[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23698-23699]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0352; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-063-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters to
require modifying the No. 1 engine forward firewall center fire
extinguisher discharge tube (No. 1 engine tube). This proposed AD is
prompted by the discovery that the No. 1 engine tube installed on the
helicopters is too long to ensure that a fire could be effectively
extinguished on a helicopter. The proposed actions are intended to
ensure the No. 1 engine tube would allow for complete coverage of an
extinguishing agent in the No. 1 engine compartment area, ensure that a
fire would be extinguished and prevent the loss of helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters with serial
numbers (S/N) 920006 through 920169. This proposed AD is prompted by a
recent event where an extinguishing test at a Sikorsky plant showed
that an incorrect No. 1 engine tube length had been put into
production. Because of the incorrect tube length, if a fire erupts in
the engine compartment, the fire-extinguishing system may not discharge
the agent completely throughout the compartment to extinguish the
blaze. This proposed AD would require removing the No. 1 engine tube,
cutting off two inches from the discharge end of the tube, and
inspecting the outboard discharge tube and positioning both tubes to
ensure that they would provide complete coverage of the extinguishing
agent in the No. 1 engine compartment area to ensure that a fire can be
extinguished.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky has issued Alert Service Bulletin 92-26-004 (ASB), dated
June 4, 2012, to modify the No. 1 engine tube within 120 days. The ASB
specifies procedures to cut two inches off the tube's discharge end, as
well as how to inspect and reposition, if necessary, the outboard
discharge tube.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing the No. 1 engine tube,
removing two inches from the discharge end of the tube, and then
require inspecting the outboard discharge tube

for correct positioning. If the outboard discharge tube is not
correctly positioned, this proposed AD would require correcting the
positioning.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 24 U.S. registered
helicopters and that labor costs would average $85 per work-hour. Based
on these estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Modifying the No. 1 engine tube would take two work-hours
for an estimated labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No parts would be
needed, so the cost for the U.S. fleet would total $4,080.
     Inspecting the outboard discharge tube and ensuring that
it is in the required position would take about one work-hour for a
total labor cost of $85 per helicopter. No parts would be needed for a
total U.S. fleet cost of $2,040.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION: Docket No. FAA-2013-0352; Directorate
Identifier 2012-SW-063-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)
Model S-92A helicopters, serial numbers 920006 through 920169,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of the No. 1
engine forward firewall center fire extinguisher discharge tube to
discharge an extinguishing agent for complete coverage of the No. 1
engine compartment area. This condition could result in a fire not
being extinguished and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    Within 120 days:
    (1) Modify the No. 1 engine forward firewall center discharge
tube in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph
B, of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 92-26-004, dated June 4, 2012
(ASB).
    (2) Inspect the outboard discharge tube and determine if it is
correctly positioned as depicted in Figure 3 of the ASB. If it is
not correctly positioned, correct the positioning in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph D, of the ASB.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Schwetz,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614; telephone
(800) 562-4409; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2620,
Extinguishing System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 11, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09406 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14187-14190]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0153; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01051-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-26-08, which applies to all Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-12, PC-
12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. AD 2016-26-08 requires
incorporating revisions into the airworthiness limitations section
(ALS) of the maintenance program and inspecting the main landing gear
(MLG) attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion. Since the FAA issued
AD 2016-26-08, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
superseded its mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) to
add a new life limit for certain MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts
and then superseded it again to add new life limits for the rudder
bellcrank. This proposed AD would require incorporating new revisions
to the ALS of the existing airplane maintenance manual (AMM) or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to establish a 5-year
life limit for certain MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts and new
life

limits for the rudder bellcrank. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd., CH-6371, Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41848247365; email:
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0153; 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 NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:
(816) 329-4059; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0153; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01051-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug
Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2016-26-08, Amendment 39-18766 (82 FR 10859,
February 16, 2017) (AD 2016-26-08) for all Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model
PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. AD 2016-26-08 was
prompted by MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2016-0083,
dated April 28, 2016, to require new maintenance tasks for the MLG
attachment bolts and replacement of each MLG attachment bolt before
exceeding its life limit.
    AD 2016-26-08 requires incorporating revisions into the ALS of the
existing FAA-approved maintenance program and inspecting the MLG
attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion. The FAA issued AD 2016-26-08
to ensure the continued operational safety of the affected airplanes.

Actions Since AD 2016-26-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2016-26-08, Pilatus received reports of
failure of MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts, part number (P/N)
5<IP_ADDRESS>, identified with ``VLG'' on the bolt head. These parts
are from a specific vendor and are subject to hydrogen embrittlement.
Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD 2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016,
and issued EASA AD 2021-0005, dated January 7, 2021, to require a new 5
year life limit for the MLG actuator bottom attachment bolt identified
with ``VLG.''.
    Pilatus subsequently added new life limits for the rudder
bellcrank. As a result, EASA superseded its AD again and issued EASA AD
2021-0214, dated September 17, 2021 (the MCAI). The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance
instructions for Pilatus PC-12 aeroplanes, which are approved by
EASA, are currently defined and published in Pilatus PC-12 AMM
Chapter 04-00-00. These instructions have been identified as
mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    Previously, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2021-0005, requiring the
actions described in the Pilatus PC-12 AMM Chapter 04-00-00,
Document Number 02049 Issue 01 Revision 40, Document Number 02300
Issue 01 Revision 24 and Document Number 02436 Issue 01 Revision 02.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Pilatus published the
applicable ALS, as defined in this [EASA] AD, which contains new
and/or more restrictive tasks and limitations, as specified in the
Component Limitations section, to introduce a new life limit for the
rudder bellcrank. Due to the introduction of this life limit, the
repetitive eddy current inspections are no longer required and
deleted from the Supplemental Structural Inspection section.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2021-0005, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions as specified in the applicable ALS.

    You may examine the MCAI at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0153.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following revisions, which contain the new
life limit for certain MLG actuator bottom attachment bolts and new
life limits for the rudder bellcrank.

