 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0173 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP [aircraft maintenance program]'' within 12 months after
its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
``limitations, tasks and associated thresholds and intervals''
specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0173 within 90 days after
March 31, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-03-03).
    (4) Except as provided by paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0173,
the initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0173 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0173, or
within 90 days after March 31, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-
03-03), whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (5) and (6) of EASA
AD 2020-0173 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0173 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals, With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD
2021-03-03, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals, are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-0173.

(j) New Maintenance Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0020,

dated January 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0020). Accomplishing the
revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required
by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0020

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0020 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0020 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0020 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) Except as provided by Note 1 of EASA AD 2021-0020, the
initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph
(3) of EASA AD 2021-0020 is at the applicable ``thresholds'' as
incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-
0020, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2021-0020 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0020 does not apply
to this AD.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2021-0020.

(m) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (n) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 27, 2021.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0020,
dated January 15, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 31, 2021 (86 FR 11103, February 24, 2021).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0173,
dated August 5, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA AD 2021-0020 and AD 2020-0173, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this material 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 14, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-25203 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25990-25994]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0020]

Pipeline Safety: Lessons Learned From the Release at Marshall,
Michigan

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an advisory bulletin to inform all pipeline
owners and operators of the deficiencies identified in Enbridge's
integrity management (IM) program that contributed to the release of
hazardous liquid near Marshall, Michigan, on July 25, 2010. Pipeline
owners and operators are encouraged to review their own IM programs for
similar deficiencies and to take corrective action. Operators should
also consider training their control room staff as teams to recognize
and respond to emergencies or unexpected conditions. Further, the
advisory encourages operators to evaluate their leak detection
capabilities to ensure adequate leak detection coverage during
transient operations and assess the performance of their leak detection
systems following a product release to identify and implement
improvements as appropriate. Additionally, operators are encouraged to
review the effectiveness of their public awareness programs and whether
local emergency response teams are adequately prepared to identify and
respond to early indications of ruptures. Finally, this advisory
reminds all pipeline owners and operators to review National
Transportation Safety Board recommendations following accident
investigations. Owners and operators should evaluate and implement
recommendations that are applicable to their programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Daugherty by phone at 816-329-
3821 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about PHMSA
may be found at http://phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m. eastern daylight time, a segment of
a 30-inch-

diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge
Incorporated (Enbridge), ruptured in a wetland near Marshall, Michigan.
The rupture was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. During
that time period, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of
the total release) into Line 6B during two startups. The total release
was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the
surrounding wetlands and flowed into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo
River. Local residents self-evacuated from their homes, and serious
environmental damage required long-term remediation. About 320 people
reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure. No fatalities
were reported. Cleanup and remediation continues, and costs have
exceeded $1 billion.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the
probable cause of the pipeline rupture was stress corrosion cracking
that grew and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects under
disbonded polyethylene tape coating. The NTSB also determined the
rupture and prolonged release were caused by pervasive organizational
failures at Enbridge that included: (1) Deficient integrity management
(IM) procedures, which allowed well-documented crack defects in
corroded areas to propagate until the pipeline failed; (2) inadequate
training of control center personnel, which resulted in Enbridge's
failure to recognize the rupture for 17 hours and through two re-starts
of the pipeline; and (3) insufficient public awareness and education,
which allowed the release to continue for nearly 14 hours after the
first notification of an odor to local emergency response agencies.

