[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5304]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER96-2027-000]

Midwest Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 24, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2005, Midwest Energy, Inc., submitted
for filing a market power report pursuant to the Commission's Order
issued May 31, 2005.
    Midwest Energy, Inc., states that copies of this filing were served
on the official service list as well as Kansas Corporation Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1239 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33858-33862]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95004; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear
Europe Operational Risk Management Policy and Risk Identification
Framework

May 27, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On March 31, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
to amend its Operational Risk Management Policy (the ``ORMP'') and add
to ICE Clear Europe's rule framework the Risk Identification Framework
(the ``RIF''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 14, 2022.\3\ The Commission did not
receive comments regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to
the ICE Clear Europe Operational Risk Management Policy and Risk
Identification Framework, Exchange Act Release No. 34-94649 (Apr. 8,
2022); 87 FR 22273 (Apr. 14, 2022) (SR-ICEEU-2022-008) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

i. ORMP

    The current ORMP describes ICE Clear Europe's process for
identifying, assessing, managing, monitoring, and reporting operational
risks and requires that ICE Clear Europe assess its operational risks
at least annually.\4\ The proposed rule change would maintain the
overall process as found in the current ORMP but revise the description
of the specific steps that makeup the overall process--generally by
incorporating into the ORMP additional detail regarding current
practices relating to those steps--and modify certain aspects of some
of those steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This description is substantially excerpted from the Notice,
87 FR 22273. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in the ORMP, the RIF, or ICE Clear
Europe's Rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed rule change would explicitly incorporate into
the ORMP ICE Clear Europe's Enterprise Risk Register, which ICE Clear
Europe also refers to as the Risk Register Dashboard (referred to
herein as the ``Risk Dashboard''). Currently, once ICE Clear Europe
identifies operational risks pursuant to the existing ORMP, it
documents those risks in the Risk Dashboard. The Risk Dashboard
therefore serves as an inventory of the specific operational risks that
ICE Clear Europe has identified as part of its existing risk
identification process under the ORMP. The Risk Dashboard also includes
information about, among other things, the ICE Clear Europe department
that owns the risk (the ``Risk Owner''), the level of inherent risk,
and the overall rating for the control that mitigates each risk.
However, while the Risk Dashboard currently is used as part of ICE
Clear Europe's risk identification process under the ORMP, it is not
actually referenced in the ORMP. The proposed rule change would
formally incorporate the Risk Dashboard into the ORMP and include it as
an appendix to the ORMP. The proposed rule change also would add to the
ORMP a description of the process for reviewing and updating the Risk
Register as part of ICE Clear Europe's existing annual assessment of
its operational risks, thereby formalizing that process as a
requirement under the ORMP.
    The current ORMP requires that Risk Owners complete the risk
identification process at least once a year and specifies that this
process shall not only allow the