     Pilatus PC-12, PC-12/45 and PC-12/47 Structural, Component
and Miscellaneous Limitations-AMM Document No. 02049, Airworthiness
Limitations, 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, Revision 41, dated July 5, 2021;
     Pilatus PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous
Limitations-AMM Document No. 2300, Airworthiness Limitations, 12-B-04-
00-00-00A-000A-A, Issue 01, Revision 25, dated July 8, 2021; and
     Pilatus PC-12/47E Structural, Component and Miscellaneous
Limitations-AMM Document No. 02436, Airworthiness Limitations, 12-C-04-
00-00-00A-000A-A, Issue 01, Revision 03, dated July 8, 2021.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority,
it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would not retain any of the actions of AD 2016-26-
08. Instead, this proposed AD would require incorporating new revisions
into the ALS of the existing AMM or the FAA-approved ICA. This AD would
allow the owner/operator (pilot) to incorporate these revisions.
Revising an AMM is not considered a maintenance action and may be done
by a pilot holding at least a private pilot certificate. This proposed
action would need to be recorded in the airplane's maintenance records
to show compliance with this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 1,030 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it
would take 1 work-hour per airplane to incorporate the revised ALS into
the AMM or ICA. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost on U.S.
operators to be $87,550 or $85 per airplane.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that replacing a MLG actuator bottom
attachment bolt, if necessary, would take 1 work-hour and would require
parts costing $2,140 for a cost of $2,225 per airplane.
    Replacing the rudder bellcrank, if necessary, would take 3 work-
hours and would require parts costing $550 for a cost of $805 per
airplane.

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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 2016-26-08, Amendment 39-18766 (82
FR 10859, February 16, 2017), and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2022-0153; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01051-A.

 (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 28, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-26-08, Amendment 39-18766 (82 FR 10859,
February 16, 2017).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-12, PC-12/45,
PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2722, Rudder
Actuator; 3210, Main Landing Gear; and 3211, Main Landing Gear
Attach Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The unsafe condition in the MCAI is failure of main landing
gear (MLG) actuator bottom attachment bolts and failure to
accomplish a new life limit for the rudder bellcrank. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse during all phases of
airplane operations, including take-off and landing and also to
prevent rudder bellcrank failure, which could lead to loss of
airplane control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    (1) Before further flight, unless already done, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the existing airplane
maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for
your airplane by incorporating the following documents.
    (i) For Model PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes: Pilatus
PC-12, PC-12/45 and PC-12/47 Structural, Component and Miscellaneous
Limitations-AMM Document No. 02049, Airworthiness Limitations, 12-A-
04-00-00-00A-000A-A, Revision 41, dated July 5, 2021.
    (ii) For Model PC-12/47E airplanes with serial numbers 545, 1001
through 1719, and

1721 through 1999: Pilatus PC-12/47E Structural, Component and
Miscellaneous Limitations-AMM Document No. 2300, Airworthiness
Limitations, 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, Issue 01, Revision 25, dated
July 8, 2021.
    (iii) For Model PC-12/47E airplanes with serial numbers 1720 and
2001 and larger: Pilatus PC-12/47E Structural, Component and
Miscellaneous Limitations-AMM Document No. 02436, Airworthiness
Limitations, 12-C-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, Issue 01, Revision 03, dated
July 8, 2021.
    (2) The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records
showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)
through (4), and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be
maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
    (3) After revising the airworthiness limitations required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative life limits or
inspection intervals may be used unless they are approved as
provided in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, 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 manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to MCAI European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD 2021-0214, dated September 17, 2021, for related information. You
may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2022-0153.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., CH-6371, Stans, Switzerland; phone:
+41848247365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website:
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 7, 2022.
Derek Morgan,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05223 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

	MEMORANDUM							DATE:  03/16/2011

	SUBJECT:	Revised Non-target Organism and Endangered Species Screening
Risk Assessment for the N-6-Benzyladenine Registration Review
Preliminary Work Plan

		Chemical Class: 			Biochemical

		PC Code: 				116901

		CAS Number:			1214-39-7

		Tolerance Exemptions: 	40 CFR 180.

FROM:	Russell S. Jones, Ph.D., Senior Biologist   /s/ 02/09/2011

	Biochemical Pesticides Branch

	Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division

TO:	Chris Pfeifer, Regulatory Action Leader

	Biochemical Pesticides Branch

	Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division

	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The plant regulator, N-6-Benzyladenine, is a naturally-occurring
cytokinin found in plants (van Staden & Crouch, 1996).  Available
non-target organism hazard and exposure information as well as Agency
risk assessments on N6-benzyladenine were evaluated against current
safety standards established by the Agency’s scientific policies and
regulations and it was determined that there is no need to conduct
additional risk assessments.  The active ingredient is a
naturally-occurring plant hormone, has a non-toxic mode of action, and
is of low toxicity.  There is reasonable certainty of no harm to
non-target organisms when N-6-Benzyladenine is applied in accordance
with EPA-approved product labeling.  A screening level assessment was
conducted to evaluate the existing non-target organism data base.

Based on the fact that N-6-Benzyladenine (N-6-BA) is relatively
non-toxic to non-target organisms and on its use pattern and use
instructions, EPA has determined that N-6-BA will have "No Effect" on
any currently listed threatened or endangered species or any designated
critical habitat.

		1.	Description of the Active Ingredient

			Common Name:	N6-Benzyladenine

			Chemical Name:	N-(phenymethyl)-1H-purine-6-amine

			Synonyms:		6-Benzylaminopurine

			Empirical Formula:	C12H11N5

						Figure 1.  Structure of N-6-Benzyladenine

N-6-Benzyladenine is a plant growth regulator used to enhance flowering,
fruit size and shape, lateral and basal bud break and shoot growth.  It
is also used as a thinning agent.  The active ingredient is employed in
pesticide products used on apples, pears, pistachios, nonbearing sweet
cherries and ornamental plants.  Historically, the Agency has classified
the chemical as a synthetic cytokinin; however, more recent data
indicate that the chemical (EPA, 1994; van Staden & Crouch, 1996) is
naturally-occurring.

N-6-Benzyladenine was classified as a Biochemical Pesticide Active
Ingredient by the OPP Biotechnology Workgroup in 1990 (EPA, 1990).