PHMSA IM Regulations

    Subpart O of 49 CFR part 192 and Sec.  195.452, also known as the
IM regulations, require operators of gas transmission and hazardous
liquid pipelines to institute a continual process for evaluation of
pipeline integrity (see also: Guidance in Advisory Bulletin ADB-2012-
10, ``Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity Management
Program Evaluations,'' 77 FR 72435, December 5, 2012). Specifically,
Sec. Sec.  192.937 and 195.453(j) require that an operator have a
continual process for the evaluation of pipeline integrity. The
evaluation must consider the results of integrity assessments, data
collection and integration, remediation, and preventative and
mitigative actions in evaluating pipeline integrity. The operator must
use the results from this evaluation to identify the threats specific
to each pipeline segment that could impact a High Consequence Area
(HCA) and the risk represented by those threats. The operator must
perform assessments that are specific to those threats and then
identify and implement appropriate remedial, preventative and
mitigative measures. Sections 192.945 and 195.452(k) require that an
operator have methods to measure the effectiveness of their integrity
management programs.
    An operator's IM program must include the results of past and
present integrity assessments, risk assessment information and data
integrated from throughout the pipeline system. This information and
its analysis must be taken into account when making decisions about
remediation, preventive and mitigative actions.
    The ability to integrate and analyze threat and integrity related
data from many sources is essential for sustaining and continually
improving safety performance and a proactive IM program. Operators must
use the results from this integrated evaluation to identify the threats
specific to each pipeline segment that could impact a HCA. The operator
must then perform assessments that are specific to the identified
threats and implement remedial, preventive and mitigative measures, as
appropriate.
    The IM regulations supplement PHMSA's prescriptive safety
regulations with requirements that are more performance-based and
process-oriented. One of the fundamental tenets of the IM program is
that each individual pipeline has a unique risk profile that is
dependent on factors including the pipeline's physical attributes, its
geographical location, its design, its operating environment and the
commodity it transports. Pipeline operators use this risk profile to
identify appropriate assessment tools, set the schedule for performing
integrity assessments and identify the need for additional preventive
and mitigative measures such as lowering operating pressures,
installing automatic or remote control shut-off valves and installing
additional right-of-way markers, among other safety measures. If this
risk profile information is unknown, unknowable, or uncertain, the
pipeline should be operated more conservatively.
Deficiencies Found in Enbridge's IM Program
    The following facts illustrate the ways in which Enbridge failed to
institute and maintain an adequate IM program:
    In 2007, Enbridge experienced a release on its Line 3 in Glenavon,
Saskatchewan. Following the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's
investigation and issuance of a report, Enbridge changed its assessment
process to account for tool tolerances when performing engineering
assessments. However, Enbridge did not retroactively apply these
changes to the 2005 in-line inspection (ILI) data assessments performed
on the line that ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. In its investigation
of this incident, the NTSB found that Enbridge's IM program did not
incorporate a process of continuous reassessment to all pipeline
engineering assessments, and it neglected to apply the revised crack
assessment methods to Line 6B. The NTSB also found a lack of data
integration was a significant contributor to the consequences of the
Marshall, Michigan incident.
    The NTSB further concluded:
     Enbridge's response to past IM-related accidents focused
only on the proximate cause, without a systematic examination of
company actions, policies and procedures.
     Enbridge's IM program consistently chose a less-than-
conservative approach to pipeline safety margins for crack features.
     In preparing the risk analysis, Enbridge failed to
consider all relevant risk factors associated with the determination of
the amount of product that could be released from a rupture on Line 6B.
     The results of multiple ILI assessments on Line 6B were
evaluated independently and the information from these assessments was
not properly integrated to assure pipeline integrity.
     Enbridge used a lower safety margin when evaluating crack
defects versus corrosion defects. Enbridge's criterion for excavating
and remediating a crack defect was when the predicted failure pressure
was less than the hydrostatic test pressure (1.25 times maximum
operating pressure). Enbridge's criterion for excavating and
remediating a corrosion defect was when the predicted failure pressure
was less than the specified minimum yield strength (1.39 times maximum
operating pressure).
     Enbridge used the maximum depth reported in a 2005
UltraScan Crack Detection (USCD) ILI tool run without accounting for
tool accuracy or performance specifications. Further, Enbridge did not
compare the 2005 USCD-reported wall thickness to a 2004 UltraScan Wall
Measurement tool run that measured local wall thicknesses. Enbridge
used the thicker, incorrect measurement in determining the predicted
failure pressure and crack growth calculations.

     Enbridge did not account for the interaction between
corrosion and cracking. Assessments for corrosion in 2004 and for
cracks in 2005 showed areas of overlap. Using the crack depth
measurements alone likely resulted in an underestimation of the total
wall loss.
     The ILI vendor's junior analyst classified certain
features from the 2005 USCD ILI tool run as ``crack-field'' features,
but the ILI vendor supervisor re-classified them as ``crack-like''
features in the report to Enbridge. Enbridge policies allowed longer
``crack-like'' features to persist without further evaluation than
``crack-field'' features. The post-accident investigation determined
that the features were in fact ``crack-field'' features. Although the
excavation threshold for ``crack-field'' features was 2.5 inches, the
misclassified features measured 3.5 inches and were not examined
further.
     The Enbridge crack management group used a fatigue-crack
growth model to predict the remaining life of the pipeline. In 2011, an
independent consultant determined that the ``environmentally assisted
cracking mechanism that is most prevalent along Enbridge's liquid
pipeline system is either near-neutral pH SCC (stress corrosion
cracking) or corrosion fatigue.'' The growth rates of environmentally
assisted cracks can be exponentially greater than nominal fatigue-crack
growth rates.