identification of new risks but also the discontinuation of those that
no longer exist. It also specifies that if risks emerge or cease to
exist in between the annual reviews, ad hoc assessments shall be
triggered, which necessarily implies that risks must be identified more
frequently than annually as needed to determine whether risks emerge or
cease to exist in between annual reviews. The revised ORMP would
continue to require that Risk Owners complete the risk identification
process at least once a year, but explicitly require that the risk
identification process be completed more frequently than annually as
needed to reflect material risk changes, such as operational risk
incidents. The revised ORMP also would explicitly acknowledge that this
process would allow ICE Clear Europe to identify new risks and
discontinue documenting risks that no longer exist.
    With respect to the assessment of risks, the current ORMP requires
that Risk Owners measure the potential impact of identified risks and
categorize this potential impact by severity and likelihood. Risk
Owners also consider the effect of controls on reducing the potential
impact of identified risks. The risk remaining after considering the
reduction caused by a control is the residual risk. The current ORMP
treats residual risk as an assessment of the effectiveness of a control
in reducing the potential impact of a risk. The revised ORMP would
maintain the same general framework for risk assessment as currently
used, but would provide additional detail with respect to controls and
the assessment of their effectiveness. Under the current ORMP, Risk
Owners musts assess risks on a controlled and uncontrolled basis and
must consider whether existing control mechanisms should be enhanced,
substituted, or abandoned. ICE Clear Europe proposes to continue
requiring such assessments, but to elaborate on the process by focusing
discussion in the ORMP on inherent risk versus residual risk. Under the
revised ORMP, Risk Owners would consider each risk on an inherent basis
(without taking into account the reduction caused by mitigating
controls) and on a residual basis (taking into account the reduction
caused by mitigating controls). Risk Owners would rate each inherent
and residual risk on a five-point scale--very low, low, medium, high,
or very high. As part of this process, Risk Owners also would rate the
mitigation that each control is expected to provide as high/medium/low
and the effectiveness of each control as satisfactory/needs
improvement/unsatisfactory. Risk Owners would derive the effectiveness
of a control from a number of measures, such as control testing,
metrics, and governance. The revised ORMP would require Risk Owners to
perform the risk assessment and related control assessment at least
once a year or more frequently as needed to reflect material risk
changes, such as operational risk incidents.
    The current ORMP makes Risk Owners responsible for proposing and
implementing remedial actions to manage risks, subject to the approval
of the Executive Risk Committee. Further, the type of remedial action
depends on the potential expected impact of the operational risk and is
implemented following the risk assessments or control assessments. The
revised ORMP would similarly require Risk Owners to propose and
implement remedial actions, but they also would be required to take
into account the expected impact of mitigating controls and further
remediating actions would be explicitly required for any residual risks
assessed as high or very high. In addition, rather than being subject
solely to the approval of the Executive Risk Committee, the revised
ORMP would require any proposed remedial actions to be immediately
escalated to Senior Management and applicable Risk Committees or the
ICE Clear Europe Board.
    The monitoring of risks under the revised ORMP would be generally
the same as under the current ORMP. The current ORMP requires that Risk
Owners and the Risk Oversight Department continuously monitor risks,
including daily monitoring through the use of certain indicators. The
revised ORMP similarly would require that Risk Owners and the Risk
Oversight Department continuously monitor risks, but would specify that
such monitoring should be ongoing monitoring (not just daily), in order
to clarify that monitoring should be continuous and not just once a
day. This particular change could be beneficial if, for example, under
the current daily monitoring ICE Clear Europe conducts monitoring at a
single specific time during the day and the risk emerges after that
time. Moreover, the current ORMP requires that the Risk Oversight
Department monitor risks daily through the Risk Appetite Metrics and
the Management Thresholds. The revised ORMP would likewise require the
Risk Oversight Department to conduct such monitoring, but it would
specify that the monitoring would be either daily or monthly given that
some metrics and thresholds are considered monthly and others are
considered daily. ICE Clear Europe calculates some existing risk
metrics on a monthly basis, so specifying monthly monitoring here would
take into account these metrics while maintaining daily monitoring for
the existing daily metrics.
    The current ORMP requires assessments and operational incidents to
be reported to senior management, the Audit Committee, and the Board
Risk Committee, and further provides that the Board Risk Committee and
Board shall be informed of material incidents. The review and
assessment of operational incidents is part of ICE Clear Europe's
second line risk function, therefore the revised ORMP would require
that assessments and operational incidents be reported to senior
management and the Board Risk Committee, but it would replace the Audit
Committee, which is part of ICE Clear Europe's third line of risk
defense with the Executive Risk Committee, which is part of its second
line of defense, thereby aligning the risk function with its
appropriate line of defense. The Commission further notes that given at
least one member of the Audit Committee is also a member of the Board
Risk Committee, this member could share information related to
operational risk with the Audit Committee as needed.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ICE Clear Europe Limited, Compliance with Principles for
Financial Market Infrastructures Disclosure Framework, available at
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/ICE_Clear_Europe_Disclosure_Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that the Board Risk Committee and Board be informed
of material incidents would not change. The current ORMP also specifies
that the Product Risk Committees and the Executive Risk Committees will
receive information related to operational risk. The revised ORMP would
require that the Risk Oversight Department report operational risks
daily and monthly to senior management and the Executive Risk
Committee. Thus, the revised ORMP would specify that the Risk Oversight
Department would report this information, and would not include any
role for Product Risk Committees. The Commission notes that although
the revised ORMP would remove the Product Risk Committees, the CDS
Product Risk Committee includes as a member either the ICE Clear Europe
President or the Head of First Line Clearing Risk, and that the
President and the Head of First Line Clearing Risk are both voting
members of the Executive Risk Committee. Given that, the Commission
believes that the President or Head of First Line Clearing Risk could
share information related to

operational risk with the CDS Product Risk Committee as needed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ICE Clear Europe Limited, Compliance with Principles for
Financial Market Infrastructures Disclosure Framework, available at
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/ICE_Clear_Europe_Disclosure_Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised ORMP would require that the Executive Risk Committee
approve changes in the Risk Dashboard at each monthly meeting and
report those changes to Board Risk Committee and Board. Although the
proposed rule change would add this language to the ORMP (it is not
stated in the current ORMP), this requirement is currently found in the
Risk Identification Framework, as discussed below.
    With respect to the oversight of the ORMP itself, currently the
policy provides that it is subject to the oversight of the Audit
Committee and Risk Oversight Department. The proposed rule change would
remove the Audit Committee, such that the revised ORMP would only be
subject to the oversight of the Risk Oversight Department, thereby
aligning the risk function with its appropriate line of defense, as
discussed above.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would correct typographical
errors throughout the ORMP. The proposed rule change also would update
the appendices to the ORMP by adding descriptive titles to the
appendices. For example, the proposed rule change would specify that
Appendix A is the Risk Dashboard. The proposed rule change also would
explain the numerical scores attached to the assessment guidelines in
Appendix C.