		2.	Registered End-Use Products and Maximum Use Rates

There are 10 currently registered End-Use Products (EPs) containing
N-6-Benzyladenine (N-6-BA) as their active ingredient (see Appendix
Table 1).  Five products contain N-6-Benzyladenine (1.8% to 2% by weight
of product) as their sole active ingredient.  The remaining six products
contain Gibberellins A4A7 as a second active ingredient at
concentrations of 0.18% or 1.8% by weight of product.  Most of the
end-use product labels state that no more than 182 g N-6-BA may be
applied per acre per year.  All labels specify that no more than two
applications be made in a growing season, with either a 3- or 7-day
interval between applications.  The highest single application rate is
for Promalin Plant Growth Regulator (EPA Reg. No. 73049-41) and Perlan
(EPA Reg. No. 62097-6) in apple orchards at 0.039 lb active
ingredient/A.  The highest split application rate with a 7-day interval
is for Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60) and MaxCel Plant Growth Regulator
(EPA Reg No. 73049-407) in apple orchards at 0.165 lb active
ingredient/A/application.  The highest split application rate with a
3-day interval is for Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60) at 0.041 lbs
active ingredient/A/application.  The aforementioned maximum
applications rates will be used in the non-target organism exposure and
hazard assessments and endangered species risk assessments.

	3.	Ecological Hazards

Adequate non-target toxicology data/information are available to support
registration of N-6-Benzyladenine (N-6-BA).  All non-target organism
toxicology data requirements for N-6-BA have been satisfied.  No
additional data are required.

There are no concerns for any non-target organisms when N-6-BA is
applied in accordance with EPA-approved label use directions.  Toxic
endpoints have not been identified for non-target birds (dietary basis)
in laboratory testing.  There are no reports available indicating any
phytoxicity to plants resulting from direct application or from drift.
The active ingredient is slightly toxic to mammals, birds, and
freshwater fish on a acute basis in laboratory testing (see Appendix
Table 2).  A review of the ECOTOX database did not reveal any additional
toxicity data or endpoints that were lower than those previously
evaluated by the Agency.

	4.  Environmental Fate and Ground Water Data

The need for environmental fate and groundwater data was not triggered
because results of the acute toxicity assessment did not trigger any
additional Tier I studies.  Some data, however, are available from
studies submitted in support of an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) and
from external technical sources.  Residues of N-6-BA applied to food
crops are expected to dissipate to background levels before they are
distributed for consumption.  Data from soil metabolism studies
submitted in support of an Experimental Use Permit in 1977 (EPA RED,
dated 1994; and MRID 00120680) confirm the rapid dissipation of N-6-BA
in soil with an approximate half-life of 7 weeks in La Porte loamy sand
and 9 weeks in Elliot silt clay.  Other data suggest a range of
degradation rates as rapid as 1 to 3 days in aerobic soil, 12.1 days in
aqueous sediments, and an aqueous photolysis half life of 2.5 days at pH
7.

 	5.  Ecological Exposure and Risk Characterization

Terrestrial Residues:  Maximum residues on plant foliage and insects
present on the foliage following a single application, or two
consecutive applications of N-6-BA at the maximum label use rates, were
estimated using the Terrestrial Exposure Model (T-REX; EPA, 2005).   For
all application timings and rates, residues ranged from 0.59 to 4.77 ppm
on fruits, pods, seeds, and large insects (present on foliage at the
time of applications), to 5.27 to 42.9 ppm on broadleaf plants and small
insects, and up to 9.36 to 76.26 ppm on short and tall grasses.  The
model assumed a conservative environmental half-life of 9 weeks (EPA
RED, 1994).  The greatest residues occurred following the application of
Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60) (Appendix Table 3).  In evaluating
N-6-Benzyladenine foliar application to a crop the Agency has assumed a
worst case scenario of  5% drift from the target site onto adjacent
areas that can result in expected residues with significant decreases
farther from the target site.  Based on the data, foliar residues
resulting from unintentional spray drift would not exceed approximately
3.8 ppm

Aquatic Residues:  Maximum estimated residues in water following a
single application, or two consecutive applications of N-6-BA at the
maximum label use rates, were estimated using the Generic Estimated
Environmental Concentration Model , ver.2 (GENEEC2: EPA, 2001).  Both
foliar and airblast methods of application were modeled, although most
label application sites were for “standard spray equipment” in
orchards.  Non-orchard sites were labeled for ornamental spot sprays and
greenhouse use that would result in little or no environmental exposure
to the active ingredient.

The airblast method of application resulted in the highest estimated
residues.  For all airblast application timings and rates, aquatic
residues ranged from a peak EEC of 1.06 to 8.55 ppb, declining to a
90-day average EEC ranging from 0.33 to 2.66 ppb.  The model assumed a
conservative aerobic terrestrial soil half-life of 9 weeks (EPA RED,
1994), an aqueous photolysis half-life of 2.5 days at pH 7 (PPDB, 2011)
and an aerobic aquatic soil half-life of 12.1 days (PPDB, 2011).  The
greatest residues occurred following two applications of Riteway (EPA
Reg. No. 71368-60) at 0.165 lb a.i./A/application with a 7-day
application interval (Appendix Table 4).

	6.  Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment

Terrestrial residues on plant foliage and insects present on the foliage
following a single application, or two consecutive applications of
N-6-BA at the maximum label use rates, were estimated using the
Terrestrial Exposure Model (T-REX; EPA, 2005).   Maximum terrestrial
residues were attained following two applications of Riteway (EPA Reg.
No. 71368-60) at 0.165 lb a.i./A/application with a 7-day application
interval.  Residues ranged from 4.77 ppm on fruit, pods, seedlings, and
large insects, to 42.90 ppm on broadleaf plants and small insects, to
34.95 ppm on tall grass and 76.26 ppm on short grass.  The
aforementioned values were used by the T-REX model to calculate Risk
Quotients (RQs) for mammals and birds.

Aquatic residues following a single application, or two consecutive
applications of N-6-BA at the maximum label use rates, were estimated
using the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration Model, Version 2
(GENEEC 2; EPA, 2001).  Maximum aquatic residues were attained following
two applications of Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60) at 0.165 lb
a.i./A/application with a 7-day application interval.  Peak aquatic
Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EEC) = 8.55 parts per billion
(ppb) of N-6-BA; EECs declined from a 4-day average of 8.15 ppb to a
90-day average of 2.66 ppb (Appendix Table 4).  The aforementioned
values were used by the GENEEC 2  model to calculate Risk Quotients
(RQs) for fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Mammals:  Mammalian (rat) acute oral toxicity ranged from 1300 mg/kg to
1584 mg/kg (Toxicity Category III; Appendix Table 1).  The subchronic
(90-day) dietary No Observable Effects Level (NOEL) was 1500 ppm.  Both
acute dose-based-, acute dietary, and chronic dietary-based RQs ranged
from <0.01 to 0.05 for all mammalian classes and body weights.  The RQs
did not exceed any Levels of Concern (LOCs) for non-target mammals,
including threatened and endangered species.

