[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15758-15760]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61759; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.37A and Rule 6.64

March 23, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 11, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 6.37A and Rule 6.64. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.sec.gov. A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange'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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to: (i) Amend the bid-
ask differentials for Market Maker quotations outlined in Rule
6.37A(b)(4), and (ii) amend Rule 6.64(b) by establishing guidelines for
the use of bid-ask parameters in the OX System to be used during the
opening auction process (``Auction'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Auction is the process by which trading is initiated in a
specified options class on NYSE Arca. Auctions are conducted
automatically by the OX system, NYSE Arca's electronic system for
order handling, execution and reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 6.37A(b)(4) specifies the bid-ask differential
requirements applicable to Market Maker quotations when electronically
bidding and offering on the OX System during an Auction. With respect
to bidding and

offering during an Auction, the bid-ask differentials \5\ vary
depending on the price of the bid. Rule 6.37A(b)(4)(A)-(E) states that
the quote widths shall not be more than: $0.25 if the bid is less than
$2; $0.40 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5; $0.50
where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10; $0.80 where the
bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20; and $1 where the bid is
more than $20. With respect to electronic quoting on the OX System,
after an Auction, the bid-ask differential requirement is $5. The
Exchange now proposes to replace the applicable bid-ask differentials
for Market Maker quoting obligations during an Auction, with the $5
quote differential that is in place at all other times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Auction bid-ask differentials are known in common
parlance as ``legal-width quotes''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The obligation for market makers to provide opening quotes at the
widths described in 6.37A(b)(4)(A)-(E) had been adapted from the era
when the Exchange conducted open outcry opening rotations, had only
open outcry quotes available to respond to an order, and did not
disseminate Firm Quotes. Further, an open outcry opening rotation only
required a response from a single Market Maker. The opening quote
represented the quote of any Market Maker who did not respond vocally
to the Order Book Official, and any such Market Maker could be held to
fill orders at that quoted market.
    With the advent of electronic quote submission, a Market Maker was
required to submit an electronic quote to participate in the opening
process. Originally, electronic openings in options were designed to
mimic open outcry opening rotations, with trading systems gathering
opening electronic quotes for a brief period of time after the
underlying security opened.
    The original intent of maintaining the obligation for Market Makers
to submit narrow, traditional bid-ask requirements for OX was to
encourage a narrower aggregated Exchange market during the opening
auction. This was especially necessary as NYSE Arca was often the first
market to open a series, and there was not necessarily an accurate
National Best Bid/Offer available, and OX did not require a ``legal
width'' NBBO quote to open a series.
    Since the time of the original introduction of the OX System,
however, NYSE Arca has instituted increased functionality to define
price parameters during the auction process. The system will not
conduct an auction in a series until one of two conditions is met: (i)
A market maker submits a legal width quote, or (ii) a legal width NBBO
is received from OPRA. This is a systemic solution which renders the
rules based quoting obligation moot.
    At the introduction of the OX system for NYSE Arca in the fall of
2006, the quoting obligation for all Market Makers other than Lead
Market Makers was set at 60%. In January 2008, with the approval of
NYSEArca-2007-121,\6\ the Lead Market Maker quoting obligation was
lowered to 90%. With these reduced obligations, there is no requirement
for a Market Maker to submit a quotation for an opening auction. The
auction quote width requirement thus imposes limits on a non-existent
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchange Act Release No. 57186 (January 22, 2008) FR73-4931
[sic] (January 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the Exchange notes that the market structure on
NYSE Arca creates strong incentives for competing Market Makers to
disseminate competitive prices for the opening. To ensure that orders
executed during an Auction are not subject to disadvantageous pricing,
NYSE Arca proposes to establish parameters for the opening auction as
described in Rule 6.64. Pursuant to this proposed rule change, the OX
System will not conduct an Auction in a given series unless the
composite NYSE Arca bid-ask (``BBO'') \7\ is within an acceptable
range. For the purposes of the Auction, an acceptable range will be the
bid-ask parameters pursuant to Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Exchange
notes that these bid-ask differentials are identical to the existing
legal width differentials for Market Maker Auction quotations which
this filing proposes to delete. The Exchange feels that by establishing
price protection parameters within the Auction process of the OX
System, rather than just as a requirement for submitted quotes,
Customers and other market participants will be afforded a higher level
of price protection than they presently have on NYSE Arca. The Exchange
notes that this proposed change is for trading on the Exchange's
electronic trading platform, and does not in any way affect the bid-ask
differentials applicable to open-outcry trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The composite BBO may be made up an individual market maker
quote, a combination of different market maker quotes where one
quote represents the bid and another represents the offer, or a
combination of market maker quotes and limited orders in the
Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes at this time a minor change to Rule
6.87-Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors. Rule 6.87(b)(2)(B)
presently contains a reference to bid-ask differentials pursuant to
Rule 6.37A(b)(4)-(5). Due to the proposed changes contained in this
filing related to the bid-ask differentials of Rule 6.37A(b)(4)-(5),
the Exchange proposes to now reference the bid-ask differentials
contained in Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(E). The bid-ask differentials of each
rule are identical, therefore the change will not alter in any way the
methods used by the Exchange when making Obvious Error determinations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
setting price parameters for the opening Auction rather than rely on a
restriction that does not have obligatory performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-16 and should be submitted on or before April 20, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6992 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13197-13198]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53429; File No. SR-CHX-2006-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Specialist Participant Fees and
Credits