PHMSA Control Center Operations and Training Regulations

    Sections 192.631 and 195.446 contain the requirements for gas
transmission and hazardous liquid control room management,
respectively, which establish roles and responsibilities, tools and
procedures that allow operators to perform their duties, alarm
management and training. The requirements address many of the
deficiencies NTSB noted that led to the prolonged release of crude oil
in Marshall, Michigan (see also: Guidance in Advisory Bulletins ADB-
2005-06; ``Countermeasures to Prevent Human Fatigue in the Control
Room;'' 70 FR 46917; August 11, 2005, and ADB-2010-01; ``Leak Detection
on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines;'' 75 FR 4134; January 26, 2010).
Deficiencies Found in Enbridge's Control Center Operations and Training
    With respect to Enbridge's control center operations and training,
the NTSB concluded:
     Due to the rapid growth of Enbridge's pipeline system,
Enbridge hired additional control center staff without objectively
assessing whether that growth in personnel would affect safe
operations.
     The leak detection process was prone to misinterpretation,
and control center analysts and operators were not adequately trained
in how to recognize or address leaks, especially during startup and
shutdown. Therefore, low-pressure alarms, material balance system
alarms and sudden and complete loss of pump station discharge pressure
were mistakenly attributed to column separation rather than a pipeline
rupture. Furthermore, the control center ignored warnings from field
and operations personnel that there was a possible leak. In post-
accident interviews, control center personnel attributed its
disinclination to believe a rupture had occurred to the absence of
external leak detection notifications, despite known limitations of the
leak detection system.
     Control room personnel did not follow the established
procedure to shut the pipeline down if column separation couldn't be
resolved within 10 minutes.
     Enbridge failed to train the control center staff in team
performance, which resulted in poor communication and lack of
leadership.

PHMSA's Public Awareness/Public Education Regulations

    Sections 192.616 and 195.440 contain the requirements for gas
transmission and hazardous liquid operators' public awareness programs
(PAP), respectively. These regulations incorporate the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162, ``Public
Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators,'' and require that operators
notify affected municipalities, school districts, businesses and
residents of the location of pipelines and pipeline facilities (see
also: guidance in ADB-2010-08; ``Emergency Preparedness
Communications;'' 75 FR 67807; November 3, 2010, and ADB-2012-09;
``Communication During Emergency Situations;'' 77 FR 61826; October 11,
2012). Section 8 of API RP 1162 contains guidance for communicating
with emergency responders, periodic evaluation of an operator's PAP,
and measuring the effectiveness of an operator's PAP (see also:
guidance in ADB-2003-04; ``Pipeline Industry Implementation of
Effective Public Awareness Programs;'' 68 FR 52816; September 5, 2003,
and ADB-2003-08; ``Self-Assessment of Pipeline Operator Public
Education Programs;'' 68 FR 66155; November 25, 2003).
Deficiencies Found in Enbridge's Public Awareness/Public Education
Program
    The NTSB identified several deficiencies in Enbridge's PAP,
including:
     Enbridge's PAP failed to effectively inform the affected
public, including citizens and emergency response agencies about the
location of the pipeline, how to identify a pipeline release and how to
report suspected product releases.
     Enbridge's review of its public awareness program was
ineffective in identifying and correcting deficiencies.
     An effective public awareness program would have better
prepared local emergency response agencies to identify and respond to
early indications of a rupture, which, once communicated to Enbridge,
would have prevented the restart of the line.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2014-02)

    To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Systems.
    Subject: Integrity Management Lessons Learned from the Marshall,
Michigan, Release.
    Advisory: To strengthen the Department's safety efforts, PHMSA is
issuing this advisory bulletin to notify pipeline owners and operators
they should evaluate their safety programs and implement any changes to
eliminate deficiencies similar to the ones the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) found when it investigated Enbridge's July 25,
2010, crude oil release in Marshall, Michigan. Specifically, the NTSB
investigation into the circumstances leading up to and following the
release identified specific deficiencies in three Enbridge programs:
integrity management (IM), control center operations and public
awareness. Had existing regulations, guidance, advisories and
recommendations regarding these programs been properly acted upon, the
consequences of that incident could have been prevented, or at the very
least, mitigated.