Birds:  Avian acute oral toxicity ranged from 1599 mg/kg to 2875 mg/kg
(Slightly Toxic to Practically Non-toxic; Appendix Table 1).  Avian
dietary toxicity was >5620 ppm (Practically Non-toxic).  Both acute
dose-based-, acute dietary, and chronic dietary-based RQs ranged from
<0.01 to 0.08 for all avian classes and body weights.  The RQs did not
exceed any Levels of Concern for non-target birds, including threatened
and endangered species.

Fish:  Freshwater fish LC50s ranged from 21.4 ppm (rainbow trout) to
42.0 ppm (Brachydanio rerio) which are categorized as slightly toxic
(Appendix Table 4).  Using the most conservative endpoint for fish (21.4
ppm) in laboratory testing and the maximum EEC of N-6-BA in water, the
RQ was calculated as:

			RQ		=	0.00855 ppm	=	0.0004

				   			21.4 ppm

The RQ is well below any LOC for non-target fish, including threatened
and endangered species.

Aquatic Invertebrates:  Aquatic Invertebrate EC50s for daphnids ranged
from 4.52 ppm to >20.5  ppm which are categorized as moderately to
slightly toxic (Appendix Table 4).  Using the most conservative endpoint
for aquatic invertebrates (4.52 ppm) in laboratory testing and the
maximum EEC of N-6-BA in water (8.55 ppb or 0.00855 ppm), the RQ was
calculated as:

			RQ		=	0.00855 ppm	=	0.002

				   		4.52 ppm

Plants:  N-6-Benzyladenine is a naturally-occurring plant hormone that
has no known toxic effects when applied exogenously to plants at the
proposed rates of application.  It has a non-toxic mode of action and is
intended for use on plants for the purpose of increasing yield,
appearance, and/or quality of plant foliage and fruits.

Plant testing of biological pest control agents is conditionally
required if incidents have occurred or if there is published information
that the compound is toxic to plants. Therefore, to the best of our
knowledge N-6-Benzyladenine (N-6-BA) is not known to be phytotoxic.
Positive effects, however, are problematic when it comes to measurement
or observation in the field and thresholds will be different for various
plant species relative to environmental conditions.  Since
N-6-Benzyladenine is intended for use as a plant growth enhancer and
will be applied foliarly to orchard crops, there is a possibility of
drift to adjacent vegetative areas.

This indirect exposure, however, is minimal and not efficacious. The
Agency has made this conclusion by noting that the direct application
scenario for target plants can result in maximum expected foliar
residues of up to 76.26 ppm (T-REX; EPA, 2005).  Numerous field trials
have been conducted in orchards using N-6-BA and the minimum
concentrations needed to elicit a a statistically significant positive
response ranged from 100 to 200 ppm for the control of canopy formation
in Christmas trees and fruit trees, and 25 to 200 ppm for fruit thinning
in apple orchards (see review by Buban, 2000).   Thinning of pears and
blueberries required minimum concentrations of 100 ppm and 200 ppm,
respectively (Bound and Mitchell, 2000; Koran and Stopar, 2004).

In evaluating N-6-Benzyladenine foliar application to a crop the Agency
has assumed a worst case scenario of  5% drift from the target site onto
adjacent areas that can result in expected residues with significant
decreases farther from the target site. These values are approximately
20X below the minimum efficacy levels reported by Buban (2007),  Bound
and Mitchell (2000), and Koran and Stopar (2004).  Based on these data,
the Agency has no concerns for non-target plants.

Insects:  The N-6-Benzyladenine RED (EPA, 1994) concluded that studies
and data on non-target Insects would not be required “...based on a
lack of exposure and any documented  effects of plant growth regulators
on beneficial non-target insects.”  Subsequent to the publication of
the RED, non-target insect studies were reported demonstrating that the
contact toxicity LD50 for insects (honey bee) was >58.73 ug/bee (see
Appendix Table 3), which is categorized as practically non-toxic.  No
toxic effects were observed at the highest rate used in laboratory
testing.  Based on these data, and the earlier conclusions made by the
N-6-Benzyladenine RED (EPA, 1994), the Agency has no concerns for
non-target insects.

CONCLUSIONS:  There are no concerns for any non-target organism when
N—6-Benzyladenine is applied in accordance with EPA-approved product
labeling.

Based on the fact that N-6-Benzyladenine (N-6-BA) is relatively
non-toxic to non-target organisms and on its use pattern and use
instructions, EPA has determined that N-6-BA will have "No Effect" on
any currently listed threatened or endangered species or any designated
critical habitat.

	REFERENCES

	Bound, S. A. and L. Mitchell.  2000.  A new post-bloom thinning agent
for Packam’s T	riumph pear.  ISHS Acta Horticulturae 596:  VIII
International Symposium on Pear.

Buban, T.  2000.  The use of benzyladenine in orchard fruit growing:  a
mini review.  Plant Growth Regulation 32:  381-390.

EPA,  1990.  Classification of N6-Benzyladenine (Chem. No. 116901) as a
Biochemical.  Memorandum from J. T. McClintock to R. Engler

EPA.  1994.  Registration Eligibility Decision.  N6-Benzyladenine.  List
B.  Case 2040.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Special Review and Registration Division.  188 p.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/n6benzyladenine.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/n6benzyladenine.pdf

EPA.  2001.  GENEEC 2.0 (Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration
Model, Version 2).  Environmental Fate and Exposure Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

EPA.  2008.  T-REX (Terrestrial Exposure Model) Version 1.4.1.
Terrestrial Biology and Exposure Technical Teams, Environmental Fate and
Exposure Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Koran, D. and M. Stopar.  2004.  Effects of thinners on yield, fruit
size, and ripening time of highbush blueberry.  ISHS Acta Horticulturae
715:  VIII International Symposium on Vaccinium Culture.

