July 13, 2010 meeting notes

I. International Regulatory Issues

EU Regulation Overview

Presenter: Klaus Steininger, European Commission

The presentation focused on main regulatory requirements for green house
gas (GHG) emission control and reduction, measured in terms of CO2.

EU regulations on CO2 have 3 main legal actions:

Directive 2006/40/EC ( MVAC emissions

2007/40/EC ( administrative

2007/37/EC ( amendments

EU regulatory actions are applied on a step-wise base:

1st step:

Control direct emissions of MVACs >150 GWP:

mandatory as of Jun 21, 2008 (new types of vehicles)

mandatory as of Jun 21, 2009 (all new vehicles)

2nd step:

Prohibition of F-gases > 150 GWP

Starting Jan 2011 (new types of vehicles)

2017 (all new vehicles)

Part of the EU regulations on GHG includes:

EC/848/2006

F-gases not critical, no disproportionate costs

EC/307/2008

Appropriate qualification of personnel

Regulations under the European Commission also includes requirements to
report CO2 emissions

Emissions <= 130 g/km CO2 (powertrain improvements)

Addition of  10g/km CO2 (other tech improvements)

Thus, to reduce CO2 emissions and achieve EU requirements the following
has to be addressed:

Efficiency improvements on MVAC system

Fuel efficiency (driving patterns studies)

Pressure monitoring on A/C system

Gear shift indicators

For a total of 140g/km of CO2 emissions, it is necessary to attain a
reduction of 10g/km

MVAC indirect emissions – test procedures, must consider:

Cost effectiveness

Incentive reduction of emissions from MVAC

Insulation technologies

Draft for MVAC test procedure is anticipated on August 2010

………………………………………………………………
……………………………………

EPA Ann Arbor Indirect Energy Consumption Developments

Presenter: Brian Nelson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA issued a final rule, Light Duty Vehicle Green House Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. The main focus
of final rulemaking issued by EPA-OTAQ with join efforts from NHTSA is
to guide toward GHG emission reduction and the approval of “GHG
credits”. MVAC systems are considered part of GHG emissions from
vehicles, thus the presentation had particularly focus on A/C credits.

A/C Credits are evaluated according to:

MVAC system efficiency

Type of MVAC refrigerant used

Other technologies that reduce GHG*

*Other types of credits include: “off-cycle credit”, which is not
captured in an existing test cycle. However, manufacturers must justify
this credit.

Efficiency credits are evaluated using two methods:

1.  “Menu” method, which is a table offered on the final rule –
manufactures must follow this method only for 2012-2013 automobile
models.

2. “A/C idle test” method, which is used to measure incremental CO2
due to A/C use  - manufacturers must follow this method for 2014 –
2016 automobile models only (for these models an adjustment factor must
be applied).

GHG emission, measured as CO2, of 14.9 g/min or less may be eligible to
receive credit. Starting with 2009-2011 year models, manufacturers may
be eligible to receive “early” A/C credits if these attain with the
minimum A/C emission rate (see final rule for more details, 75 FR
32324).

The method to evaluate and determine refrigerant emissions from the MVAC
system is applied referencing the SAE J2727 standard (as of 2008).

………………………………………………………………
………………………

Update on California’s Regulatory Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Mobile Air Conditioning

Presenter: Tao Zhan and Leela Rao, California Air Resources Board

MVAC refrigerant emissions are being determined using mass balance:

Refrigerant introduction (into MVAC system):

Initial OEM charge

Recharge/ servicing

Refrigerant emission (out to the environment):

Leakage

Accidental break of the A/C system

MVAC servicing (topping of a leaky system, unintentional venting)

End-of –life (recyclers/salvage yards) activities

Containment heel

CARB’s regulatory evolution:

CA-AB 1493 (PAVLEY)

Standard to be applied on 2009-2012 automobile models

MVAC improvement can earn credits for GHG emissions

LEV III

Mandatory standard to be applied on automobile models starting 2017

The use of low GWP refrigerants are required

Low leak rates on MVAC systems

Indirect emissions limit

These regulations are intended to complement EPA regulations on GHG
credits. CARB expect their standard align with federal regulatory
activities.

LEV III requirements are as follows:

MVAC refrigerants must have a GWP equal or lower than 150

MVAC systems  must have a 90% reduction of direct emissions

Average leak rate must be equal or lower than 9g/yr

OEMs can choose from 3 SNAP refrigerants: HCF-152a, CO2, or HFO-1234yf

Indirect emissions standard

CARB is proposing to develop a fleet average MVAC indirect emission
standard

Evaluation through a whole-vehicle performance test procedure (under
development)

CARB is evaluating leak rates on MVAC systems using SAE 2727 standard

Initial adoption using EPA’s final rule on GHG credit

However, proposed test procedure adds into consideration solar load,
moderate annual loading, and A/C during initial cooling and steady-state
temperature control.

CARB regulatory activities are intended for long term MVAC performance
and consumer protection. Also main focus is being directed to MVAC
efficiency improvement. Comments are currently being requested. In
addition, CARB is looking forward to address other MVAC system
improvements, including adequate lubricants. CARB believes a 9g/yr MVAC
GHG emission rate is achievable and a 18g/yr per USEPA, 50% of goal
reduction is feasible.

CARB expressed the need to develop new standards in the US if EU
switches to HFO-1234yf.

………………………………………………………………
……………

Q & A session for the first 3 Presentations:

Q: Is CARB aware of EU direct/indirect emission restrictions?