ii. Risk Identification Framework

    ICE Clear Europe has had its current Risk Identification Framework
in place since 2016 but has not yet adopted it through the Commission's
proposed rule change process. The proposed rule change would formally
adopt the RIF as a Rule of ICE Clear Europe without change to the
current document.
    As described in Section 1, the RIF provides ICE Clear Europe's
Board with a structure to explore, identify, and monitor risks as well
as ensure that risk tolerance is articulated and documented. It does
this by providing a description of the components of ICE Clear Europe's
operational risk management process.
    Section 2 of the RIF describes four components of this structure:
the risk taxonomy, the Risk Dashboard, risk assessment, and emerging
risk assessment. The Risk Taxonomy, which is a single universal risk
structure, terminology, and hierarchy, is incorporated into the Risk
Dashboard, which, as noted above, inventories ICE Clear Europe's risks
and assigns an owner for each risk. The RIF requires that the
Enterprise Risk Committee approve changes to the Risk Dashboard monthly
and report them to the Board Risk Committee. With respect to the risk
assessment, the RIF refers to the details provided in the ORMP, as
described above. Finally, with the respect to the emerging risk
assessment, the RIF also describes how ICE Clear Europe assesses
emerging risks, which are potential, undefined, or unfamiliar one-off
risk events that may have a detrimental impact on ICE Clear Europe. ICE
Clear Europe does so through a special emerging risk assessment and a
register of emerging risk, which is presented to the Board and certain
board committees.
    Section 3 of the RIF describes the documentation ownership and
governance processes in respect of the RIF itself. The Chief Risk
Officer owns the RIF, and the Executive Risk Committee and Board must
approve any material changes. The Executive Risk Committee and Board
review the Risk Identification Framework annually.
    Finally, the RIF contains appendices like those found in the ORMP,
including the Risk Dashboard and impact assessment guidelines.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 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.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \8\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(17)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions.\10\ Based on its review of the record, and for the
reasons discussed below, the Commission believes the proposed changes
to the ORMP and the formalization of the RIF are consistent with the
promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would improve
ICE Clear Europe's process for identifying, assessing, managing,
monitoring, and reporting operational risks. It would do so, for
example, by revising the description of the risk identification process
in the ORMP to include the Risk Dashboard and by including the Risk
Dashboard itself as an appendix to the ORMP and to the RIF. Because the
Risk Dashboard documents all of ICE Clear Europe's identified
operational risks, the Commission believes that adding Risk Dashboard
as appendix to the ORMP and RIF would help to ensure that Risk Owners
focus on identifying new, undocumented operational risks by delineating
ICE Clear Europe's existing, known risks.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the revisions to the ORMP
could improve ICE Clear Europe's overall ability to assess the
potential impact of operational risks. For example, the requirement
that Risk Owners consider and rate each risk on an inherent and a
residual basis should help identify the impact of a risk with and
without a mitigating control. The Commission believes such an
assessment could highlight the impact that could result from the
failure of a mitigating control. This assessment in turn could inform
Risk Owners' ratings of the effectiveness of mitigating controls and
efforts to improve ineffective controls. Overall, the Commission
believes that the focus on mitigating controls and their effectiveness
would help to ensure that ICE Clear Europe maintains controls that are
effective at mitigating operational risk. Finally, requiring Risk
Owners to perform the risk assessment and related control assessment at
least once a year or more frequently as needed to reflect material risk
changes, instead of ad hoc assessments if risks emerge or cease to
exist in-between the annual reviews, should help to ensure that ICE
Clear Europe timely identifies any issues with respect to the
effectiveness of its controls.
    The Commission further believes that revising the ORMP to focus on
the management of residual risks would improve ICE Clear Europe's
ability to manage its operational risks. Because ICE Clear Europe has
controls in place to mitigate the potential impact of its operational
risks, the Commission considers it appropriate to focus ICE Clear
Europe's efforts on maintaining