March 6, 2006.
    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 February 27, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. On March 2,
2006, CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The CHX
has designated this proposal as one changing a fee imposed by the CHX
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule
text to clarify its meaning. The effective date of the original
proposed rule change is February 27, 2006, and the effective date of
Amendment No. 1 is March 2, 2006. For purposes of calculating the
60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the
proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission considers the period to commence on March 2, 2006, the
date on which the CHX filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule to confirm
that, effectively immediately, specialist fixed fees would not be
assessed to a specialist firm with respect to securities that are
temporarily assigned. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm
) and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Below is the

text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is
italicized.

FEES AND ASSESSMENTS

* * * * *
E. Specialist Fixed Fees
* * * * *
    These fixed fees shall not be assessed to a firm with respect to
securities that are temporarily assigned.
* * * * *

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 CHX included statements
concerning

the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended,
and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal, as
amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The CHX 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
    Under the Exchange's rules, the Committee on Specialist Assignment
and Evaluation (``CSAE'') is responsible for appointing participant
firms to act as specialists on the Exchange.\6\ From time to time, the
CSAE may make a temporary assignment of one or more securities to a
specialist firm.\7\ Temporary assignments may be made, for example,
when one specialist firm has requested and been granted the opportunity
to deregister in one or more of its securities before the formal
posting and assignment process has been completed.\8\ Through this
filing, the Exchange proposes to confirm that, when a firm has been
appointed to act as specialist in a security on a temporary basis, the
firm will not be charged the specialist fixed fees otherwise associated
with the trading of that security. The Exchange believes that this fee
waiver creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to
agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Article IV, Rule 6.
    \7\ See Article XXX, Rule 1.
    \8\ The Exchange represents that when a security is to be
assigned or reassigned, the Exchange notifies specialist firms of
the assignment opportunity and invites applications for the
security. See Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01,
Section II. The Exchange further represents that if more than one
firm seeks the assignment, the CSAE holds meetings with the firms to
review their demonstrated ability, experience, financial
responsibility and other factors that are relevant to the CSAE's
assignment decision. See Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and
Policy .01, Section II and Section III. The Exchange represents that
depending upon the number of firms applying for a security and the
availability of committee members and specialist firm
representatives, this process could take several weeks to complete.
An interim temporary assignment allows a security to continue to be
traded by a specialist firm, while the process is completed.
    \9\ The Exchange also is filing, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of
the Act, a proposal to make this fee change retroactive to January
1, 2006. See SR-CHX-2006-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among CHX's members and creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive
for a firm to agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated
as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\12\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee
or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of the proposed rule change, as amended, the Commission
may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2006-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CHX-2006-07 and should be submitted on or before April
4, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3543 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                          THE U.S. PHASEOUT OF HCFCS:
ECONOMIC IMPACT SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ALLOWANCE SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING HCFC PRODUCTION, IMPORT, AND EXPORT