Van Staden, J. and N. R. Crouch.  1996.  Benzyladenine and derivatives
– their significance and interconversion in plants.  Plant Growth
Regulation 19:  153-175.

Pesticide Product Data Base (PPDB).  2011.  6-Benzyladenine (Ref:
ABG-3191).  Agricultural and Environmental Research Unit, University of
Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM.  January 17, 2011 update,

	cc:	C. Pfeifer, R.S. Jones, BPPD Subject File/IHAD

	R. S. Jones, Ph.D., Sr. Scientist, FT, OPY:  03/16/2011

APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1.  Currently registered products and maximum label use
rates for each product label.  Highest use rates are boldfaced.

Product 	EPA Reg. No.	Active Ingredient(s)	Maximum Use Rate per Acre per
Application (app) 3	No. of apps and app Intervals (int)

Exilis Plus	62097-9	2.0% N-6-BA 1	0.083 lb/A/app

0.020 lbs/A/app	2 app @ 7 d int

2 app @ 3 d int

Configure	62097-19	2.0%  N-6-BA 	No field applications

Riteway	71368-60	1.9%  N-6-BA 	0.165 lb/A/app

0.041 lb/A/app	2 apps @ 7 d int

2 app @ 3 d int

MaxCel Plant Growth Regulator	73049-407	1.9%  N-6-BA 	0.165 lb/A/app 	2
apps @ 7 d int

Promalin Plant Growth Regulator	73049-41	1.8%  N-6-BA

1.8% GA4/7 2	0.039 lb/A

0.0195 lb/A/app 	1 app

2 apps @ 3 d int

Chrysal BVB

100% re-pack of above	72992-10	1.8%  N-6-BA

1.8% GA4/7 	No field applications

Perlan	62097-6	1.8%  N-6-BA

1.8% GA4/7 	0.039 lb/A

0.030 + 0.020 lb/A/app 	1 app

2 apps @ 3 d int

Typy	55146-78	1.8%  N-6-BA

1.8% GA4/7 	0.022 lb/A

0.011 lb/A/app	1 app

2 apps @ 3 d int

Agtrol 6-BA	55146-86	1.8%  N-6-BA

0.18% GA4/7 	0.066 lb/A/app	2 apps @ 7 d int

Accel Plant Growth Regulator	73049-29	1.8%  N-6-BA

0.18% GA4/7 	0.066 lb/A/app	2 apps @ 7 d int

1	N-6-Benzyladenine

2	Gibberellins A4/A7

3	Rate for N-6-BA only

Appendix Table 2.  Summary of Non-Target Organism Data

Study Type/OPPTS Guideline

LD50/LC50/EC50 Results

Toxicity Category	MRID

 Acute Oral Toxicity

/OPPTS 870.1100  	1300 mg/kg (rat)	Tox Category III	00120681

	1584 mg/kg (rat)	Tox Category III	PPDB, 2011

 Subchronic Oral Toxicity (rat), 90-day

/OPPTS 870.3100  	NOEL = 1500 ppm

LOEL = 5000 ppm

Practically non-toxic	42329201

 Avian Acute Oral Toxicity

/OPPTS 850.2100  	1599 ppm

Slightly toxic 1	41895204

	2875 ppm

Practically non-toxic	PPDB, 2011

 Avian Dietary Toxicity

/OPPTS 850.	>5620 ppm

Practically non-toxic	41895205

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity, 96 hr

/OPPTS 850.1075  	21.4 ppm 2	Slightly toxic	41895206

	42.0 ppm 3	Slightly toxic	PPDB, 2011

Aquatic Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity, 48-hr /OPPTS 850.1010

17.0 mg/L 4	Slightly toxic	41895207

>20.5 mg/L 4	No toxicity at highest tested dose	PPDB, 2011

	4.52 mg/L 5	Moderately toxic	PPDB, 2011

Other Arthropods (non-Guideline)	80 g/hectare 6	Not applicable	PPDB,
2011

	36.2 g/hectare 7	Not applicable	PPDB, 2011

Earthworms (non-Guideline) (14-day)	>500 mg/kg	No toxicity at highest
dose tested	PPDB, 2011

Non-target Plants

	Waiver

No expected adverse effects	N-6-BA RED (1994)

Non-target Insects (Honey Bee Contact Toxicity, 48-hr)/OPPTS 850.3020
>25 ng/bee

Practically non-toxic	41623704

	>58.73 ng/bee

Practically non-toxic	PPDB, 2011

1	The Benzyladenine RED incorrectly categorized avian acute oral
toxicity as practically non-toxic and avian dietary toxicity as slightly
toxic, when the reverse was true based on the data (see EPA, 1994).

2	Onchorhyncus mykiss

3	Brachydanio rerio

4	Daphnia

5	Chironomus riparius (96-hr)

6	Typhlodromus pyri

7	Aphidius rhopalosiphi

Appendix Table 3.  Maximum N-6-BA residues in terrestrial environments
following a single application, or two consecutive airblast applications
at the maximum label use rates (airblast/orchard application method). 1

Environmental Matrix	Residues (ppm) following  single application at
0.039lb a.i./A 2	Residues (ppm) following  two applications at 0.041 lb
a.i./A with a 3-day interval 3	Residues (ppm) following  two
applications at 0.165 lb a.i./A with a 7-day interval 3

Short Grass	9.36	19.36	76.26

Tall Grass	4.29	8.87	34.95

Broadleaf Plants/Small Insects	5.27	10.89	42.9

Fruits/Pods/Seedlings/Large insects	0.59	1.21	4.77

1	Dietary-based Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) calculated
using T-REX model (EPA, 2005).

2	Promalin Plant Growth Regulator (EPA Reg. No. 73049-1)

3	Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60)

Appendix Table 4.  Maximum N-6-BA residues in aquatic environments
following a single application, or two consecutive airblast applications
at the maximum label use rates (airblast/orchard application method). 1

Environmental Matrix	Residues (ppb) following  single application at
0.039lb a.i./A 2	Residues (ppb) following  two applications at 0.041 lb
a.i./A with a 3-day interval 3	Residues (ppb) following  two
applications at 0.165 lb a.i./A with a 7-day interval 3

Peak GEEC	1.06	2.18	8.55

Maximum 4-Day Avg. GEEC	1.01	2.08	8.15

Maximum 21-Day Avg. GEEC	0.77	1.58	6.19

Maximum 60-Day Avg. GEEC	0.45	0.93	3.65

Maximum 90-Day Avg. GEEC	0.33	0.68	2.66

1	Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) calculated using GENEEC2
model (EPA, 2001).