A (CARB rep.): Yes. CARB is currently determining feasibility of tests
and proposed standards.

A (EU Commission rep.): EU regulations proposed minimum requirements
(see presentation and EU rulemaking for further information).

Q: What are the plans for enforcement for CARB’s standards

A (CARB rep.): Right now CARB is working on developing standards,
Enforcement will be determined once the standards are published.

Q: How will the SNAP approved refrigerants affect efforts to implement
low GWP refrigerants?

A (EPA rep.): More information about SNAP is covered during the
afternoon session. (see afternoon session meeting notes)

Q: What is being approved regarding highway (heavy duty) equipment?

A (EPA rep.): The current regulatory actions are being focused on light
vehicles (i.e., cars, SUV’s and light duty vehicles) and primarily on
emissions due to leakage. Other types of vehicles are targeted for the
future.

A (EU Commission rep.): Several mobile air requirements for off-road
vehicles are being verified. However, regulation for these vehicles may
be applied on future regulations.

Q: Is 1/3 of the overall GHG credit issued for indirect emissions? What
is the base to determine those emissions?

A (EPA): 13.6g/yr of CO2 based on indirect emissions or 70.6% efficiency
improvement of the MVAC system could attain the requirements for
credits. A leakage inventory was developed by OAP based on the
approximate amount of losses from vehicles. EPA referred to the
Vintanging model. Other analyses and assumptions were obtained from
studies from NREL and standards.

Q: SAE J2727 standard addresses type of compressor energy penalty due to
different type of A/C, and system emissions, How has this been addressed
in the regulations?

A (EU Commission Rep.): Issue is going to be taken into account.

A: (W. Atkinson, SAE): “If we have control of the refrigerant leakage,
e.g. 15g/yr, and in the past it was common to recharge the A/C every 90
days, we have measured the efficiency and had tried to reduce
refrigerant indirect emissions (due to increase of system efficiency)”

Q: What is the emission rate technology?

A (EPA): See EPA final rule on GHG credits. SAE J2727 standard is one of
the main bases for this.

………………………………………………………………
………………………………………

OEM Evaluation of MAC Fuel Consumption by Physical Testing. Comparison
of Test Benches, Engine Types and MAC Technologies

Presenters: Bruno Rose, PSA; Enrique Peral, Renault

The purpose of the research was to find consistency of efficiency
measures for the MVAC industry. Attention was brought toward the need of
express results whether in fuel consumption (thus engine efficiency
regarding MVAC fuel consumption) or MVAC technical efficiency itself.

Q & A Session:

Q:  What is the A/C consumption?

A: Number of energy consumption may be dependent on temperature. If
different compressor systems are used, with different maximum loads,
measurements are going to be different.

Q: What assumptions were used in the study?

A: Constant load on the A/C

Q: Did the study considered different solar load technologies?

A: Not enough tests have been done on that field.

………………………………………………………………
…………………………………

Quantificational Analysis of Automotive AC Fuel Consumption on EPA Drive
Cycles

Presenter: Kelvin Zhai,

Studies on MVAC systems done in NREL facilities have found that running
electrical accessories in the automobile reduces fuel economy.by 5-25%

Modeling technologies such as A/C dynamic simulator are options to
evaluate energy consumption, reflected as fuel consumption from the use
of A/C systems in vehicles. However, great variability exisst due the
significant amount of existing driving patterns and conditions.

………………………………………………………………
……………………………………

HFO-1234yf – Safety When Exposed to Ignition Sources

Presenters: Kai Holtappels, Volkmar Schroder, BAM; Gabrielle Hoffman,
Wolfgang Plehn, UBA

UBA presented a study (including a video) of ignition inside the
passenger compartment when “enough” concentrations of HFO-1234yf
(900g) and ethane are released into the passenger compartment and an
ignition source such as a spark is present.  The researchers presented
concerns on HF formation since concentrations surpassed 90 ppm inside
the passenger compartment. However, the presenter did not say what was
the exact concentration and duration. The presenter reiterated that
preventive measures regarding HF and flammability are necessary but
recognized that flammability is not a barrier for HFO-1234yf use on MVAC
systems.

The presenter recognized that HF concentrations above 90 ppm also
resulted from HFC-134a thermal decomposition. Results did not show the
exact concentration.

Q & A session:

Q: Was a Fault Tree Analysis conducted in the study?

A: No fault tree analyses were conducted.

Q: What was amount of energy released to cause the fire? Were
combustible materials identified inside the passenger compartment (e.g.,
textiles)?

A: Amount of energy was not measured during the study. Seat material was
not taken into consideration.

Q: What is the computation analysis of HF formation?

A: Details of the analysis will be published on their website (UBA’s).

………………………………………………………………
……………………………

Review of SAE CRP 1234 Results

Presenter: William Hill

The presentation focused on results of the CRP 1234 risk analyses
regarding HFO-1234yf toxicity, flammability, and HF, in addition to
risks assessments on CO2 refrigerant (For more information, the CRP1234
is on EPA’s SNAP rule docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0644).

………………………………………………………………
……………………………..

II. ICCC Standards Meeting

Regulatory Updates on Alternative Refrigerants for MVACs

Presenter: Yaidi Cancel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A review on SNAP regulatory actions and current status of EPA rulemaking
for CO2 and HFO-1234yf refrigerants were presented.