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                       Stratospheric Protection Division
                         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                             Washington, DC 20460

                                   July 2019
Questions concerning this memo should be directed to:

Katherine Sleasman
Stratospheric Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6205T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
1-202-564-7716 (phone)
1-202-343-2338 (fax)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
This memo was prepared with support from ICF under contract number EP-BPA-16-H-0021.

 Background
This draft screening analysis has been prepared in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). For all rules subject to the RFA, a screening analysis is required to first determine what, if any, direct impact a proposed rulemaking may have on small entities. For rules that pose "a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities" (SISNOSE), an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis is further required.
The following screening analysis assesses the potential economic impacts on small entities associated with the proposed rule Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production and Import, 2020-2029; and Other Updates. This proposal includes the following regulatory actions:
 Adjustments to the allowance system for controlling the production, import, and export of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 (described in greater detail in Section 1.);
 Requiring electronic reporting through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX);
 Harmonizing certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for class I and II substances;
 Exempting halon 1211 in aircraft bottles from the import petition process;
 Creating a certification process for importing used and virgin substances for destruction;
 Improving the petition process for importing used substances for reuse;
 Adding certification requirements and amending naming conventions for methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) uses;
 Restricting the sale of illegally imported substances;
 Adding foam systems containing class I substances to the nonessential products ban;
 Adding destruction technologies that have been approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol; and
 Removing obsolete provisions.
 HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 Regulatory Options
Table 1 provides a summary of the regulatory options proposed for HCFC-123 allowances. The EPA is proposing to issue 650 MT of consumption allowances in 2020-2022, equivalent to the estimated demand for HCFC-123 for air conditioning (AC), refrigeration, and fire suppression servicing in 2020. The EPA is proposing a linear decrease after 2022, resulting in no allocation in 2030.
The EPA is also proposing two alternative methodologies. Under Alternative 1, the EPA would issue allowances for total demand for AC, refrigeration, and fire suppression, minus the low end of the projection for reclamation for the years 2020 through2029. Under Alternative 2, the EPA would issue allocations equal to those in the 2015-2019 allocation period for all years, and allocations would cease in 2030.

               Table 1: Proposed Regulatory Options for HCFC-123

                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                     2024
                                     2025
                                     2026
                                     2027
                                     2028
                                     2029
                                     2030
Proposal
                                                                            650
                                                                            650
                                                                            650
                                                                            570
                                                                            490
                                                                            410
                                                                            330
                                                                            250
                                                                            170
                                                                             90
                                                                              0
Alternative 1
                                                                            520
                                                                            480
                                                                            450
                                                                            420
                                                                            380
                                                                            350
                                                                            310
                                                                            280
                                                                            250
                                                                            210
                                                                              0
Alternative 2
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                          2,014
                                                                              0

Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed allocations for HCFC-124. The EPA is proposing to issue an allocation of 200 MT of HCFC-124 in 2020-2022 (equivalent to estimated demand in 2020 based on the EPA's Vintaging Model and industry feedback) with a gradual decrease of 25 MT per year after 2022. The EPA is also proposing an alternative methodology for HCFC-124. Under the Alternative, the EPA would issue 200 MT of allocations for 2020 to 2029, and no allowances starting in 2030.
               Table 2: Proposed Regulatory Options for HCFC-124

                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                     2024
                                     2025
                                     2026
                                     2027
                                     2028
                                     2029
                                     2030
Proposal
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            175
                                                                            150
                                                                            125
                                                                            100
                                                                             75
                                                                             50
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
Alternative
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                            200
                                                                              0