the effectiveness of those controls (as discussed above) and the
management of the residual risk remaining after accounting for the
mitigating controls. The Commission believes that requiring remediating
actions for any residual risks assessed as high or very high should
help to ensure that ICE Clear Europe manages those residual risks that
have a significant impact on ICE Clear Europe's operations. The
Commission further believes that requiring that any proposed remedial
actions be escalated to Senior Management and applicable Risk
Committees or the ICE Clear Europe Board, as opposed to just being
approved by the Executive Risk Committee, would help to ensure that
appropriate ICE Clear Europe personnel, including Board-level
committees, are informed and involved in the management of residual
risks.
    Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed monitoring and
reporting of risks under the revised ORMP would help to ensure that ICE
Clear Europe appropriately monitors its operational risks. For example,
requiring ongoing monitoring (not just daily) should help to ensure
that such monitoring is conducted on an ongoing basis, and not just
once a day. As discussed above, this particular change could be
beneficial if, for example, under the current daily monitoring ICE
Clear Europe conducts monitoring at a single specific time during the
day and the risk emerges after that time.
    Similarly, requiring monitoring daily or monthly (not just daily)
through the Risk Appetite Metrics and the Management Thresholds should
help to ensure the inclusion of those metrics and thresholds that are
only considered monthly. As discussed above, ICE Clear Europe
calculates some existing risk metrics on a monthly basis, so specifying
monthly monitoring would take into account these metrics while
maintaining daily monitoring for the existing daily metrics. The
Commission believes this change would make the ORMP more specific in
this regard, thereby making its application by ICE Clear Europe more
consistent and clear.
    As discussed above, the current ORMP requires assessments and
operational incidents to be reported to senior management, the Audit
Committee, and the Board Risk Committee, and further provides that the
Board Risk Committee and Board shall be informed of material incidents.
The revised ORMP similarly would require regular reporting to senior
management, the Board Risk Committee, and the Executive Risk Committee.
The Commission believes that such reporting should help to ensure that
appropriate decision-makers are involved in management of operational
risk and able to respond as need to any incidents involving operational
risk.
    As discussed above, the RIF helps to provide ICE Clear Europe's
Board with information on ICE Clear Europe's operational risk
management process. The Commission believes that codifying the RIF as
part of ICE Clear Europe's rule requirements should help to ensure that
the Board has a permanent framework for providing input on the
operational risk management process. The Commission believes that the
Board's input could, in turn, improve ICE Clear Europe's operational
risk management. For example, given the experience of Board members and
their vantage point overseeing all of ICE Clear Europe, Board members
may be able to offer improvements to mitigating controls.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes the proposed rule change
would improve the ORMP and the RIF. As discussed above, ICE Clear
Europe uses the ORMP and the RIF to manage its operational risk. The
Commission therefore believes that these improvements to the ORMP and
the RIF should in turn improve ICE Clear Europe's overall management of
its operational risks. Improved management of operational risks should,
in turn, decrease the likelihood that operational incidents disrupt ICE
Clear Europe's ability to promptly and accurately clear and settle
securities transactions. The Commission believes therefore the proposed
rule change should enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to promptly and
accurately clear and settle securities transactions, consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that, among
other things, specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the current ORMP requires assessments and
operational incidents to be reported to senior management, the Audit
Committee, and the Board Risk Committee, and further provides that the
Board Risk Committee and Board shall be informed of material incidents.
The revised ORMP would require that assessments and operational
incidents be reported to senior management and the Board Risk
Committee, but it would replace the Audit Committee with the Executive
Risk Committee. The requirement that the Board Risk Committee and Board
be informed of material incidents would not change. The Commission
believes replacing the Audit Committee with the Executive Risk
Committee would specify a clear and direct line of responsibility for
the Executive Risk Committee. The Commission further notes that
although the revised ORMP would remove the Audit Committee, given that
at least one member of the Audit Committee is also a member of the
Board Risk Committee, the Commission believes that this member could
share information related to operational risk with the Audit Committee
as needed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ICE Clear Europe Limited, Compliance with Principles
for Financial Market Infrastructures Disclosure Framework, available
at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/ICE_Clear_Europe_Disclosure_Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed above, the current ORMP also specifies that
the Product Risk Committees and the Executive Risk Committees will
receive information related to operational risk. The revised ORMP would
require that the Risk Oversight Department report operational risks
daily and monthly to senior management and the Executive Risk
Committee. Thus, the revised ORMP would specify that the Risk Oversight
Department would report this information, and the revised ORMP would
not include any role for Product Risk Committees. The Commission
believes this change would specify a clear and direct line of
responsibility for the Risk Oversight Department. The Commission
further notes that although the revised ORMP would remove the Product
Risk Committees, the CDS Product Risk Committee includes as a member
either the ICE Clear Europe President or the Head of First Line
Clearing Risk, and that the President and the Head of First Line
Clearing Risk are both voting members of the Executive Risk Committee.
Given that, the Commission believes that the President or Head of First
Line Clearing Risk could share information related to operational risk
with the CDS Product Risk Committee as needed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ICE Clear Europe Limited, Compliance with Principles
for Financial Market Infrastructures Disclosure Framework, available
at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/ICE_Clear_Europe_Disclosure_Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised ORMP also would require that the Executive Risk
Committee approve changes in the Risk Dashboard at each monthly meeting
and report

those changes to the Board Risk Committee and Board. The Commission
believes that adding this language to the ORMP (it is not stated in the
current ORMP but is part of the RIF), would specify a clear and direct
line of responsibility for the Executive Risk Committee.
    Finally, with respect to the oversight of the ORMP itself,
currently the policy provides that it is subject to the oversight of
the Audit Committee and Risk Oversight Department. The proposed rule
change would remove the Audit Committee, such that the revised ORMP
would only be subject to the oversight of the Risk Oversight
Department. The Commission believes this change would specify a clear
and direct line of responsibility for the Risk Oversight Department, in
accordance with the appropriate line of risk defense, as discussed
above.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to manage its operational risks by, among other
things, identifying the plausible sources of operational risk, both
internal and external, and mitigating their impact through the use of
appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and controls.\16\ The
Commission believes that the revised ORMP should improve ICE Clear
Europe's ability to manage operational risk by identifying the
plausible sources of operational risk at ICE Clear Europe. For example,
the revised ORMP would include the Risk Dashboard as an appendix, and
similarly the RIF includes the Risk Dashboard as an appendix. Because
the Risk Dashboard documents all of ICE Clear Europe's identified
operational risks, the Commission believes that adding it formally as
an appendix to the ORMP would help to ensure that Risk Owners focus on
identifying new, undocumented operational risks by delineating those
risks that ICE Clear Europe already knows of and has identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission believes that the revised ORMP should
improve ICE Clear Europe's ability to manage operational risk by
mitigating the impact of operational risk through the use of
appropriate controls. For example, the revised ORMP would provide
additional detail with respect to controls and the assessment of their
effectiveness, including how Risk Owners would rate the effectiveness
of controls. The Commission believes that doing so could help identify
and improve controls that could mitigate the impact of operational
risks.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \18\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(17) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2022-008) be, and hereby
is, approved.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11879 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                             Thiamethoxam (060109)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                             Date: April 8, 2011

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
      * Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
      * Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
      * Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
      * Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
      * Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
      * Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
      * Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
      * Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
      * Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
      * Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
      * USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2001 to 2008.
      * Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2001 to 2008.
      * California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2009.
What are the limitations to the data?
      * Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
      * Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
      * Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
      * Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
      * Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                                 April 8, 2011

    Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Thiamethoxam (060109)
                             Sorted Alphabetically

                                                              Percent Crop Ttd.