2	Promalin Plant Growth Regulator (EPA Reg. No. 73049-1)

3	Riteway (EPA Reg. No. 71368-60)

N-6-Benzyladenine

PC Code:  116901

Non-Target Organism Hazard Assessment and Endangered Species Screening
Risk Assessment for Registration Review Preliminary Work Plan

 PAGE

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  7

OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 91 (Monday, May 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27789-27791]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09959]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88813; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Operative Date of SR-NASDAQ-2020-012

May 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the operative date of SR-NASDAQ-
2020-012. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On March 12, 2020, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change to establish reopening protections for Nasdaq
listed securities following a Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit
breaker trading halt initiated under Rule 4121.\3\ The proposed rule
change indicated that operative date of the reopening protections would
be during April 2020.\4\ The Exchange proposes to modify the operative
date and delay the implementation of this functionality to July 2020.
The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert notifying members prior
to implementing the functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88383 (March 13,
2020), 85 FR 15819 (March 19, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-012).
    \4\ See id. at 15822.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the recent market volatility resulting from the novel
coronavirus pandemic, the Exchange has been adjusting its systems
testing schedule and assessing any risks to the operation of its
systems that could potentially be introduced by implementing new
functionality during this time. The extension would therefore provide
the Exchange with flexibility and additional time to adjust its systems
testing schedule, and to develop and test this new functionality, to
safeguard against any such risk. Furthermore, the extension would allow
the Exchange to implement the halt reopening changes after the Russell
Rebalance, a significant market event occurring in June 2020, and for
which the Exchange will reduce the number of changes to its systems.
The Exchange has historically limited rolling out new functionality
before the Russell Rebalance to mitigate the operational risk of
introducing technology changes before this significant market event.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest by
providing the Exchange additional time to implement SR-NASDAQ-2020-012.
As discussed above, the proposed delay is in recognition of both the
recent market volatility and upcoming annual Russell Rebalance in June
2020. The Exchange believes that the extension would therefore allow
the Exchange to mitigate any potential risks to the market and the
operation of its systems by limiting the implementation of new
functionality until after the Russell Rebalance, which, in turn,
protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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. The Exchange's proposal to
delay the implementation of SR-NASDAQ-2020-012 does not impose an undue
burden on competition. Delaying the implementation will simply allow
the Exchange additional time to properly plan and implement SR-NASDAQ-
2020-012.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule changed filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6),\10\ the Commission may designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because doing so will allow the
Exchange to adjust its testing schedule and develop and test the new
auction functionality adequately prior to implementation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-023 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-023. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-023 and
should be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09959 Filed 5-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68768-68769]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM10-12-000]

Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the
Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical Conference

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will hold a one-day
conference on Order No. 768.\1\ The conference will be held on December
12, 2012, in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of
the Federal Power Act, Order No. 768, 77 FR 61896 (Oct. 11, 2012),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,336 (2012). The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has yet to act upon the information collection
requirements adopted in Order No. 768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There will be a morning session and an afternoon session. The
public may attend. The conference will principally address satisfying
the Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs) reporting requirements. The
conference will not address the merits of issues raised on rehearing of
Order No. 768. Advance registration is not required but is encouraged.
Please register at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/eqr-12-12-12-form.asp.
    The morning session will begin at 9:00 a.m. (EST) and is intended
for new EQR filers who are not currently filing EQR reports. However,
anyone may attend. FERC staff will provide introductory and background
information about the EQR, including data fields that existed prior to
Order No. 768. These data fields include information on seller names,
customer names, contract data, transaction data, product type,
quantity, and rate, among others.
    The afternoon session will begin at 1:00 p.m. (EST). This session
is intended for all EQR filers, including new filers, and will focus on
refinements to the existing filing requirements as set forth in Order
No. 768, including the new data fields. The requirements for these data
fields will include (1) reporting the trade date and type of rate; (2)
identifying the exchange used for a sales transaction, if applicable;
(3) reporting whether a broker was used to consummate a transaction;
(4) reporting electronic tag ID data; and (5) reporting standardized
prices and quantities for energy, capacity, and booked out power
transactions, among others.
    A free webcast of the conference will be available through
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access interested in viewing this
conference can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events
and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link
to the webcast. Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the conferences via
phone-bridge for a fee. If you need technical support, please visit
www.CapitolConnections.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission staff encourages participants to email questions in
advance to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>When emailing questions, please include ``EQR
Conference'' in the subject line.
    The conference will be transcribed and the transcript placed in the
record in Docket No. RM 10-12.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations,
please send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866)
208-3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information on this conference, please contact Sarah
McKinley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> or Connie
Caldwell at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Agenda for the EQR Conference

RM10-12-000

(December 12, 2012)
9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Greeting and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Presentation on EQR, including Pre-Order No. 768
Data Fields
12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Break
1:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Presentation on Order No. 768, including New Data
Fields
4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2012-27962 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41983-41984]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0406; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-8]

Establishment of Class D Airspace; San Marcos, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D airspace for San Marcos
Municipal Airport, San Marcos, TX. Establishment of an air traffic
control tower has made this action necessary to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport. A
minor change in the airport descriptor also has been made.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 23, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 30, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class D airspace for San
Marcos Municipal Airport, San Marcos, TX (75 FR 22712) Docket No. FAA-
2010-0406. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace designations are
published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace at San Marcos, TX.
Establishment of an air traffic control tower at San Marcos Municipal
Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and management of
IFR operations at the airport. Also, a minor change has been made in
the amendatory language for the airport descriptor, changing from San
Marcos Municipal Airport, TX, to San Marcos, TX.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at San Marcos Municipal Airport,
San Marcos, TX. With the exception of editorial changes, and the
changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the
NPRM.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D San Marcos, TX [New]

