PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 7 5 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1250.06; EPA Form 7740 6; EPA Publication 7700 ( 1/ 93);

9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 10. Abstract This collection requires contractors to provide information to EPA concerning their employees who need clearance for access to Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) confidential business information ( CBI). Access is needed in order for the employees to perform their official duties under the terms of their company's contract with EPA.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 36 b. Total annual responses 432 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 675 d. Current OMB inventory 814 e. Difference  139 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  139 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 260 2922 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 July 25 9: 56AM OPPT 2003 0042 0001 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62301]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-21-000]

Mountain View Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Mountain View Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is October 28, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 7, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24453 Filed 10-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4800-4803]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0947; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00195-R;
Amendment 39-21889; AD 2022-01-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350D, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters; AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,
AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and Model SA-365C1, SA-365C2,
SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. This AD was
prompted a report of increased vibration during flight. This AD
requires the application of alignment markings on, and repetitive
inspections of, the main rotor (MR) pitch rod upper links and,
depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective
actions, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 7, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 7,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0947.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0947; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0048, dated February 16, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0048), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France,
A[eacute]rospatiale) Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1,
AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, AS 350 D, EC 130 B4, and EC 130 T2 helicopters;
Model AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS 355 NP
helicopters; and Model SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 C3, SA 365 N, SA
365 N1, AS 365 N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters; all serial numbers. Model
AS 350 BB and SA 365 C3 helicopters are not certificated by the FAA and
are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD
therefore does not include those helicopters in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, EC130B4, and
EC130T2 helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
and AS355NP helicopters; and Model SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-
365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on October 29, 2021 (86 FR 59892). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of increased vibration during flight. The NPRM
proposed to require the application of alignment markings on, and
repetitive inspections of, the MR pitch rod upper links and, depending
on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, as
specified in EASA AD 2021-0048.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of tightening torque of
the screws connecting the MR pitch rods to the horns of the upper
links. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of one or
more MR pitch rod upper links, possibly resulting in loss of control of
the helicopter. See EASA AD 2021-0048 for additional background
information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0048 requires the application of alignment markings on
the screw, washer, nut, and horn on both sides of each MR pitch rod
upper link, and repetitive visual inspections of the two alignment
markings to determine if the markings are aligned on both sides. If,
during any inspection the markings on one or both sides of an MR pitch
rod upper link are found misaligned, the additional actions and
corrective actions include the following.
     Measuring the tightening torque value of the nut of the
pitch rod upper link and adjusting the nut if it does not meet the
specified criteria.
     Inspecting the pitch rod upper link to determine the
condition of the bush (bushing) and spherical bearing and to determine
if the cups are tight (paint mark in place), and measuring the play. If
there is seizing, carbide chips, or the cups are loose (paint mark not
in place), the corrective actions include replacing the spherical
bearing. If the play measurement is greater than the specified
measurement the corrective action is replacing the rod end fitting.
Additional actions include checking the bonding and condition of the
retaining ring and inspecting the pitch rod bodies for evidence of any
impact, scratch, strike, or corrosion.
     Inspecting the pitch rods for chipped finish paint,
scratches, impacts, and cracking, and measuring the play. If paint is
chipped the corrective action is repair (sanding the affected area and
applying touch-up primer and paint). If there is any scratch, an impact
with a depth equal to or greater than the specified measurement, or any
crack, the corrective action is replacing the pitch rod. If the play
measurement is greater than 0.25 mm or there is cracking, the
corrective action is replacing the spherical bearing. An additional
action, if a helicopter was involved in an incident, is inspecting the
straightness of the rod body ``R'' and replacing the pitch rod if the
straightness of the rod body is greater than 0.5 mm.
     Inspecting the pitch horn for any evidence of impact,
scratch, corrosion, chipped paint, cracking, and any elongated
attachment hole; and inspecting the bonding of the retaining ring and
measuring dimension ``X'' of the retaining ring. If there is any
evidence of impact, scratch, or corrosion, and the depth meets the
specified criteria, the corrective actions include touching up the
affected area with an abrasive cloth and applying a protective coating
and a coat of primer. If there is any cracking, elongated attachment
hole, or the impact, scratch, or corrosion depth exceeds the specified
criteria, the corrective action is replacing the pitch horn. If paint
is chipped the corrective actions include sanding the affected area and
applying touch-up primer and paint. If the retaining ring has debonded
the corrective action is to rebond the retaining ring. If dimension
``X'' of the retaining ring exceeds the specified criteria, the
corrective action is replacing the retaining ring.
     Measuring the geometry of ``G'' of the pitch horn and
replacing the pitch horn if the dimension is not within the specified
range.
     Installing new split pins, nuts, washers, and a screw on
the pitch rod upper link.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,266 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