			Crop
                                                                      Lbs. A.I.
                                                                           Avg.
                                                                           Max.
                                                                              1
Apples
                                                                          1,000
                                                                              5
                                                                             10
                                                                              2
Artichokes
                                                                        <500
                                                                             20
                                                                             40
                                                                              3
Broccoli
                                                                        <500
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              4
Brussels Sprouts*
                                                                        <500
                                                                             NC
                                                                             NC
                                                                              5
Cabbage
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              6
Caneberries
                                                                        <500
                                                                             15
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
Cantaloupes
                                                                        <500
                                                                              5
                                                                             15
                                                                              8
Carrots
                                                                        <500
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              9
Cauliflower
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             10
Cherries
                                                                        <500
                                                                              5
                                                                             10
                                                                             11
Chicory*
                                                                        <500
                                                                             NC
                                                                             NC
                                                                             12
Corn
                                                                        200,000
                                                                             18
                                                                             40
                                                                             13
Cotton
                                                                         90,000
                                                                             15
                                                                             40
                                                                             14
Cucumbers
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             10
                                                                             15
Grapes
                                                                        <500
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             16
Nectarines*
                                                                        <500
                                                                             NC
                                                                             NC
                                                                             17
Peaches
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             10
                                                                             18
Pears
                                                                          1,000
                                                                             25
                                                                             40
                                                                             19
Pecans
                                                                          1,000
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              5
                                                                             20
Peppers
                                                                          1,000
                                                                             10
                                                                             20
                                                                             21
Potatoes
                                                                         15,000
                                                                             17
                                                                             40
                                                                             22
Prunes
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             23
Pumpkins
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              5
                                                                             24
Soybeans
                                                                        300,000
                                                                             14
                                                                             20
                                                                             25
Squash
                                                                        <500
                                                                              5
                                                                             10
                                                                             26
Strawberries
                                                                          1,000
                                                                             30
                                                                             40
                                                                             27
Tobacco
                                                                        <500
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             28
Tomatoes
                                                                          2,000
                                                                              5
                                                                             10
                                                                             29
Watermelons
                                                                        <500
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                             10

All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated
                                                                            N/C
Only Lbs. A.I. available
                                                                              *
Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 95% or more of U.S. acres grown are in California)

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research
  California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56701-56703]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0028; Notice 2]

Morgan Olson, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Denial.

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

SUMMARY: Morgan Olson, LLC (Morgan Olson),\1\ has determined that
certain model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 Morgan Olson walk-in van-type
trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 4,536 kg and
manufactured between September 1, 2009, and January 18, 2012, do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.
Morgan Olson has filed an appropriate report dated January 19, 2012,
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morgan Olson is a manufacturer of motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Morgan Olson has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of
receipt of the petition, with a 30-day public comment period, on March
29, 2012, in the Federal Register (77 FR 19055). No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0028.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Mr. Tony Lazzaro, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5304, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Relevant Requirements of FMVSS No. 206: FMVSS No. 206 paragraph
S4.2.1 requires in pertinent part that each sliding door system shall
be equipped with either: (a) At least one primary door latch system, or
(b) a door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be
located where it can be clearly seen by the driver.
    A ``primary door latch'' is defined in FMVSS No. 206 paragraph S3
as ``a latch equipped with both a fully latched position and a
secondary latch position and is designated as a `primary door latch' by
the manufacturer.'' A ``secondary latched position'' refers to ``the
coupling condition of the latch that retains the door in a partially
closed position.'' FMVSS No. 206 paragraph S3.
    A ``door closure warning system'' is defined in FMVSS No. 206
paragraph S3 as ``a system that will activate a visual signal when a
door latch system is not in its fully latched position and the vehicle
ignition system is activated.''
    Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 6430 Morgan Olson
model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 walk-in van-type trucks.
    Noncompliance: Morgan Olson states that the affected vehicles do
not contain a primary door latch system or door closure warning system
as prescribed by paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206.
    Summary of Morgan Olson's Analysis and Arguments: By way of
background, the sliding door latch requirements contained in paragraph
S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206 were adopted in February 2007 as part of a
broader upgrade to the Agency's existing door latch and retention
requirements. See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks
and Door Retention Components, Final Rule, 72 FR 5385 (Feb. 6, 2007)
[hereinafter 2007 Final Rule]. The effective date of these requirements
was September l, 2009.
    As set forth in Morgan Olson's noncompliance report, as a result of
an erroneous interpretation as to the scope of FMVSS No. 206's
application, Morgan Olson mistakenly believed that the requirement for
either a primary door latch system or door closure warning system
applied only to its vehicles having a GVWR under 4,536 kg.
    In describing the operation of the affected doors Morgan Olson
explains that when the sliding door is closed but not latched, there is
a \1/2\ inch gap between the door and its frame. Morgan Olson states
that therefore, the rubber seal in the door jam as well as the exterior
paint are clearly visible. Morgan Olson further states that when the
door is latched, none of this is visible. Morgan Olson also explains
that its customers are mostly delivery companies whose drivers are
trained commercial drivers, and that a trained commercial driver, such
as one driving