San Marcos Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]53'34'' N., long. 97[deg]51'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,100 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of San Marcos Municipal
Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 313[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.6 miles
northwest of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 9, 2010.
Rick Kervin,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-17500 Filed 7-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13681-13684]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04771]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88317; File No. SR-OCC-2020-801]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Concerning a Master Repurchase
Agreement as Part of OCC's Overall Liquidity Plan

March 4, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On January 10, 2020, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
advance notice SR-OCC-2020-801 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \3\ to enter into a committed master repurchase
agreement with a bank counterparty to access a committed source of
liquidity to meet its settlement obligations.\4\ The Advance Notice was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on February 11,
2020,\5\ and the Commission has received no comments regarding the
changes proposed in the Advance Notice. The Commission is hereby
providing notice of no objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \4\ See Notice of Filing infra note 5, at 85 FR 7812.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88120 (Feb. 5, 2020), 85
FR 7812 (Feb. 11, 2020) (SR-OCC-2020-801) (``Notice of Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in OCC's Rules and By-Laws, available at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC maintains cash and other liquid resources to help it ensure
that it can meet its obligations in the event of a Clearing Member
default. OCC's liquid resources have included access to a diverse set
of funding sources, including a syndicated credit facility, a committed
master repurchase program with institutional investors such as pension
funds (the ``Non-Bank Liquidity Facility''), and Clearing Member
minimum cash Clearing Fund requirements.\7\ The confirmations \8\ under
the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility, totaling $1 billion, expired on
January 6, 2020.\9\ To help ensure that OCC's total committed liquidity
resources did not decrease following expiration of the $1 billion Non-
Bank Repo Facility, OCC previously sourced an additional $500 million
by exercising the accordion feature of its syndicated bank credit
facility.\10\ In addition to that, OCC exercised its existing authority
to temporarily increase the cash funding requirement in its Clearing
Fund from $3 billion to $3.5 billion, which Clearing Members were
obligated to fund by January 6, 2020.\11\ Taken together, these two
liquidity sources fully replaced the $1 billion Non-Bank Repo Facility
prior to its expiration on January 6, 2020. Now, OCC proposes to access
an additional committed source of liquidity to meet its settlement
obligations by entering into a committed

master repurchase agreement (``MRA'') with a bank counterparty with
confirmations totaling $500 million (the ``Bank Repo Facility'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7812 (citations omitted).
    \8\ A confirmation under a master repurchase agreement describes
the terms of a transaction, including the purchased securities,
purchase price, purchase date, repurchase date, and any additional
terms or conditions not inconsistent with the master repurchase
agreement.
    \9\ See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7814 n. 19.
    \10\ See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7814 n. 20.
    \11\ See OCC Information Memo #46287, Revised Cash Requirement
in Clearing Fund (Jan. 3, 2020), available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/infomemos?number=46287&date=202001&lastModifiedDate=01%2F03%2F202000%3A00%3A00.
    \12\ Because the counterparty may be a bank with which OCC has
existing relationships, in which case the proposed Bank Repo
Facility could materially increase OCC's exposure to the bank, the
Commission requested and reviewed information about existing
relationships and exposures. See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7812, n.
9 (stating that OCC provided additional information in a
confidential Exhibit 3b). The Commission also reviewed information
regarding OCC's processes for monitoring such exposures. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously reviewed and did not object to OCC's
execution of the Non-Bank Repo Facility, which was based on the same
standard form master repurchase agreement as the MRA governing the
proposed Bank Repo Facility.\13\ As with the Non-Bank Repo Facility,
under the MRA, the securities eligible for transactions under the MRA
would include U.S. government securities. Specifically, OCC would use
securities included in the margin deposits of a suspended Clearing
Member as well as Clearing Fund contributions to access the Bank Repo
Facility. The market value of the securities supporting each
transaction under the Bank Repo Facility would be determined daily, and
OCC would be obligated to provide additional securities as necessary in
response to a fall in the market value of purchased securities.
Similarly, the standard terms addressing an event of default under the
MRA would be substantially similar to the terms of the agreement
underlying the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility. Further, as part of
establishing the Bank Repo Facility, OCC would review and monitor its
counterparty's ability to meet obligations under the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76821 (Jan.
4, 2016), 81 FR 3208 (Jan. 20, 2016) (SR-OCC-2015-805); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73979 (Jan. 2, 2015), 80 FR 1062 (Jan. 8,
2015) (SR-OCC-2014-809). Similar to the agreement underlying the
Non-Bank Liquidity Facility, the materials terms of the MRA would be
based on a standard form master repurchase agreement published by
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the terms of the MRA specifically tailored to the Bank Repo
Facility would nonetheless be substantially similar to the terms of the
agreement underlying the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility, including (1) the
duration of the agreement; (2) the buyer's obligation to fund
regardless of a material adverse change, such as the failure of a
Clearing Member; (3) availability of funds within 60 minutes of OCC
providing securities to the buyer; (4) a prohibition against
rehypothecation of the purchased securities by the buyer; (5) OCC's
option to terminate a transaction early and to specify a new repurchase
date;\14\ (6) OCC's right to substitute any eligible securities for
purchased securities; and (7) the use of a ``mini-default'' in lieu of
declaring an event of default at the discretion of the non-defaulting
party.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The buyer would not have a similar right, but rather, would
be permitted to terminate a transaction early only upon the
occurrence of an event of default with respect to OCC.
    \15\ For example, if the buyer fails to transfer purchased
securities on the applicable repurchase date, rather than declaring
an event of default, OCC may (1) if OCC has already paid the
repurchase price, require the buyer to repay the repurchase price,
(2) if there is a margin excess, require the buyer to pay cash or
deliver purchased securities in an amount equal to the margin
excess, or (3) declare that the applicable transaction, and only
that transaction, will be immediately terminated, and apply default
remedies under the MRA to only that transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where necessary and appropriate, however, certain terms of the
proposed MRA would differ from the terms of the agreement underlying
the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility. For example, the Bank Repo Facility
would include confirmations totaling $500 million rather than $1
billion.\16\ Other differences between the MRA and the agreement
underlying the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility relate to the fact that
OCC's counterparty for the Bank Repo Facility is a commercial bank
rather than a pension fund. Specifically, unlike the terms underlying
the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility, OCC would not require the Bank Repo
Facility counterparty to maintain cash and investments in a designated
account into which OCC has visibility.\17\ Such a designated account
was necessary to facilitate prompt funding for the Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility counterparties because they, unlike the Bank Repo Facility
counterparty, were not commercial banks and therefore were not in the
business of daily funding.\18\ Similarly, the MRA would not include
terms related to a custodian other than the Bank Repo Facility
counterparty because OCC's counterparty, as a commercial bank, would be
capable of acting as custodian of the purchased securities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As described above, OCC has already sourced additional
liquid resources through its syndicated credit facility that would
cover the other half of the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility.
Additionally, the establishment of the Bank Repo Facility would not
preclude OCC from establishing other arrangements with different
liquidity providers in the future.
    \17\ See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7813 n. 16.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ Based on information provided by OCC, the Commission
understands that OCC's counterparty to the Bank Repo Facility, as a
commercial bank, would custody the purchased securities, and would
provide to OCC information regarding purchased securities similar to
what was required of a third-party custodian under the Non-Bank Repo
Facility. See Notice of Filing, 85 FR at 7812, n. 9 (stating that
OCC provided additional information in a confidential Exhibit 3b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing
Supervision Act is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the
financial system and promote financial stability by, among other
things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically
important financial market utilities (``SIFMUs'') and strengthening the
liquidity of SIFMUs.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \21\ authorizes
the Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk-management
standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of
designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act \22\ provides the following objectives and
principles for the Commission's risk-management standards prescribed
under Section 805(a):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \22\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To promote robust risk management;
     to promote safety and soundness;
     to reduce systemic risks; and
     to support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-
management standards may address such areas as risk-management and
default policies and procedures, among other areas.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Section 17A of the
Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency Rules'').\24\ The Clearing Agency
Rules require, among other things, each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum
requirements for its operations and risk-management practices on an
ongoing basis.\25\ As such, it is appropriate for the