*For further details, please find the presentation on SNAP Rule docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0644)

Q & A Session:

Q: Various concerns exist regarding the current SNAP list finding
acceptable numerous refrigerants that do not have appropriate/approved
servicing equipment. What is EPA going to do about that?

A: Under current regulations EPA requires the use of unique fittings and
labels to avoid cross-contamination of MVAC systems. Also, EPA provides
on the regulations requirements for the approval of equipment to extract
refrigerants, acceptable under SNAP, other than CFC-12 and HFC-134a. EPA
prohibits intentional venting of any refrigerant.

Q: The industry understands there are refrigerants (blends) on the
market that may be cheaper than HFO-1234yf and there are no current
industry standards for control and safety of these blends. What would be
EPA’s actions for that?

A: Based on EPA regulations SNAP is not currently mandating the use of
any particular refrigerant but offers alternatives to be used under
certain specifications described by the regulations. When EPA receives a
submission under the SNAP program, the agency reviews risks on
environment and human health prior finding acceptable any refrigerant.

Note: The inquirers expressed concerns of venting due to the lack of
control of “SNAP-approved” refrigerant blends in the market since
many are accessible to untrained consumers that tend to service the MVAC
system inappropriately and end up venting the refrigerant into the
atmosphere because service equipment for most blends are currently
unavailable or inaccessible.

Q: EPA received a petition to “un-SNAP” (remove from the SNAP list)
HFC-134a. What is being done about that?

A: EPA is currently reviewing the petition and will issue a response as
soon as the revision process ends. EPA understands it has 90 days to
respond after the petition is received.

………………………………………………………………
………………………….

ICCC Meeting

During the meeting attention was brought on the standards with technical
issues pending to solve. Some of the standards discussed were:

SAE J639, Safety Standards for motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor
Compression Systems

SAE J2727, HCF-134a Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant Emission
Chart

SAE J2844, R-1234yf New Refrigerant Purity and Container requirements
Used in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems

SAE J639 – Fittings and labeling issues

The industry found issues regarding the similitude of HFC-134a fittings
and HFO-1234yf that could lead to possible cross-contamination of MVAC
systems.

Labeling issues were discussed as well. Further review of fitting
dimensions and labeling color was considered and final agreements were
going to be presented on Thursday, July 15, 2010, on a subsequent ICCC
meeting. After revisions and agreements are done, the standards are sent
into “ballots” where industry members vote to accept or decline the
decisions adopted during the ICCC meeting.

SAE J2727 – Under revision

OTAQ’s rule regarding GHG limits on vehicles makes references of a
previous version of this standard.  The Agency may use this standard to
issue further regulations on emissions.

SAE J 2844 – Labeling requirements on containers

ICCC member discussed whether to include a detailed label, describing
compliance with the standard. Issues were discussed regarding confusion
with DOT’s labeling system.

SAE J2844 – HFO-1234yf refrigerant purity issue

Concerns were raised about inconsistent concentrations of “trace
impurities” containing HFO-1225ye which is considered considerably
toxic. Manufacturers discussed issues regarding what may be the
“safe” concentration of this trace impurity (40 ppm, 70 ppm, or 150
ppm). Consensus was not attained on impurity concentration and concerns
remains on toxicity of HFO-1225ye. Manufacturers agreed to performs
further reviews before making a final decision.

July 14, 2010 meeting notes

MAC Indirect Emission Workshop

Mobile Air Conditioning Test Development Procedures

Presenter: Klaus Steininger, European Commission

EU commission representative presented an overview on test procedures
and conditions to develop standards for MVACs. Procedures focused on
fuel consumption and overall system efficiency.

National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Research on MVACs

Presenter: John P. Rugh

Research was done on effective passenger cabin cooling, analyzing
several factors including ambient temperatures and humidity, A/C
operation (high, low), vehicle operation and driving patterns, fuel
consumption and solar load. The study assumed the highest load during
the first minutes of driving, while the A/C is on and steady state
conditions while the vehicle was driven at constant-like pattern (e.g.,
highway driving). NREL studies shows glazed windows help reduce 5.5%
(KW) MVAC load in the vehicle. Furthermore, a 4.5gCO2/mi reduction could
be achieved with the use of this technology. Further studies may include
cooling performance analysis when vehicle ignition on and off.

EPA’s GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards

Presenter: Brian Nelson

EPA’s final rule “Light-Duty Vehicle Green House Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards” regulates
direct and indirect emissions. Based on SAE I-MAC team 2 studies, a 50%
reduction of refrigerant leakage can be attained. EPA used 50% leakage
reduction to establish maximum direct credit for vehicles. Higher
credits could be achieved when sealed electric compressor technologies
and/or low GWP refrigerants are used. As described in the final rule,
CO2 impact due to indirect emissions is 14.9g/mi. Indirect emissions can
be calculated using the table indicating indirect emission values for
certain components. Further details on how to determine direct and
indirect emission credits may be obtained from EPA’s final rule (75 FR
25324).

CARB’s Indirect Emissions Standards

Presenter: Leela Rao, Ph..D.

The state of California is proposing to issue credits based on “PAVLEY
– AB 1493”. If a MVAC industry meets all the criteria of a system
with reduced emissions of 9.0g/yr CO2 equivalent, it may become eligible
to obtain CARB’s credits. Methods used to determine CARB’s emissions
credits includes modeled results presented in NESCCAF (2004), vehicle
simulation modeling using CRUISE model and other analytic tools.