                                                Estimated Costs *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  0.50 work-hour x $85               $0  $42.50 per inspection  $53,805 per
                              per hour = $42.50                      cycle..                inspection cycle.
                              per inspection
                              cycle..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has determined that application of alignment markings would take a minimal amount of time at a nominal
  cost.

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The
agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these actions:

                                              On-Condition Costs *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screw, Washer, Nut, and Split Pin            1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...             $40            $125
 Replacement.
Spherical Bearing Replacement..............  4 work hours x $85 per hour = $340.             500             840
Pitch Rod Replacement......................  4 work hours x $85 per hour = $340.           3,000           3,340
Pitch Horn Replacement.....................  16 work hours x $85 per hour =                4,000           5,360
                                              $1360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has determined that ``repair'' of chipped paint would take a minimal amount of time at a nominal cost.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-01-01 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21889; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0947; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00195-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 7, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus Helicopters helicopters,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this AD, all serial numbers.
    (1) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D,
EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters.
    (2) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters.
    (3) Model SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and
AS 365 N3 helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of increased vibration during
flight on an Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 helicopter. Subsequent
investigation found a total loss of tightening torque of one screw
connecting the main rotor (MR) pitch rod to the horn of its upper
link, which led to abnormal wear of the screw and consequently
increased the vibrations coming from the MR control chain to the
pilot's flight controls. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss
of tightening torque of the screws connecting the MR pitch rods to
the horns of the upper links. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in loss of one or more MR pitch rod upper
links, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0048, dated February 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0048).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0048

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0048 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0048 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0048 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those
parts from service.
    (4) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0048.
    (5) Where a work card in the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0048 specifies returning a part to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.
    (6) For Model AS350 helicopters: For the visual inspection of
the pitch rod upper link, where a work card in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048 specifies to do an
inspection of a pitch rod body for any dent, impact, scratch, or
corrosion, and any dent, impact, scratch, or corrosion is found,
this AD requires replacing the pitch rod before further flight.
    (7) For Model AS355 helicopters: For the visual inspection of
the pitch rod upper link, where a work card in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048 specifies to do an
inspection of a pitch rod body for any impact, scratch, strike, or
corrosion, and any impact, scratch, strike, or corrosion is found,
this AD requires replacing the pitch rod before further flight.
    (8) For Model SA365 helicopters: For the visual inspection of
the pitch rod upper link, where a work card in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048 specifies to ``check
bonding and state retaining ring on the pitch rods,'' and any
discrepancy (e.g., disbonding) is found and no corrective action is
specified, before further flight, contact the Manager, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch FAA;
or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA); for approved corrective actions, and accomplish those actions
before further flight. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (9) For Model SA365 helicopters: For the visual inspection of
the pitch horn, if any discrepancy (corrosion, scratch, impact,
crack, or debonded retaining ring) is found during the inspection of
the pitch horn and there is no corrective action specified in the
work card in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0048, before further flight, contact the Manager, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA;
or Airbus Helicopters' EASA DOA; for approved corrective actions,
and accomplish those actions before further flight. If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (10) For Model AS365 helicopters: For the visual inspection of
the pitch horn, where a work card in the service information
referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048 specifies to do a dye penetrant
inspection ``if in doubt,'' this AD requires doing a dye penetrant
inspection.
    (11) For Model AS350 and EC130 helicopters: Where a work card in
the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048 refers to
``the pitch change lever,'' for this AD, that term is equivalent to
``pitch horn.''