Integrity Management

    A fundamental tenet of the IM program is that pipeline operators
must be aware of the physical attributes of their pipelines, the
threats and risks posed by and to their pipelines, and the environments
which their pipelines transverse. Operator IM programs should reflect
the recognition that each pipeline is unique and has its own specific
risk profile that is dependent upon the pipeline's attributes,
geographical location, design, operating

environment, and commodity it transports, among other factors. It is
vital for operators to compile and integrate this information into
their IM programs to effectively identify and evaluate risk. If this
information is unknown, unknowable or uncertain, operators need to take
a more conservative approach to operations.
    As part of a robust IM program, an operator will match and use the
right tools for the threats being investigated, set the proper schedule
for pipeline segment integrity assessments and identify the need for
additional preventative and mitigative measures that protect pipeline
integrity, including lower operating pressures, automatic shutoff or
remotely controlled valves and additional right-of-way markers.
    However, an operator's IM program must go beyond simply assessing
pipeline segments and repairing defects--in fact, American Petroleum
Institute (API) Standard 1160, ``Managing System Integrity for
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,'' defines pipeline risk assessment as a
continuous process and defines risk analysis as a continuous
reassessment process. Continual improvement of IM programs (including
improvements in the analytical processes involved in analyzing
assessment results, identifying threats, responding to risks, the
application and implementation of assessments and the development of
preventative and mitigative measures) is a key aspect and critical
objective of an effective IM program.
    Occasionally, accident investigations or other events cause changes
in how operators analyze assessment data, including analytical
procedures, algorithms, software, acceptance criteria or how anomalies
are classified. For instance, a change in how an anomaly is classified
could impact remediation time frames, assessment intervals, decisions
regarding preventative and mitigative measures and the overall
perception of the integrity of the pipeline. The NTSB noted that
Enbridge accounted for changed tool tolerances when re-analyzing its
Line 3 data after an incident, but this change in tool tolerances was
not applied to the assessments performed on Line 6B. Operators should
evaluate any changes in how assessment data is analyzed to determine if
those changes will alter the results of any previously performed
integrity assessments. If so, operators should apply those changes to
any previously performed integrity assessments as appropriate.
    To assist in evaluating possible assessment data analysis changes,
operators should ensure that in-line inspection (ILI) vendors
communicate any changes in their analytical processes that might
require previous assessments to be re-analyzed. Improvements to vendor
analytical processes may change anomaly classifications in previous
assessments, and while vendors typically apply these changes to future
assessments, it is rare for vendors to re-analyze previously performed
assessments. Re-analyzing integrity assessments when analytical changes
occur is critical for ensuring safety based on the best available data
and expertise.
    The ability to analyze and integrate threat- and integrity-related
data from many sources is essential for operators to continually
improve and sustain safety performance and proactive IM programs.
However, some operators are not sufficiently aware of their pipeline
attributes, are not adequately or consistently assessing threats and
risks and are not effectively integrating data as a part of their IM
programs. A lack of data integration was a significant contributor to
the incident at Marshall, MI.
    When performing self-assessments of IM programs, operators should
compare their performance measures and program evaluations against the
guidance of ADB-2012-10, ``Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting
Integrity Management Program Evaluations'' (77 FR 72435, December 5,
2012).

Control Center Operations

    Sections 192.631 and 195.446 contain the requirements for gas
transmission and hazardous liquid control room management,
respectively. These requirements address many of the deficiencies the
NTSB noted during their investigation of the incident at Marshall, MI.
    PHMSA advises operators to regularly train their control room teams
and consider establishing a program to train control center staff as
teams in the recognition of and response to emergency and unexpected
conditions that include supervisory control and data acquisition
indications and leak detection software. Operators should perform
periodic evaluations of their leak detection capabilities to ensure
that adequate leak detection coverage is maintained during transient
operations, including pipeline shutdown, pipeline startup and column
separation. PHMSA previously issued ADB 10-01, ``Leak Detection on
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,'' (75 FR 4134; January 26, 2010) to provide
guidance on this issue. If an operator suffers an unexplained loss of
product, the operator should shut down the affected pipeline until the
problem is resolved. Operators should additionally assess the
performance of their leak detection system following a product release
and identify and implement improvements as appropriate.
    Pipeline owners and operators are also reminded to evaluate their
control room personnel scheduling policies and practices against the
guidance of ADB 05-06, ``Countermeasures to Prevent Human Fatigue in
the Control Room'' (70 FR 46917; August 11, 2005).

Public Awareness Programs

    PHMSA advises operators to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness
of their public awareness programs and whether local emergency response
agencies are prepared to identify and respond to early indications of a
rupture. Strong public awareness and education programs can help
shorten incident response times and improve overall incident response.
    Pipeline owners and operators should perform periodic self-
assessments of their public awareness programs against their written
public awareness program plans and API Recommended Practice 1162. PHMSA
previously issued guidance for these self-assessments under ADB 03-04,
``Pipeline Industry Implementation of Effective Public Awareness
Programs'' (68 FR 52816; September 5, 2003) and ADB 03-08, ``Self-
Assessment of Pipeline Operator Public Education Programs'' (68 FR
66155; November 25, 2003). Further, operators are encouraged to review
their procedures for communicating during emergency situations to
ensure compliance with the guidance previously issued in ADB 10-08,
``Emergency Preparedness Communications'' (75 FR 67807; November 3,
2010) and ADB 12-09, ``Communication During Emergency Situations'' (77
FR 61826; October 11, 2012).