………………………………………………………………
…………………

July 15, 2010 meeting notes

ICCC Meeting Conclusions and OEM/Regulator Discussion on Indirect MAC
Emissions Workshop

ICCC Meeting Conclusions

ICCC members reviewed issues with SAE J standards 639 and 2844 since
those presented the most concerns. Members agreed to change the
dimensions of the high-pressure side fitting to avoid misuse with
HFC-134a fittings (since both fitting showed compatibility previously).
The new dimensions are unique and will help avoid MVAC system
cross-contamination and other safety issues. Members agreed to continue
reviewing alternatives to address refrigerant purity as per SAE J2844.
Both standards will go to ballot after further agreements within members
are done (specifically on SAE J2844). Since SAE J639 covers as a summary
all MVAC related SAE standards. Its finalization depends on total
consensus for all other standards.

OEM/Regulator Discussion on Indirect MAC Emissions Workshop

This meeting focused mainly on fuel efficiency regarding MVAC use.
European and US industry, research and regulatory sectors are searching
for consistent testing methods to evaluate fuel consumption and MVAC
system efficiency effectively. OEMs and regulators (EPA and CARB) agreed
to organize periodic meetings (bi-monthly) to discuss technology and
regulatory approaches to assess MVAC and overall vehicle power train
efficiency. OEMs recognized that MVAC efficiency and GHG reduction may
not only be attained by the type of refrigerant used but on complex
factors such as MVAC system and vehicle components, driving patterns,
and ambient factors.

 MAC (Mobile air conditioner) = MVAC (Motor vehicle air conditioner)

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57-61]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31247]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387; FRL-9904-96-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
following required State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from the
State of Texas for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (HGB area): the attainment demonstration for the
1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the
reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration for the
NAAQS, the contingency measures plan in the event of failure to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and a Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget (MVEB) for 2018, which is the attainment year for the
area. EPA is also approving revisions to the air pollution control
measures and General Air Quality Definitions in the Texas SIP. The
revisions to the air pollution control measures include revisions to
the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) program for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), revisions to the highly reactive volatile organic
compound (HRVOC) emissions cap and trade (HECT) program, Voluntary
Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP) measures, and Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs). EPA is taking these actions in accordance with section
110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387. All documents in the docket are listed on

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make
an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our
September 9, 2013 proposal (78 FR 55037). In that notice, we proposed
to approve the following Texas SIP submittals for the HGB area:
     Attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
     Revisions to the MECT air pollution control program
     Revisions to the HECT air pollution control program
     VMEP measures and TCMs
     A 2018 year MVEB
     Demonstration of RACM
     Contingency measures plan addressing a failure to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
     Revisions to the General Air Quality Definitions submitted
by the State on June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March
11, 2011.
    In our proposal we noted that in order to approve the attainment
demonstration for the area we must also approve the reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan and the RFP contingency measures (78 FR 55037,
55038). In a separate action we are approving the RFP plan and the RFP
contingency measures.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See docket EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333 in www.regulations.gov.
_____________________________________-

    Five commenters provided comments on our September 9, 2013
proposal. The comments we received can be accessed from the
www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387). The
discussion below addresses the comments we received on our proposed
action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: We received four comments supportive of our proposal to
approve the SIP revisions.
    Response: We appreciate the supportive comments.
    Comment: We received a comment that the relevance of the attainment
demonstration must be evaluated against the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb,
not the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 84 ppb.
    Response: We disagree that the relevance of the attainment
demonstration must be evaluated against the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Clean Air
Act section 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.908 require an attainment
demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The attainment demonstration
being approved specifically addresses this CAA requirement. Areas were
designated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2012 and the attainment
demonstration and other planning provisions to address the area's
nonattainment status for that standard are not yet due. We expect
future SIP revisions for the HGB area, including the attainment
demonstration, will be submitted to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment: We received a comment from the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requesting that we not act on the
revisions submitted for the HECT program in 30 TAC 101.396(b) and
instead retain the current SIP-approved rule language. TCEQ noted that
the revision to 30 TAC 101.396(b) conflicts with 30 TAC 115.722(c) and
30 TAC 115.761(c) and that they intend to consider technical
corrections to 30 TAC 101.396(b) in future rulemaking.
    Response: Given the TCEQ request we are not taking action on the
revision to 30 TAC 101.396(b) at this time. The current SIP-approved
language for 30 TAC 101.396(b) will therefore remain in effect and
remove any concerns about conflicts with existing SIP-approved
requirements at 30 TAC 115.722(c) and 115.761(c) as cited by the TCEQ.
Further, the retention of the SIP-approved language at 30 TAC
101.396(b) will ensure the continued integrity of the HECT program and
the HGB attainment demonstration. Table 1 below shows the current SIP-
approved language that will be retained and the revision we are not
taking action on for 30 TAC 101.396(b).