Commission to review advance notices against the Clearing Agency Rules
and the objectives and principles of these risk management standards as
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. As
discussed below, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\26\ and in
the Clearing Agency Rules, in particular Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (Nov. 2, 2012) (S7-08-11). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28, 2016),
81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Covered Clearing Agency
Standards''). The Commission established an effective date of
December 12, 2016 and a compliance date of April 11, 2017 for the
Covered Clearing Agency Standards. OCC is a ``covered clearing
agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \26\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the proposal contained in OCC's
Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles
of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. Specifically, as
discussed below, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management
in the area of liquidity risk, promoting safety and soundness, reducing
systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the broader financial
system.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes are consistent
with promoting robust risk management, in particular management of
liquidity risk presented to OCC. OCC is a SIFMU.\29\ As a SIFMU, it is
imperative that OCC have adequate resources to be able to satisfy its
counterparty settlement obligations, including in the event of a
Clearing Member default.\30\ As described above, OCC proposes to
implement the Bank Repo Facility, in part, to address the expiration of
the Non-Bank Facility and ensure that OCC's committed liquid resources
remain at or above the amount that OCC has determined it needs to
ensure that it has adequate resource to be able to satisfy its
counterparty settlement obligations, after the Non-Bank Repo Facility
expired on January 6, 2020. In addition, implementing the Bank Repo
Facility would help OCC maintain its access to liquid resources through
a committed repurchase agreement, which would have the additional
advantage of helping to maintain diversity among the liquidity
resources that OCC may use to resolve a Clearing Member default.\31\ As
such, the Commission believes that the proposal would promote robust
risk management practices at OCC, consistent with Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC'') 2012
Annual Report, Appendix A, available at https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73979 (Jan. 2,
2015), 80 FR 1062, 1065 (Jan. 8, 2015) (SR-OCC-2014-809).
    \31\ OCC maintains access to a diverse set of funding sources in
addition to the Bank and Non-Bank Repo Facilities, including a
syndicated credit facility and Clearing Member minimum cash Clearing
Fund requirements.
    \32\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness,
reducing systemic risks, and promoting the stability of the broader
financial system. As described above, the Bank Repo Facility would
provide OCC with another liquidity resource in the event of a Clearing
Member default, in addition to the existing syndicated credit facility
and Clearing Member minimum cash Clearing Fund requirements. This would
promote safety and soundness for Clearing Members because it would
provide OCC with diversity among resources and a readily available
liquidity resource that could enable OCC to continue to meet its
settlement obligations in a timely fashion in the event of a Clearing
Member default, thereby helping to contain losses and liquidity
pressures from such a default. Maintaining adequate and diversified
resources to help manage a Clearing Member default, in turn, enhances
OCC's ability to manage systemic risk and to support the broader
financial system. As such, the Commission believes it is consistent
with promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks, and
promoting the stability of the broader financial system as contemplated
in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission
believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with
Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively
measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is
borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, holding
qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum liquidity
resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) \35\ in each relevant
currency for which the covered clearing agency has payment obligations
owed to clearing members.\36\ For any covered clearing agency,
``qualifying liquid resources'' means assets that are readily available
and convertible into cash through prearranged funding arrangements,
such as, committed arrangements without material adverse change
provisions, including, among others, repurchase agreements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires OCC to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk
that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and
timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum,
maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all
relevant currencies to effect same-day settlement of payment
obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of
foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the participant family that would generate the
largest aggregate payment of obligation for the covered clearing
agency in extreme but plausible conditions. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, implementation of the Bank Repo Facility would
provide OCC with a committed funding arrangement that would give OCC
access to $500 million of committed liquid resources through an MRA
with a bank counterparty. Under the terms of the MRA, OCC's bank
counterparty would be required to provide OCC with funding subject to a
number of conditions, including an obligation to fund regardless of any
material adverse change at OCC, such as the failure of a Clearing
Member. Taken together, the Commission believes that the Bank Repo
Facility provides OCC with $500 million of ``qualifying liquid
resources'' as that term is defined in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(14) of the
Exchange Act,\38\ and therefore is consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes that implementation of the
Bank Repo Facility would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii)
under the Exchange Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act, that the Commission DOES NOT OBJECT to
Advance Notice

(SR-OCC-2020-801) and that OCC is AUTHORIZED to implement the proposed
change as of the date of this notice.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04771 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P