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0048
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are prohibited.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0048,
dated February 16, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0048, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0947.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 21, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-01864 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29080]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13374]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303; FRL-9963-36-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in Petroleum Refineries, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through June 30, 2017. Public comments were requested previously via
the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0303, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents for this ICR (``NSPS
for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0983.15; OMB Control No.
2060-0067), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will
be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The
docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners or operators of the affected facilities described
must make one-time only notifications and are also required to maintain
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring
requirements specific to Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries
provide information on which components are leaking VOCs. NSPS subpart
GGG references the compliance requirements of NSPS subpart VV; and NSPS
subpart GGGa references the compliance requirements of NSPS subpart
VVa. Periodically, owners or operators are required to record
information identifying leaking equipment, repair methods used to stop
the leaks, and dates of repair. The time period for this recordkeeping
varies and depends on equipment type and leak history. Semiannual
reports are required to measure compliance with the standards of NSPS
subparts VV and VVa, as referenced by NSPS subparts GGG and GGGa. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance and in general, are required of all sources subject to NSPS.
Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum Refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 116 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 183,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $18,900,000 (per year); there are neither
annualized capital/startup nor operation & maintenance costs in this
ICR.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to adjustments in Agency's estimates. The
burden has increased due to more accurate estimates for recording
operation parameters and semiannual work practice reports. The most-
recently approved ICR underestimated the effort required to record
operating parameters and develop semiannual reports. Updated estimates
for these burden items increased the total respondent burden for
subpart GGG from 18,800 to 130,000 hours and for subpart GGGa from
6,120 to 53,400 hours. This ICR takes into account estimates provided
by consultations with industry trade associations.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-13374 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20945-20948]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08982]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80555; File No. SR-OCC-2017-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhancements to OCC's
Stock Loan Programs

April 28, 2017.
    On February 28, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-004 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 14, 2017.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80323 (March 8,
2017), 82 FR 13690 (March 14, 2017) (File No. SR-OCC-2017-004)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    OCC operates two Stock Loan Programs--the Hedge Program and Market
Loan Program--in which a participating clearing member can lend an
agreed-upon number of shares of eligible stock \4\ to another clearing
member in exchange for an agreed-upon value of U.S. dollar cash
collateral and then novate the loan to OCC for clearing.\5\ The Hedge
Program permits clearing members to bilaterally execute stock loans and
negotiate collateralization and other terms before submitting such
stock loans to OCC for novation and clearing.\6\ The Market Loan
Program is operationally similar to the Hedge Program, but it permits
clearing members to execute stock loans through a multilateral loan
market.\7\ In each case, upon completion of the novation process, OCC,
in its capacity as a central counterparty, guarantees return of (i)
loaned stock, or that stock's value, to the lending clearing member,
and (ii) the value of cash collateral to the borrowing clearing
member.\8\ In addition, OCC makes mark-to-market margin payments on a
daily basis to ensure stock loans remain fully collateralized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See OCC Rules 2202 and 2202A (providing that stock loans
under the Hedge Program and the Market Loan Program, respectively,
must effect transfer only of ``Eligible Stock,'' as defined in
Article I of OCC's By-laws). OCC permits clearing members to execute
stock loans involving 6,191 eligible securities as March 29, 2017,
available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/stock loan-eligible-
securities.
    \5\ The Hedge Program is governed by Article XXI of OCC's By-
Laws and Chapter XXII of OCC's Rules. The Market Loan Program is
governed by Article XXIA of OCC's By-Laws and Chapter XXIIA of OCC's
Rules. The Commission understands that OCC cleared approximately 10-
15% of the overall U.S.-equities stock loan market through the two
programs, as of November 2015.
    \6\ The Commission understands that the Hedge Program accounts
for approximately 95% of cleared stock loan volume at OCC, as of
November 2015.
    \7\ Automated Equity Finance Markets, Inc. is the sole loan
market through which clearing members can execute stock loans in the
Market Loan Program.
    \8\ See OCC Rules 2202(b) and 2202A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes a number of changes to the Stock Loan Programs and its
Rules governing those Programs.\9\ First, to improve trade certainty
and transparency concerning clearing member exposures, OCC proposes
amendments to its rules governing the Stock Loan Programs to do the
following: (1) Require clearing members to have policies and procedures
to reconcile stock loan positions each business day; (2) state
explicitly that the controlling record for stock loan positions for
margin and other purposes is OCC's ``golden'' record; and (3) provide
that stock loan positions remain in effect until OCC's records reflect
stock loan terminations. Second, to mitigate risks that may arise in
the event of a clearing member suspension, OCC proposes amendments to
its rules governing the Stock Loan Programs to do the following: (1)
Provide a two-day trading window in which clearing members must execute
close-out transactions, also known as ``buy-in'' or ``sell-out''
transactions; (2) provide broad authority for OCC to use reasonable
prices to settle close-out transactions; and (3) permit OCC to close
out and re-establish the matched-book stock loan positions of a
suspended Hedge Program clearing member through termination by offset
and ``re-matching'' with other clearing members. Each of these
proposals is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a more detailed description of the specific rule changes
OCC is proposing, see Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Measures To Improve Trade Certainty and Transparency