     Table 1--SIP Approved Language and Submitted Revision to 30 TAC
                               101.396(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SIP Approved 30 TAC 101.396(b) that     Revision to 30 TAC 101.396(b)
           will be retained             that we are not taking action on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of HRVOC emissions from     (b) The amount of HRVOC emissions
 covered facilities shall be            from applicable facilities will
 calculated for each hour of the year   be calculated for each hour of
 and summed to determine the annual     the year and summed to determine
 emissions for compliance. For          the annual emissions for
 emissions from emissions events        compliance. For emissions from
 subject to the requirements of Sec.    scheduled maintenance, startup,
  101.201 of this title (relating to    or shutdown activities subject
 Emissions Event Reporting and          to the requirements of Sec.
 Recordkeeping Requirements) or         101.211 of this title (relating
 emissions from scheduled               to Scheduled Maintenance,
 maintenance, startup, or shutdown      Startup, and Shutdown Reporting
 activities subject to the              and Recordkeeping Requirements),
 requirements of Sec.   101.211 of      the hourly emissions to be
 this title (relating to Scheduled      included in the summation shall
 Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown     not exceed the short-term limit
 Reporting and Recordkeeping            of Sec.   115.722(c) and Sec.
 Requirements); the hourly emissions    115.761(c) of this title
 to be included in the summation        (relating to Site-wide Cap and
 shall not exceed the short-term        Control Requirements; and Site-
 limit of Sec.   115.722(c) and Sec.    wide Cap.
  115.761(c) of this title (relating
 to Site-wide Cap and Control
 Requirements; and Site-wide Cap).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter who supported the proposal also urged us to
work proactively with states to develop guidance on how to best account
for exceptional events, particularly wildfires, and transport of
emissions from Asia in future SIPs. The commenter further urged us to
thoughtfully consider exceptional event and CAA 179B petitions from
states affected by emissions that are beyond their control.
    Response: While these matters are not relevant to the current
action before us which is approving the HGB area SIP, we note that we
will continue to actively work with states to address the general SIP
related issues of exceptional events and international transport. In
May 2013, we issued interim guidance on exceptional events and
announced our intention to propose and finalize revisions to the 2007
Exceptional Events Rule (72 FR 13560, March 22, 2007). More information
can be found on our exceptional events Web site located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm.
    CAA section 179B (International Border Areas), applies to
nonattainment areas that are affected by emissions from outside the
United States. For more discussion on section 179B, please see 78 FR
34178, 34204 (June 6, 2013 Federal Register) and 70 FR 71612, 71624
(November 29, 2005 Federal Register).

III. Final Action

    We are approving SIP submittals from the State of Texas for the HGB
ozone nonattainment area submitted on April 6, 2010, and May 6, 2013.
Specifically, we are approving the following Texas SIP submittals for
the HGB area:
     Attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
     Revisions to the MECT air pollution control program
     Revisions to the HECT air pollution control program
     VMEP measures and TCMs
     A 2018 year MVEB
     Demonstration of RACM
     Contingency measures plan addressing a failure to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
    We are also approving the following SIP revisions to the General
Air Quality Definitions submitted by the State on June 10, 2005, August
16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. Additionally, we are
approving the revisions to the MECT and HECT program submitted on April
6, 2010, with the exception of the revision to 30 TAC 101.396(b). We
are taking no action on revisions to 30 TAC 101.396(b).
    We are approving these SIP revisions in accordance with section 110
and part D of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270:
0
a. In paragraph (c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entries for Sections 101.1,
101.350,

101.351, 101.353, 101.390 through 101.394, 101.396, and 101.399 through
101.401.
0
b. In paragraph (e), the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding a new entry to the end of the table for
``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Attainment
Demonstration SIP and its MECT and HECT air pollution control program
revisions, VMEP measures and TCMs, 2018 MVEB, RACM demonstration, and
Failure to attain contingency measure plan''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                                          approval/
          State citation               Title/subject      submittal     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Subchapter A--General Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.1....................  Definitions.........    3/11/2011  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Division 3--Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.350..................  Definitions.........     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.351..................  Applicability.......     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 101.353..................  Allocation of            4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                    Allowances.                        page number where
                                                                       document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Division 6--Highly-Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.390..................  Definitions.........     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.391..................  Applicability.......     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.392..................  Exemptions..........     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.393..................  General Provisions..     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.394..................  Allocation of            4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                    Allowances.                        page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.396..................  Allowance deductions     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR   At the request of
                                                                       page number where     TCEQ EPA took no
                                                                       document begins].     action on the
                                                                                revision to
                                                                                101.396(b)
                                                                                submitted on 4/6/
                                                                                2010. Section
                                                                                101.396(b) is the
                                                                                rule language
                                                                                submitted 12/1/2004
                                                                                and approved 9/6/
                                                                                2006 (71 FR 52659).
Section 101.399..................  Allowance Banking        4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                    and Trading.                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.400..................  Reporting...........     4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.401..................  Level of Activity        4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
                                    Certification.                     page number where
                                                                       document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
                                      Applicable geographic   approval/
       Name of SIP provision         or non-attainment area   submittal      EPA approval date       Comments
                                                                 date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-   Houston-Galveston-         4/6/2010  1/2/2014 [Insert FR
 hour Ozone NAAQS Attainment          Brazoria, TX.             5/6/2013   page number where
 Demonstration SIP and its MECT and                                        document begins].
 HECT air pollution control program
 revisions, VMEP measures and TCMs,
 2018 MVEB, RACM demonstration, and
 Failure to attain contingency
 measure plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-31247 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 134 (Monday, July 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42016-42017]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043]

T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc.: Request for Renewal of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of T[Uuml]V
S[Uuml]D America, Inc. requesting renewal of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before July 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2007-0043). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security Numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before July 28, 2020 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the

NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details its
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
Appendix A, paragraph II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs
would submit a renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months or no
more than one year, before the expiration date of its current
recognition. The submission would include a request for renewal and any
additional information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its
continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR
1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL
headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 months, it will
schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date
of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and,
as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicit comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc. (TUVAM) initially received OSHA
recognition as a NRTL on January 25, 2002 (65 FR 26637), for a five-
year period ending on January 25, 2007. TUVAM's most recent renewal was
granted on January 30, 2014, for a five year period ending on January
20, 2019. TUVAM submitted a timely request for renewal, dated April 26,
2018 (OSHA-2007-0043-0029), and retains its recognition pending OSHA's
final decision in this renewal process. The current addresses of TUVAM
facilities recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal
request are:
    1. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, 10 Centennial Drive, Peabody,
Massachusetts 01960;
    2. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, 141 14th Street, NW, New Brighton,
Minnesota 55112;
    3. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc., 10040 Mesa Rim Road, San Diego,
California 92121;
    4. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Canada, 1229 Ringwell Drive, Newmarket, ON,
L3Y 8T8, Canada;
    5. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Product Services GmbH, Ridlerstrasse 65 D-
80339, Munich, Germany; and
    6. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Product Services GmbH, Daimlerstrasse 11 D-
85748, Garching, Germany.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that TUVAM is applying for renewal of its
recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers TUVAM's existing NRTL scope
of recognition. TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for renewal
of its recognition as a NRTL on April 16, 2018. OSHA evaluated TUVAM's
application for renewal and preliminarily determined that TUVAM can
continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for
recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is making a determination that it does
not need to conduct an additional on-site review of TUVAM's facilities
based on its evaluations of TUVAM's application and all other available
information. This information includes OSHA's audits of TUVAM
recognized NRTL sites during this recognition period, and the
satisfactory resolution of non-conformances with the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.7. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of the request.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in TUVAM's application and other pertinent
documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary on
whether to grant TUVAM's application for renewal. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and,
in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 8(g)(2) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and
29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 7, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-15070 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55096-55099]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98088; File No. SR-EMERALD-2023-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule To Modify the Excessive
Quoting Fee

August 8, 2023.
    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 July 27, 2023, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
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 amend the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to modify the Excessive Quoting
Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/emerald-options/rule-filings, at MIAX Emerald's principal office, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section (1)(c) of the Fee Schedule
to add an exemption such that Market Makers \3\ would not be assessed
the daily Excessive Quoting Fee for the first trading day that they
exceed the 3.5 billion inbound quote \4\ limit in a rolling 12-month
period. The Exchange originally filed this proposal on July 18, 2023
(SR-EMERALD-2023-17). On July 27, 2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-
EMERALD-2023-17 and refiled this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Maker'' refers to ``Lead Market Maker''
(``LMM''), ``Primary Lead Market Maker'' (``PLMM'') and ``Registered
Market Maker'' (``RMM''), collectively. See the Definitions Section
of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``quote'' or ``quotation'' means a bid or offer
entered by a Market Maker that is firm and may update the Market
Maker's previous quote, if any. The Rules of the Exchange provide
for the use of different types of quotes, including Standard quotes
and eQuotes, as more fully described in Rule 517. A Market Maker
may, at times, choose to have multiple types of quotes active in an
individual option. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange adopted the Excessive Quoting Fee as a result of a
significant upgrade to the MIAX Emerald System \5\ network
architecture, based on customer demand, which resulted in the
Exchange's network environment becoming more transparent and
deterministic. Pursuant to the Excessive Quoting Fee, the Exchange will
assess a fee of $10,000 per day to any Market Maker that exceeds 3.5
billion inbound quotes sent to the Exchange on that particular day. In
counting the total number of quotes for the purposes of the Excessive
Quoting Fee, the Exchange excludes messages that are generated as a
result of sending a mass purge message to the Exchange. The 3.5 billion
inbound quote limit for the Excessive Quoting Fee resets each trading
day.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section (1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to adopt an exemption from the daily
Excessive Quoting Fee for the first trading day that a Market Maker
would incur such fee in a rolling 12-month period (the ``Exemption'').
For example, if a Marker Maker exceeds 3.5 billion inbound quotes on
August 1, 2023, the Exchange will not assess the Excessive Quoting Fee.
Following that initial exceeding day, if that same Market Maker exceeds
the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit again on any trading day between
August 2, 2023 and July 31, 2024, then the Exchange would assess the
Excessive Quoting Fee on each of those days. Continuing with this
scenario, beginning with August 1, 2024, if that same Marker Maker
exceeds the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit on September 1, 2024, the
Exchange would not assess the Excessive Quoting Fee for that day
because a new rolling 12-month period started. Following that exceeding
day of September 1, 2024, if that same Market Maker exceeds the 3.5
billion inbound quote limit again on any trading day between September
2, 2024 and August 31, 2025, then the Exchange would assess the
Excessive Quoting Fee on each of those days.
    The purpose of the proposed Exemption is intended to provide one-
time relief to Market Makers from the Excessive Quoting Fee during a
12-month period. For example, increased volatility in the market place,
an increase in the number of options products quoted on the Exchange,
Market Makers testing new algorithms or technology, or some combination
of those factors, among others, may impact the number of quotes sent by
a Market Maker on a particular trading day, resulting in that Market
Maker potentially exceeding the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit. The
proposed Exemption would provide one-time relief in those types of
circumstances. The Exchange believes the proposed Exemption will not
undermine the purpose of the Excessive Quoting Fee, but will continue
to balance the interests of Market Makers sending quotes to the
Exchange, pursuant to their quoting obligations and quoting strategies,
while ensuring that Market Makers do not over utilize the Exchange's
System by sending excessive numbers of quotes to the potential
detriment of other Members \7\ of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal contemplates that a Market Maker would have to exceed
the high threshold of 3.5 billion inbound quotes on more than one
trading day in a rolling 12-month period before that Market Maker would
be charged the Excessive Quoting Fee (with the Exemption providing
relief once during a rolling 12-month period). The Exchange believes
the proposed Exemption is similar to the exemption currently offered by
the options markets for NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Options'') and
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American Options'') for those exchanges'
``Ratio Threshold Fee.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section II. Monthly
Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (``The Monthly Excessive
Bandwidth Utilization Fee will not be assessed for the first
occurrence in a rolling 12-month period.''); see also NYSE Arca
Options Fees and Charges, NYSE Arca Options General, note 12,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (``The Ratio Threshold
Fee is calculated on a monthly basis. This fee shall not apply to
orders that improve the Exchange's prevailing best bid-offer (BBO)
market at the time the orders are received. The fee will not be
assessed for the first occurrence in a rolling 12-month period.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Excessive Quoting Fee was not intended to be a source of
revenue for the Exchange, as the Exchange noted in its proposals to
adopt the Excessive Quoting Fee and increase the inbound quote
limit.\9\ Rather, the Excessive Quoting Fee was designed to ensure that
Market Makers do not over utilize the Exchange's System by sending
excessive numbers of quotes to the Exchange, potentially to the
detriment of all other Members of the Exchange. The proposed Exemption
provides one-time relief from the Excessive Quoting Fee during a 12-
month period and will not undermine the purpose of the Excessive
Quoting Fee, but will continue to balance the interests of Market
Makers sending quotes to the Exchange, pursuant to their quoting
obligations and quoting strategies and not over utilize the System. The
Exchange also notes that since the adoption of the Excessive Quoting
Fee in early 2021, the Exchange assessed the Excessive Quoting Fee only
one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91406 (March 24,
2021), 86 FR 16795 (March 31, 2021) (SR-EMERALD-2021-10) and 94368
(March 7, 2022), 87 FR 14051 (March 11, 2022) (SR-EMERALD-2022-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed changes are immediately effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Fee Schedule
is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly

discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than approximately 13%
of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and
exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options trades.\13\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
for the month of June 2023, the Exchange had a market share of 3.04% of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the ``Market Share'' section of the Exchange's website,
available at https://www.miaxglobal.com/ (last visited July 27,
2023).
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise,
modifications to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Exemption is reasonable
because it provides one-time relief to Market Makers from the Excessive
Quoting Fee during a 12-month period during which a combination of
possible factors, described above, may result in that Market Maker
potentially exceeding the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit on a
particular trading day. The Exchange believes the proposed Exemption
will not undermine the purpose of the Excessive Quoting Fee, but will
continue to balance the interests of Market Makers sending quotes to
the Exchange, pursuant to their quoting obligations and quoting
strategies, while ensuring that Market Makers do not over utilize the
Exchange's System by sending excessive numbers of quotes to the
potential detriment of other Members of the Exchange. In the backdrop
of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the
proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
mitigate effects of an ever-changing marketplace without affecting its
competitiveness or the quantity of quotes being sent by Market Makers.
The Exchange also believes the proposed Exemption is reasonable because
it is similar to the exemption currently offered by NYSE Arca Options
and NYSE American Options for their Ratio Threshold Fee.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is an equitable
allocation of fees. The proposed Exemption is an equitable allocation
of fees because it would be available to all Market Makers. All Market
Makers would be eligible for the Exemption the first trading day they
would incur the daily Excessive Quoting Fee in a rolling 12-month
period. In addition, to the extent the Exemption encourages Market
Makers to maintain their quoting activity on the Exchange by mitigating
the initial impact of the Excessive Quoting Fee, the Exchange believes
the proposed change would promote market quality to the benefit of all
market participants.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because it neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular type of Market Maker. The Exchange believes
the proposed Exemption is not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply to all Market Makers on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
The Exemption, as proposed, would provide all Market Makers with an
exemption from the daily Excessive Quoting Fee the first trading day
such fee would be incurred in a rolling 12-month period. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change would encourage Market Makers to
continue quoting on the Exchange by providing one-time relief from the
Excessive Quoting Fee in a rolling 12-month period and providing Market
Makers with an opportunity to evaluate their quoting behavior, while
balancing the interests of all market participants that send messages
to the Exchange on a daily basis. The proposed change would thus
support continued quoting and trading opportunities for all market
participants, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade,
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange will continue to review the quoting behavior of all
firms in connection with changing market conditions and technology or
algorithm changes on a regular basis to ensure that the proposed
Exemption is providing relief for Market Makers as intended.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
quotes to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes would impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
The proposed Exemption would apply equally to all Market Makers. All
Market Makers would be eligible for the Exemption for the first
occurrence that the Excessive Quoting Fee would be imposed for
exceeding the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit on a particular trading
day, over the course of a rolling 12-month period. To the extent the
proposed change is successful in encouraging Market Makers to maintain
their quoting activity on the Exchange, the Exchange believes the
proposed change will continue to promote market quality to the benefit
of all market participants.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor one of the 16 competing option
exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to

be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to
attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-available
information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has
more than approximately 13% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\16\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
for the month of June 2023, the Exchange had a market share of 3.04% of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 13.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule changes has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
file number SR-EMERALD-2023-20 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-EMERALD-2023-20. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to file number SR-EMERALD-2023-20 and should be submitted on or
before September 5, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17304 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75005]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15043-000]