a walk-in van manufactured by Morgan Olson, would immediately notice
this gap and realize that the door is not latched. Morgan Olson also
asserts that even if the driver did not notice that the door was not
latched by means of observing the \1/2\ inch gap, the door would slowly
begin to slide open as the vehicle began to accelerate, which a driver
would certainly notice. Morgan Olson contends that if the sliding door
is not latched, this would be apparent to the driver as soon as he
accelerates.
    In addition, Morgan Olson argues that this noncompliance in walk-in
van type vehicles is distinguishable from the primary focus of FMVSS
No. 206 sliding door standards. Morgan Olson states that in adopting
the standards, NHTSA noted a particular concern with sliding door
failures in passenger vans, which often contain children in the back
seat(s).\2\ Morgan Olson explains that with passenger vans, the sliding
doors are situated behind the driver and therefore out of the driver's
line of sight, and that this is not true for the subject trucks that
are used for commercial purposes and driven by commercial drivers
without passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components, Final Rule, 72 FR 5385, 5387 (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, Morgan Olson contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing notification of noncompliance as required by
49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Comments: NHTSA published a notice of the petition in the Federal
Register to allow an opportunity for members of the public to present
information, views, and arguments on the subject petition. As noted
earlier, no comments were received. The Agency notes that an absence of
opposing argument and data does not require the Agency to grant the
petition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 507, 510 (Jan. 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA'S Consideration of Morgan Olson's Inconsequentiality Petition

    General Principles: Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
adopted only after the Agency has determined, following notice and
comment, that the standards are objective and practicable and ``meet
the need for motor vehicle safety.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus,
there is a general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or
item of motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the
risk to motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by
NHTSA through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such
risks, manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are
normally required to conduct a safety recall under which they must
notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide
a remedy without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has
recognized that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance
could be ``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety.
``Inconsequential'' is not defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's
regulations. Rather, the Agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts before it. The relevant issue in determining
inconsequentiality is whether the noncompliance in question is likely
to significantly increase the safety risk to individuals of accidents
or to individual occupants who experience the type of injurious event
against which the standard was designed to protect. See General Motors
Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897 (Apr. 14, 2004).
    There have been instances in the past where NHTSA has determined
that a manufacturer has met its burden of demonstrating that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety, such as noncompliances
concerning labeling where the discrepancy with the safety standard was
determined not to lead to any misunderstanding, especially where
sources of the correct information were available (e.g. in the vehicle
owner's manual). See General Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004).
    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard is substantially
higher and more difficult to meet. Consequently, the Agency has
determined that only a few such noncompliances are truly
inconsequential. Id.
    In their petition, Morgan Olson argues that when the sliding doors
are closed but not latched, there is a small (\1/2\ inch) gap between
the door and the frame. Moreover, Morgan Olson asserts that even if the
driver does not notice the gap in the door prior to driving the
vehicle, as the vehicle begins to move the door will slide open and
alert the driver. Morgan Olson further states that with passenger vans,
the sliding doors are situated behind the driver and out of their line
of sight and that this is not the case with commercial drivers who will
be immediately able to see either a gap or the door sliding open if it
is not latched.
    FMVSS No. 206 requires that a sliding door system be equipped with
either (a) at least one primary door latch system, or (b) a door latch
system with a fully latched position and a door closure warning system.
Since the noncompliant vehicles are equipped with a door latch system
with a fully latched position (but not a primary door latch system), in
order to comply with FMVSS No. 206 the vehicles would also need to have
a door closure warning system. Such a system is automatic and does not
require the driver to make observations of the door. The subject
vehicles do not have such a system. Without a warning system, the
driver would have to look away from driving to see a door gap. The
Agency does not consider a door gap to be a sufficient alert to the
driver that the door is not fully latched. The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for the 2007 amendments to FMVSS No. 206 explained the scope
of the safety risks associated with the ejection of vehicle occupants
through vehicle doors. See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door
Locks and Door Retention Components and Side Impact Protection, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 75020, 75024-75025. The Agency noted that
``[d]oor ejections, due to non-rollover door openings, account for 23
percent of the total non-rollover ejections with known routes * * *
[and of] those ejected through a sliding door, each year approximately
20 people are killed and 30 people are seriously injured, based on the
1995-2003 data from NASS.'' Id. Based on this safety risk analysis, the
Agency concluded that ``this exposure is [not] acceptable when measures
can be taken to minimize the likelihood that a sliding door would open
in a crash.'' 69 FR 75025. Accordingly, the Agency proposed the FMVSS
No. 206 side sliding door latch requirements to ``assure vehicle
occupants that a sliding door is completely closed.'' 69 FR 75026.
    Morgan Olson's arguments in support of its petition do not allay
these safety concerns. Morgan Olson's petition acknowledges that the
vehicle driver may not notice the small gap in the door before the
vehicle begins to move. Moreover, having the door unexpectedly slide
open while the vehicle is driven can create a potential distraction to
the driver, especially considering any attempts by the driver to close
the door while the vehicle is in motion. In addition, accidents can
occur even at low speeds when a vehicle is