Proactive Self-Assessment

    PHMSA strongly encourages operators to review past and future NTSB
recommendations that the NTSB provides to pipeline operators following
incident investigations. Operators should proactively implement
improvements to their pipeline safety programs based on these
observations and recommendations so that the entire industry can
benefit from the mistakes of one operator.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. chapter 601: 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 30, 2014.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-10248 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 28, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-14177

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Israir Airlines and Tourism Ltd.

							Date Filed: March 2, 2006, as supplemented March 27, 2006

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of passengers, property and mail
between Tel Aviv, Israel on the one hand and New York, New York, on the
other hand.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative: Stephen L. Gelband<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action: Approved								Action date:  March 28, 2006

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  March 28, 2006 –
March 28, 2007

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Bilateral
aviation agreement between the United States and Israel

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (          )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register: March 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10380-10382]
[DOCID:fr08mr07-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-1015; FRL-8285-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Iowa;
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the purpose of approving the Iowa Department of Natural Resources'
(IDNR) actions to address the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the Clean
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). These provisions require each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another
state's air quality through interstate transport. IDNR has adequately
addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of
interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of
the NAAQS, prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, and
protection of visibility. The requirements for public notification were
also met by IDNR.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 7, 2007, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-1015, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Heather
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-1015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is being addressed in this document?
What action is EPA taking?

What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is making a revision to the SIP for the purpose of approving
the IDNR's actions to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This CAA section requires each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect
another state. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in another state, (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility.
    EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed
below, Iowa's analysis of its SIP with respect to the statutory
requirements is consistent with the guidance.
    The IDNR has addressed the first two of these elements by the
adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) model rules that
require Iowa sources to participate in the EPA-administered cap and
trade program for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide.
Participation in this program will prohibit emissions from the state
that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
the maintenance of the NAAQS in any downwind state. As previously
determined by EPA, submittal of a SIP revision to satisfy CAIR also
fulfills the state's obligations that pertain to ``significant
contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance'' (70 FR 25162). It
should be noted that EPA will act on Iowa's CAIR SIP in a separate
rulemaking, and this action makes no conclusion with respect to
approvability of that submittal.
    The third element IDNR addressed was prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the obligation
by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to
PSD programs that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and that the
state is on track to meet the June 15, 2007, deadline for SIP
submissions adopting any relevant requirements of the Phase II ozone
implementation rule. For PM2.5, the state has confirmed that
the state's PSD program is being implemented in accordance with EPA's
interim guidance calling for the use of PM10 as a surrogate
for PM2.5 for the purposes of PSD review. Controlling
PM10 emissions and analyzing impacts on the environment
serves as a surrogate approach for reducing PM2.5 emissions
and minimizing impacts to air quality. Once PM2.5 guidance
is finalized by EPA, IDNR commits to transitioning from use of the
interim PM2.5 guidance to the final PM2.5
implementation guidance after approval of the PM2.5 SIP
revision (The submittal is due in April 2008).
    It should be noted that Iowa is currently designated attainment/
unclassifiable for both the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    At this time, it is not possible for IDNR to accurately determine
whether there is interference with measures in another state's SIP
designed to protect visibility, which is the fourth element that was
addressed. Technical projects relating to visibility degradation
source-receptor relationships are under development. Iowa will be in a
more advantageous position to address the visibility projection
requirements once the initial regional haze SIP has been developed.
IDNR intends to meet the December 17, 2007, submittal deadline for the
regional haze SIP.
    A public hearing with regard to this action was held by the state.
No comments were received.
    With this action, the non-regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.820(e) is
revised to reflect that IDNR addressed the elements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submittal.

What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving this revision submitted by Iowa and is revising 40
CFR 52.820 to reflect that the IDNR has adequately addressed the
required elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP. Please note
that if EPA receives adverse comments on part of this rule, and if that
part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as
final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does

not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 7, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State
 Name of nonregulatory SIP provision   Applicable geographic    submittal      EPA approval date     Explanation
                                       or  nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(36) CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP--        Statewide..............     11/22/06  March 8, 2007 [insert
 Interstate Transport.                                                       FR page number where
                                                                             the document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-4179 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P