    OCC proposes three amendments to the rules governing its Stock Loan
Programs that are intended to improve trade certainty and transparency
for clearing members and OCC.
1. Daily Reconciliation of Stock Loan Positions
    Clearing members that participate in the Hedge Program and the
Market Loan Program execute and terminate stock loans on a bilateral
basis. Following execution or termination of stock loans, OCC requires
clearing members to promptly report stock loans directly to OCC, or to
facilitate such reporting to OCC through the Depository Trust
Corporation (``DTC''), ensuring OCC accepts stock loans for clearing
and records the novation or termination for margin and other purposes.
Under the current trade-reporting process, clearing members may fail to
report (or to have DTC report) stock loans to OCC in a timely manner,
increasing uncertainty in the novation process and decreasing
transparency with respect to OCC's

stock loan positions and obligations as a central counterparty and
guarantor. The current process thereby presents risk management risks
both to OCC and clearing members.
    To address these risk management risks, OCC proposes to require
each clearing member to have adequate policies and procedures to
perform daily reconciliations of stock loan positions against OCC's
records and to resolve stock loan discrepancies, if any, by 9:30 a.m.
Central Time the following business day.\10\ These proposed rule
changes, according to OCC, would improve trade certainty and
transparency for clearing members participating in the Hedge Program
and the Market Loan Program and thereby reduce operational and other
risks for OCC and clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Proposed Rule 2205 of the Hedge Program and Proposed
Rule 2205A of the Market Loan Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Controlling Records for Stock Loan Positions
    To support and supplement the proposed daily reconciliation
requirements for clearing member participation in the Stock Loan
Programs, OCC proposes to explicitly state in its rules that OCC's
stock loan records constitute the controlling records for margin and
other purposes. Specifically, the proposed rules would specify that
OCC's records, which OCC refers to as the ``golden copy'' records,
prevail in the event of a conflict with clearing member records and
that clearing members must continue to perform on obligations relating
to open stock loan positions identified in the golden copy records.\11\
The proposed rules, according to OCC, support trade certainty and
transparency in the Hedge and Market Loan Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Proposed Articles XXI and XXIA of OCC's By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Termination Records for Stock Loan Positions
    Finally, to conform OCC's stock loan termination provisions to the
proposed changes relating to controlling records described above, OCC
proposes rule changes to clarify that stock loans would be considered
terminated for margin and other purposes only when OCC's records
reflect termination of the stock loan.\12\ OCC states that these
conforming changes also would support trade certainty and transparency
in the Stock Loan Programs by ensuring consistency among and within the
different rules applicable to the Stock Loan Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Proposed Rule 2209 in the Hedge Program and Proposed
Rule 2209A in the Market Loan Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Measures To Mitigate Stock Loan Risks in the Event of a
Clearing Member Suspension