accelerated into motion, and may include impact with another vehicle
including a vehicle moving at higher speed. Therefore, in light of
these safety risks, the Agency finds that the door gap on the subject
vehicles is not an acceptable replacement for a door closure warning
system.
    Morgan Olson also asserts that the sliding door standards were
``particularly concerned with children riding in the rear seats of
passenger vans.'' Although the Agency did note in the NPRM that it was
``[a]dditionally * * * concerned that the individuals with the greatest
exposure to sliding door failures are children,'' 69 FR 75025, the
Agency never indicated that child passenger safety was the only safety
concern addressed by the standard. In short, the Agency believes that
there are valid concerns that occupants other than children of the
subject vehicles are exposed to an increased risk of accidents and
injuries, particularly those associated with occupant ejection,
compared to occupants of compliant vehicles.
    In addition, the Agency is aware of at least one occupant ejection
through an open sliding side door of a commercial vehicle similar to
those that are the subject of this petition. A walk-in van-type
delivery truck was involved in an accident in 2009 at an intersection
in Florida in which the driver of the delivery truck was ejected
through an open sliding side door and sustained injuries. The delivery
truck, after being stopped at a stop sign, entered the intersection and
struck the side of a crossing vehicle causing the vehicles to become
engaged and spin together. The delivery truck driver, who was not
wearing a safety belt, was ejected into the roadway.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles;
HSMV Crash Report Number 90163273, dated January 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, the subject noncompliance was the result of
Morgan Olson's previous misunderstanding that the requirement for
either a primary door latch system or door closure warning system
applied only to its vehicles having a GVWR under 4,536 kg.
Applicability of the standard to vehicles Over 4,536 kg GVWR was
addressed by the Agency in response to the Final Rule, Petitions for
Reconsideration (see 75 FR 7370). In response to a question from
TriMark Corporation dealing with applicability of the standard to Class
\7/8\ heavy trucks in excess of a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), the
Agency stated ``Regarding Class \7/8\ heavy trucks, these vehicles fall
under the definition of truck as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. FMVSS No. 206
applied to trucks, regardless of their GVWR, prior to the February 2007
final rule, as does the amended FMVSS No. 206. S2 of amended FMVSS No.
206 states that the standard applies to ``passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less'' (emphasis added). In other words,
the February 2007 final rule applies to all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, regardless of their GVWR,
and is also applicable to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 75 FR 7378.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Morgan Olson's petition is hereby denied, and the
petitioner must notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118 and provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
    If Morgan Olson believes that vehicles it will produce in the
future should not be subject to any currently applicable FMVSS No. 206
requirements, Morgan Olson may consider petitioning the Agency for
rulemaking. The appropriate type of petition to request a change in a
rule is one filed under 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking,
Defect, and Non-Compliance Orders.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: September 6, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-22547 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3313-3316]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0447; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-019-AD;
Amendment 39-18368; AD 2016-01-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of several cracks found on the forward passenger airstair door
step assembly. This AD requires an inspection to determine the serial
number of the airstair door step assembly, and if necessary, an
electronic tap test, reidentification of the airstair door step
assembly, and replacement of the airstair door step assembly. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger
airstair door step assembly; such cracking could propagate and result
in the structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of
passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 25, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 25,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Zimmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier Model
DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on July 17, 2014 (79 FR 41661). The NPRM was prompted by a report of
several cracks found on the forward passenger airstair door step
assembly. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the
serial number of the airstair door step assembly, and if necessary, an
electronic tap test, reidentification of the airstair door step
assembly, and replacement of the airstair door step assembly. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger
airstair door step assembly; such cracking could propagate and result
in the structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of
passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-20R1, dated December 30, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There has been one in-service report of several cracks being
found on the forward passenger airstair door step assembly between
the steps and the sidewall panels. The investigation revealed that
the application of potting compound may have been omitted during the
bonding at the joint of the airstair door steps and the sidewalls.
The omission of potting compound could cause the bonding sealant to
crack. The cracks, if not detected, could propagate to result in the
structural failure of the steps.
    In the event of an emergency egress situation, the failure of
the airstair step assembly could impede the evacuation of
passengers.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected
forward passenger airstair step assembly with a new or reworked step
assembly.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD provides additional
instructions for performing an electronic tap test of the airstair
step assembly if the Serial Number (S/N) of the airstair step
assembly cannot be found.