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
 Section 2 presents the general approach and assumptions used, consistent with EPA guidelines.
 Section 3 identifies the small entities potentially affected by the proposed regulatory action.
 Section 4 summarizes the small business impacts of the proposed rulemaking.
 Section 5 summarizes the conclusions and SISNOSE certification.
 The Appendix provides a summary of HCFC allocations by entity and year.
 Section 2: Summary of General Approach and Key Analytical Assumptions
Table 3 shows the analytical steps and approach taken to prepare the screening analysis.
    Table 3: General Steps and Approach for Small Business Impact Analyses
                                     Step
                                   Approach
Identify the companies that are expected to be directly impacted by each regulatory option
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.15(a) and (b) prohibit the production and import of HCFCs for which the EPA has apportioned baseline allowances without calendar-year (or "annual") allowances. As a result, in the absence of the proposed rulemaking, production and import of HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 is prohibited in 2020 and beyond under the current regulations.

By allocating allowances for 2020 through 2029 to specific companies, this proposed rulemaking only directly impacts those allowance holders named in the rule. Other entities may experience indirect impacts as a result of market changes brought about by the rule, but these are not considered in this analysis in accordance with EPA's Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (2006).

Other changes to the reporting requirements, petition process, and other regulatory language may affect companies that manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These companies are considered as part of the universe of potentially impacted entities.
Determine what proportion of allowance holders are small businesses
A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code was identified for each HCFC allowance holder identified in EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0263. Available economic data about each allowance holder (i.e., number of employees, annual sales) was obtained from the Dun and Bradstreet databases. Dun and Bradstreet is a public company that collects and licenses information on over 200 million businesses and corporations worldwide.

Of the allowance holders, small businesses were identified using the U.S. Small Business Administration's table of small business size standards matched to NAICS codes (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2017). The small business threshold was defined by the number of employees in the company and varied between 100 and 1,500 employees.
Quantify the economic impact on small businesses
This proposed rulemaking authorizes allowance holders to voluntarily continue producing and importing HCFCs. As such, there are few direct costs of compliance. The proposed regulation does not have new reporting requirements; however, production and import of HCFCs -- as authorized by this proposed rulemaking -- triggers HCFC reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. This rulemaking would require electronic reporting of those previously authorized reports. These reporting costs are considered in this screening analysis.

No incremental capital or operating costs are assumed to be incurred in order to comply with the proposed rulemaking; this rulemaking allows allowance holders to continue to produce and import HCFCs after 2020.

By authorizing allowance holders to continue producing and importing HCFCs, this rulemaking provides some economic benefit to those allowance holders to the extent there is a higher selling price for HCFCs versus alternatives.

Many of the other proposed regulatory changes either do not introduce new burden or will relieve burden, while other some changes will require nominal reporting and recordkeeping actions, as described in Section 4.3 below.

 Section 3: Small Entities Potentially Subject to the Rulemaking
Based on the small business size standards associated with the NAICS codes, Perfect Score Too (formerly Perfect Technology Center, LP), Tulstar Products, and ICOR are the only small businesses with HCFC allocations in the 2020-2029 period (Table 4). Perfect Score Too has allocations for HCFC-123, ICOR has allocations for HCFC-124, and Tulstar has allocations for both.
           Table 4: HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 Small Business Allowance Holders
                                    Company
                                     NAICS
                          NAICS Industry Description
                              Number of Employees
                     Size Standards in Number of Employees
Perfect Score Too
                                    333249
Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
                                      40
                                      500

                                    334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial and Appliance Use

Tulstar Products
                                    424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
                                      16
                                      100
ICOR
                                    325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
                                      16
                                     1,000
      Source: Company data obtained from Dun and Bradstreet (2013).
Small business entities that manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce chemical substances and mixtures may also be impacted by the regulatory proposal. Because the burden introduced by the proposed regulation on these entities is expected to be negligible compared to annual sales (see Section 4.3 for further discussion), the proportion of small businesses for each NAICS was not calculated. Table 5 summarizes the industries that may be potentially affected.