    In addition to the proposals intended to improve trade certainty
and transparency, the proposed rule change also proposes three
amendments to address certain risks that may arise in the event that
OCC suspends a clearing member participant in the Stock Loan Programs.
1. Stock Loan Close-Out Timeframe in the Event of a Clearing Member
Suspension
    Under current Stock Loan Program rules, OCC may seek to close out a
suspended clearing member's stock loan positions by instructing non-
suspended clearing member counterparties to execute close-out
transactions within a reasonable period of time.\13\ Although non-
suspended clearing members must be prepared to defend the timeliness of
close-out transactions under current rules, clearing members are not
required to execute close-out transactions based on OCC's instructions
within a specific period of time. Accordingly, if non-suspended
clearing members execute buy-in or sell-out transactions over an
extended period of time following OCC's close-out instruction, OCC
incurs a risk that close-out prices may vary significantly from the
prices used to mark the stock loan positions to market for margin
purposes. OCC's credit exposure, in part, depends on the significance
of these price differences relative to the suspended clearing member's
available margin resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ More specifically, Rules 2209(b) and (f) and 2211 of the
Hedge Program, and Rules 2209A(b) and (c) and 2211A of the Market
Loan Program require clearing members to execute close-out
transactions in a ``commercially reasonable manner'' and to be
prepared to defend the timing, prices, and costs of such
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To mitigate these risks, OCC proposes to require clearing members
to execute close-out transactions within a fixed two-day trading window
in the event of a clearing member suspension. More specifically, OCC
proposes to require non-suspended clearing members to execute close-out
transactions by the end of the business day following OCC's instruction
to close out stock loans with the suspended clearing member. If a non-
suspended clearing member is unable to execute the close-out
transactions within that two-day timeframe, OCC itself would terminate
the clearing member's relevant stock loans and effect settlement based
on the market price of the underlying securities, as determined by OCC.
According to OCC, the proposed changes are intended to ensure that non-
suspended clearing members execute close-out transactions in a
timeframe consistent with OCC's two-day liquidation assumption for
stock loan margin purposes, which should reduce OCC's credit exposure
from significant differences between clearing member-effectuated close-
out prices and the prices used to collect mark-to-market payments from
the suspended clearing member.
2. Reasonable Prices for Stock Loan Close-Out Transactions in the Event
of a Clearing Member Suspension
    Under current rules, OCC may seek to close out a suspended clearing
member's stock loan positions by instructing non-suspended clearing
member counterparties to execute buy-in or sell-out transactions. These
close-out transactions must be executed in a ``commercially reasonable
manner.'' \14\ If a borrowing clearing member is suspended and unable
to return securities under a stock loan, OCC may instruct the lending
clearing member to execute a ``buy-in'' transaction for the number of
shares in the stock loan's underlying security that would be necessary
to return the lending clearing member to its position prior to entering
into the stock loan with the suspended clearing member. If the lending
clearing member is suspended and unable to return the value of
collateral, OCC similarly may instruct the borrowing clearing member to
execute a ``sell-out'' transaction for the number of shares in the
underlying security that would be necessary to return the borrowing
clearing member to its position prior to entering into the stock loan.
In each case, the non-suspended clearing member's stock loan position
is terminated and settled based on the price reported for the close-out
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To incentivize ``reasonable'' pricing of close-out transactions in
the event of a clearing member suspension, OCC proposes to provide
itself authority to withdraw from a clearing member's account the value
of any difference between clearing member-reported prices and
``reasonable'' close-out transaction prices, as determined by OCC based
on an assessment of market conditions at the time of execution.\15\