    Required actions include an inspection to determine the serial
number of the airstair door step assembly, and if necessary, an
electronic tap test and reidentification and replacement of the
assembly. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447-0004.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 41661, July 17, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Refer to Latest Service Information

    Republic Airlines and Horizon Air requested that we revise the NPRM
(79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) to refer to the latest service
information.
    We agree with the request. The revised service information,
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014,
provides minor wording changes but does not change the procedures or
add any airplanes. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) in this AD to
refer to the new service information, and added Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013, to paragraph (i)
of this AD, to provide credit for previous actions done before the
effective date of this AD.

Request To Allow Records Review

    Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed
AD (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) to allow a review of aircraft records,
in addition to a physical inspection, as a way to determine the serial
number of the airstair door step assembly.
    We disagree with the request. A review of aircraft records may
provide an appropriate means to determine serial numbers. For the
airstair door step assembly, however, we understand that operators may
remove and exchange the

assemblies within their fleet for repair, and replace them relatively
quickly to minimize airplane downtime. In these cases, there may be a
lag between the removal and replacement action and updating the records
typically used to conduct a records review. In coordination with TCCA,
we have determined that airplane records may not reliably reflect the
serial numbers of all airstair door step assemblies present on the
affected airplanes. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1)
of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative
method of compliance for determining serial numbers, if sufficient data
are submitted to substantiate that the new method would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Maintenance Manual Tasks for Airstair Replacement

    Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the
proposed AD (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014), which would conditionally
require replacing the airstair door step assembly in accordance with
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31,
2013. For this action, Horizon Air requested that we also allow the
replacement to be done using maintenance manual tasks 52-11-01-000-801
and 52-11-01-400-801. Horizon Air stated that the service information
specified in the NPRM does not include any actions beyond those
specified in the maintenance manual tasks.
    We disagree with the request. Part 3, ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77,
Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, does, in fact, specify additional tasks
not included in the maintenance manual tasks referenced by the
commenter. The additional tasks include verification of the serial
number of the new airstair door step assembly before installation, and
adjustment and a functional check of the new door. We have not changed
this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Limit Requirements to Steps That Correct the Unsafe
Condition

    Horizon Air requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July
17, 2014) to require only the section of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated
June 5, 2014, that directly corrects the unsafe condition: paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure.'' Horizon Air stated that the unsafe condition is
not directly corrected by accomplishment of the actions specified in
paragraph 3.A., ``Job Set-up,'' and paragraph 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-
77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014. Horizon Air added that
incorporating the Job Set-up and Close Out as a requirement of the AD
would restrict an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in
conjunction with the incorporation of the service information.
    We agree with the request and the commenter's rationale. We have
revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 41661, July 17, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated
June 5, 2014, including Appendix A, and with the attached Short
Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February 26,
2014. The service information describes procedures for determining the
airstair door step assembly serial number, doing an electronic tap
test, and reidentifying and replacing the assembly. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply
with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$6,460, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take up to 9 work-hours and require parts costing $206,175, for a cost
of $206,940 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might 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 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447; 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 AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-01-09 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18368. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0447; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-019-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 25, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and
subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several cracks found on the
forward passenger airstair door step assembly. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger airstair
door step assembly, which could propagate and result in the
structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of
passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection, Electronic Tap Test, Reidentification, and Replacement
of the Airstair Door Step Assembly

    For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4393: Within
320 days after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to
determine the serial number of the airstair door step assembly, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C,
dated June 5, 2014, including Appendix A, and with the attached
Short Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated
February 26, 2014.
    (1) If the serial number of the airstair door step assembly
cannot be found, or if the serial number is illegible: Before
further flight, do an electronic tap test to determine the existence
of epoxy compound, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,''
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, including Appendix A, and
with the attached Short Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011,
Revision C, dated February 26, 2014.
    (i) If the existence of epoxy compound is confirmed, before
further flight, reidentify the airstair door step assembly, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C,
dated June 5, 2014, including Appendix A, and with the attached
Short Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated
February 26, 2014.
    (ii) If the existence of epoxy compound is not confirmed: Within
6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the
airstair door step assembly, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, including
Appendix A, and with the attached Short Brothers Service Bulletin
D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February 26, 2014.
    (2) If the serial number of the airstair door step assembly is
in the affected range specified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,''
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5,
2014: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
replace the airstair door step assembly, in accordance with
paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5,
2014, including Appendix A, and with the attached Short Brothers
Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February 26, 2014.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane an airstair door step assembly with part number
85217008-001 containing a serial number in the affected range
specified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June 5, 2014, including
Appendix A, and with the attached Short Brothers Service Bulletin
D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February 26, 2014.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD if the serial number is known, and if those actions
were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision A, dated April 24, 2013; or
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31,
2013. This service information is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-20R1, dated December
30, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0447-0004.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(5) of this AD.

(l) 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.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision C, dated June
5, 2014, including Appendix A, which is undated, and attached Short
Brothers Service Bulletin D8400-52-0011, Revision C, dated February
26, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) For Short Brothers service information identified in this
AD, contact Short Brothers PLC, Airworthiness, P.O. Box 241, Airport
Road, Belfast, BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland;

telephone +44(0)2890-462469; fax +44(0)2890 468444; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 4, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00378 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P