Craig-Hayden PS, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On August 20, 2020, Craig-Hayden PS LLC, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Craig-Hayden Pumped
Storage Project (Craig-Hayden Project or project), a closed-loop pumped
storage project to be located in Moffat County, Colorado. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 10
to 60-foot-high dam with a total crest length of 8,000 feet, creating a
4,800 acre-foot upper reservoir with a maximum surface elevation of
7,920 feet above mean sea level; (2) one of the two alternatives for a
new tunnel and conduit system of steel and/or concrete lined tunnels to
connect the upper and lower reservoirs to the powerhouse; (3) three
pump-turbine units in an underground powerhouse with generation
capacity of 200 megawatts each (total capacity of 600 megawatt) located
at an underground cavern; (4) two new dams to create the lower
reservoir, with a storage capacity of 4,800 acre-feet, at an elevation
of 6,470 feet above mean sea level; (5) an electrical switchyard above
the powerhouse and interconnecting transmission lines from the
powerhouse to the nearest major transmission interconnection; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual generation of the
Craig-Hayden Project would be 1,051,200 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Matthew Shapiro, Craig-Hayden PS, 800 West Main
Street, Suite 1220, Boise, Idaho 83702; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Khatoon Melick,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment. aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15043-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/elibrary/overview. Enter the docket number (P-15043) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25979 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27661-27663]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11470]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0500; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) model EC135 helicopters, except the
EC 135 P2+ and T2+. This proposed AD was prompted by two reports of the
plain journal bearings moving in relation to the main rotor swashplate
sliding sleeve (sliding sleeve). The actions specified by this proposed
AD are intended to detect shifting of the plain journal bearing, which
could limit the movement of the collective control and result in
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 10, 2012.

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
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review a copy of 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: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, 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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.
2009-0272, dated December 18, 2009 (AD 2009-0272), to correct an unsafe
condition for Eurocopter Model EC 135 and EC 635 helicopters. EASA
advises that during two separate pre-flight checks on Model EC 135
helicopters in 2005, it was detected that one of the plain journal
bearings of the sliding sleeve had moved to the outside of the sliding
sleeve. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to a complete shift of the plain journal bearing to the
inside or outside, creating the possibility of a limited movement of
the collective, which could result in reduced control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
the Federal Republic of Germany and are approved for operation in the
United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the Federal
Republic of Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified
us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined
that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-62A-021,
dated June 23, 2005 (EC135-62A-021). EC135-62A-021 describes procedures
for visually checking the upper and lower plain journal bearings of the
sliding sleeve during preflight. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory
and issued AD 2009-0272 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, at intervals not to exceed 5 hours
time in service (TIS), visually inspecting the upper and lower plain
journal bearings of the sliding sleeve to detect a dislocated plain
journal bearing on Eurocopter Model EC 135 P1, P2, T1, and T2
helicopters with swashplate sliding sleeve, part number (P/N)
L623M2006101, installed.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    This proposed AD differs from the EASA AD as follows:
     This proposed AD requires the inspection to be performed
by a mechanic, and repeated every 5 hours TIS. AD 2009-0272 allows the
visual inspection to be accomplished by a pilot during preflight
inspection.
     This proposed AD does not require contacting ECD customer
service for corrective actions.
     This proposed AD provides terminating action for the
inspection requirements for the upper and lower plain journal bearings
by replacing the swashplate assembly with a later-design swashplate
assembly, P/N L623M2005103.
     The EASA AD applies to ECD model EC635 aircraft, and this
proposed AD does not because the EC635 does not have an FAA issued
type-certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 218 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the upper and lower plain
journal bearings requires about .25 work hour at an average labor rate
of $85 per hour, for a cost per helicopter of $22 and a total cost to
the U.S. operator fleet of $4,796 per inspection cycle. If required,
replacing the swashplate assembly will require about 8 work hours at an
average labor rate of $85 per hour, and required parts will cost about
$38,586, for a total cost per helicopter of $39,266.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH: Docket No. FAA-2012-0500; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-014-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model
EC135 helicopters, except EC 135 P2+ and EC135 T2+, with a
swashplate assembly, part number (P/N) L623M2006101, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as movement of the plain
journal bearings to the outside of the main rotor swashplate sliding
sleeve (sliding sleeve). This condition could limit movement of the
collective and result in subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(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 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS:
    (1) Visually inspect the position of the upper plain journal
bearings and determine if it is flush with the sliding sleeve.

    Note 1:  Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-
62A-021, dated June 23, 2005, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the inspection.

    (2) Visually inspect the lower plain journal bearing and
determine if it is recessed 2 millimeters from the sliding sleeve.
    (3) If the upper plain journal bearing is not flush with the
sliding sleeve or the lower plain journal bearing is not recessed
2mm, before further flight, replace the swashplate assembly with an
airworthy swashplate assembly.
    (4) Replacing the swashplate assembly, P/N L623M2006101, with a
later designed swashplate assembly, P/N L623M2005103, constitutes a
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-
5130, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under 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

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-62A-021, dated June
23, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter
Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4005,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review a copy of the service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency AD 2009-0272, dated December 18, 2009.

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230: Main Rotor
Mast/Swashplate.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 2, 2012.
Carlton N. Cochran,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11470 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P