This proposed price-substitution authority, according to OCC, would
incentivize non-suspended clearing members to execute and report close-
out transactions in a commercially reasonable manner.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Proposed Rule 2211. The proposal provides that a
clearing member may demonstrate that a close-out transaction was
executed at a ``reasonable'' price by providing evidence that the
transaction fell within the underlying stock's trading range on the
date of execution. Id. To the extent a clearing member impacts the
market price of an underlying security through close-out
transactions, OCC, in its discretion, may consider such impact in
its assessment of market conditions at the time of execution.
    \16\ If the close-out transaction is not executed within the
two-day period provided in Proposed Rule 2212, however, the stock
loan would be terminated and settled based on OCC's marking price at
the end of the period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Re-Matching in the Event of a Hedge Clearing Member Suspension
    Under OCC's current rules, in the event of a clearing member
suspension, OCC can fully unwind a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's
matched-book positions \17\ only if it recalls all borrowed securities
from specific borrowing clearing members and returns those securities
to specific lending clearing members. Under current rules, this recall-
and-return process is operationally complex because the nature of these
unwinds would require OCC to (i) effect transfer of significant numbers
of securities to significant numbers of non-suspended clearing members;
and (ii) settle an equal number of payments against final settlement
prices. Moreover, during this recall-and-return process, the non-
suspended clearing members may experience unexpected imbalances in
their overall stock loan positions, resulting in increased margin
requirements or price risks relating to re-execution of the stock loans
in a potentially distressed market.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See definition of ``Matched-Book Positions'' in Article I
of OCC's By-laws. A clearing member that maintains a ``matched
book'' for stock loans generally borrows no more of a specific
security than it lends to other clearing members in the program. See
also Notice, supra note 3 at 8.
    \18\ OCC's present margin methodology nets matched-book stock
loan positions prior to calculating clearing member exposures. Thus,
a non-suspended clearing member's margin requirements may increase
on account of the temporary stock loan imbalances resulting from a
clearing member suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these operational complexities and the potential
consequences for both OCC and its clearing members, OCC proposes new
rules that would permit it to terminate a suspended Hedge Clearing
Member's matched-book stock loans in the Hedge Program by offset and to
``re-match'' the positions of the non-suspended counterparties
according to priorities established by OCC's matching algorithm.\19\
According to OCC, re-matching stock loans pursuant to an algorithm
would facilitate orderly and efficient termination and re-establishment
of stock loans involving a suspended Hedge Clearing Member, thereby
mitigating operational and pricing risks that may arise for non-
suspended clearing members during the recall-and-return process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ OCC's matching algorithm would implement priorities in
OCC's Proposed Rule 2212(d), which establishes an order of
operations based on the size of stock loan positions and the
existence of master securities lending agreements between the non-
suspended clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \20\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. The Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \21\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(13) \22\ and 17Ad-22(e)(23) \23\ thereunder, as described in
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-l(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\24\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to do the
following: (1) Promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions; and (2) assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes
each of the proposals in OCC's proposed rule change discussed above is
consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-l(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission believes that OCC's three proposals to
improve trade certainty and transparency in the Stock Loan Programs are
consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions as well as assuring the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or
control, or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes that
OCC's proposal to require clearing members to implement adequate
policies and procedures to reconcile stock loan positions with OCC's
records on a daily basis would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions, and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds exchanged through the programs, by
reducing financial and other risks to OCC and clearing members. The
Commission also believes that OCC's proposal to provide explicitly in
its rulebook that its stock loan records would prevail in the event of
a conflict with clearing member records, and that clearing members must
continue to perform on all stock loan positions reflected in OCC's
records, promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and assures the safeguarding of securities and
funds by encouraging clearing members to understand, manage, and
promptly report stock loan transactions.
    Finally, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to provide
that stock loan positions remain in effect until OCC's records reflect
stock loan terminations promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of stock loan transactions and assures the safeguarding of
securities and funds exchanged through the programs by emphasizing that
OCC's records supersede the records of clearing members and further
encouraging clearing members to understand, manage, and promptly report
stock loan transactions. The Commission therefore finds these specific
proposals are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or
control, or for which it is responsible as guarantor in the Stock Loan
Programs.
    Second, the Commission believes that OCC's three proposals to
mitigate certain risks in the event of a clearing member suspension are
consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for
which it is responsible. The proposal to provide a two-day trading
window in which clearing members must execute close-out transactions,
or opt for mandatory settlement, is consistent with promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds by requiring non-
suspended clearing members to complete close-out

transactions in a timeframe that is consistent with OCC's liquidation
assumptions. The proposed alignment of the close-out period with OCC's
liquidation assumptions mitigates OCC's credit risks by reducing the
risk that close-out prices vary too significantly from the prices used
to mark the suspended clearing member's stock loans to market. OCC's
proposed price-substitution authority also promotes the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions and
assures the safeguarding of securities and funds under the programs by
further encouraging non-suspended clearing members to execute close-out
transactions in a commercially reasonable manner, thereby reducing
financial risk to OCC.
    Finally, the proposed rule changes in the Hedge Program to permit
OCC to terminate and re-establish a suspended clearing member's
positions through offset and ``re-match'' promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds by facilitating orderly and
efficient termination and re-establishment of stock loans involving a
suspended clearing member, which mitigates operational and pricing
risks that may arise for OCC and clearing members during the recall-
and-return process. The Commission therefore finds that these aspects
of the proposal are consistent with promoting prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or
control, or for which it is responsible.
    Based on the conclusions discussed above, the Commission finds that
OCC's proposed rule changes are consistent with promoting the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's
custody or control, or for which it is responsible as a guarantor in
the Stock Loan Programs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(13) and (e)(23) of the Act

    The Commission finds that OCC's proposals are consistent with Rules
(e)(13) and (e)(23) under the Act.\26\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the
Act requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to,
among other things, ensure it has the authority and operational
capacity to take timely action to contain losses and continue to meet
its obligations in the event of a clearing member default.\27\ More
generally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act requires covered clearing
agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, provide for the
public disclosure of all relevant rules and material procedures,
including key aspects of default rules and procedures.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13), and 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes relating to
clearing member suspension are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13)
under the Act. By proposing a fixed trading window in which clearing
members must either execute close-out transactions relating to a
clearing member suspension or opt for OCC-mandated settlements, OCC is
seeking new authority that the Commission believes will better ensure
that OCC can take timely actions to contain suspension-related losses
and continue to meet stock loan-related obligations in the Stock Loan
Programs. The Commission further believes that the proposed authority
permitting OCC to withdraw the value of any difference between the
clearing member-reported prices and OCC-determined close-out prices
likewise better ensures that OCC can contain suspension-related losses,
as clearing members would be further incentivized to execute timely
close-out transactions at market prices. Finally, the Commission
believes that the proposal relating to re-matching-in-suspension better
ensures that OCC has authority and operational capacity to contain
losses and meet obligations to clearing members in the Hedge Program,
in particular through new rules and mechanisms that reduce the
operational, credit, and re-execution risks attendant to the recall-
and-return process. The Commission therefore believes OCC's proposal is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act.
    The Commission also believes that OCC's proposals are consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act. Each aspect of OCC's proposed
rule change is proposed to be disclosed publicly in OCC's rules
governing the Stock Loan Programs, including the key suspension-related
aspects of its rules providing for close-out transaction timeframes,
new price-substitution authority, and termination and re-matching-in-
suspension. The Commission therefore believes that OCC's proposal is
consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act.

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \29\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-004) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08982 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36068-36071]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12879]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0188; FRL-9858-01-OCSPP]

IN-11669: Cellulose, Ethyl 2-Hydroxyethyl Ether; Tolerance
Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether
(CAS Reg. No. 9004-58-4), when used as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide chemical formulation. Spring Regulatory Sciences, on behalf
of Nouryon Chemicals LLC USA, submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of
cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether, on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 15, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 15, 2022 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0188, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to ae?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0188 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 15, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0188, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 22, 2022 (87 FR 16133) (FRL-9410-
11), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11669)
filed by Spring Regulatory Sciences (6620 Cypresswood Dr, Suite 250,
Spring, TX 77379), on behalf of Nouryon Chemicals LLC USA (131 S
Dearborn, Suite 1000, Chicago, IL 60603-5566). The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of cellulose, ethyl 2-
hydroxyethyl ether (CAS Reg. No. 9004-58-4), with a minimum number
average molecular weight of 165,000 Daltons. That document included a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited
comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any
public comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. To
determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether,
with a minimum number average molecular weight 165,000 Daltons,
conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and
meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk
polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize:
Adequate biodegradation studies (MRID 51481301) were submitted for
cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether, with a minimum number average
molecular weight 165,000 Daltons, showing lack of biodegradation.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
While the polymer has a MW of 165,000 Daltons, it does not absorb its
weight of water under relative humidity conditions found in the United
States (up to 80% relative humidity) (MRID 51920601).
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6)
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    The polymer's number average molecular weight (MW) of 165,000
Daltons is greater than 10,000 Daltons. However, the polymer contains
less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 (<0.4%) and less than 5%
oligomeric material below MW 1,000 (<0.4%).
    Thus, cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether meets the criteria for
a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to cellulose,
ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether
could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and
drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was
possible. The minimum number average MW of cellulose, ethyl 2-
hydroxyethyl ether is 165,000 Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this
size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract
or through intact human skin. Since cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl
ether conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there
are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure
scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined
that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether

to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cellulose,
ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cellulose, ethyl 2-
hydroxyethyl ether does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of cellulose, ethyl 2-
hydroxyethyl ether, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess
the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl
ether.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for cellulose, ethyl 2-
hydroxyethyl ether.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of cellulose, ethyl
2-hydroxyethyl ether from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 9, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, add in alphabetical order the polymer ``Cellulose,
ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether, minimum number average molecular weight (in
amu), 165,000 Daltons'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether, minimum number          9004-58-4
 average molecular weight (in amu), 165,000 Daltons.....

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

[FR Doc. 2022-12879 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P