       Table 5: Other Industries Impacted by Proposed Regulatory Requirements
                          NAICS Industry Description
                                     NAICS
                                Size Standards

                                  Millions $
                                # of Employees
Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning)
                                    115114
                                     $27.5

Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors
                                    238220
                                     $15.0

Basic Chemical Manufacturing
                                     3251

                                     1,000
Chlorofluorocarbon Gas Manufacturing and Import
                                    325120

                                     1,000
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
                                    325120

                                     1,000
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
                                    325320

                                     1,000
Fire Extinguisher Chemical Preparations Manufacturing
                                    325998

                                      500
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Cement Manufacturing, Clinker
                                    327310

                                     1,000
Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing entities
                                    333415

                                     1,250
Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
                                    336413

                                     1,250
Portable Fire Extinguishers Manufacturing
                                    339999

                                      500
Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
                                    423620

                                      200
Other Chemical and Allied Production Merchant Wholesalers
                                    424690

                                      150
Farm Supplies and Merchant Wholesalers
                                    424910

                                      200
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
                                    493130
                                     $27.5

General Warehousing and Storage
                                    493130
                                     $27.5

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Incinerator, Hazardous Waste
                                    562211
                                     $38.5

Materials Recovery Facilities
                                    562920
                                     $20.5

      * Assumed based on a similar research and development industry category.
 Section 4: Estimated Economic Impact on Affected Small Entities
This section summarizes the annual economic impact to small business owners associated with the proposed regulatory changes to the allowance allocations and other regulatory changes.
HCFC-123 Impact
This rulemaking would authorize small business allowance holders to continue importing HCFCs in specific volumes (see the Appendix: HCFC Allocations). In the absence of the rulemaking, it is assumed that importers and distributors would be prohibited from importing HCFC-123 and would therefore transition to an alternative refrigerant or fire suppression agent. By relieving a regulatory prohibition, allowance holders can choose to import HCFC-123 and/or an alternative.
 HCFC-124 Impact
This rulemaking would authorize small business allowance holders to continue importing HCFCs in specific volumes (see the Appendix: HCFC Allocations). In the absence of the rulemaking, it is assumed that importers and distributors would be prohibited from importing HCFC-124 and would therefore transition to an alternative refrigerant. By relieving a regulatory prohibition, allowance holders can choose to import HCFC-124 and/or an alternative. As a result, small businesses that receive HCFC-124 allowances are expected to benefit.
 Other Regulatory Changes
Many of the proposed regulatory changes in Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production and Import, 2020-2029; and Other Updates are intended to reduce the information required to meet reporting requirements, to streamline reporting, and to clarify or update language. Many of these regulatory changes will result in no change, or will relieve, burden. Other regulatory components, such as the extension of the certification requirement for all methyl bromide QPS distributors, will increase burden; however, the increase in burden is negligible compared to annual sales for small businesses. As such, this analysis does not aggregate the costs to small businesses for these regulatory actions. Table 6 provides a summary of the proposed regulatory change as well as the rationale for assuming no or negligible incremental costs.
                       Table 6: Other Regulatory Changes

                               Regulatory Change
           Rationale for Assuming No or Negligible Incremental Cost
                          Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requiring that quarterly and annual reports be submitted electronically
The EPA has been providing electronic reporting as an option since 2008 and most reporters (90%) have already transitioned to using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) for reporting. This analysis assumes that the remainder of reporters will adopt CDX prior to 2020. Electronic reporting decreases the reporting burden by submitters by reducing the cost and time required to review, edit, and transmit data to the agency.

Harmonizing requirements for class I and II substances
The harmonization of requirements for class I and II substances is designed to reduce the reporting burden by removing elements that can be automatically calculated by CDX [§82.23(a), §82.24(b), and §823.24(c)] and streamline the requirements under §82.13(h) and §82.24(d).
                                Import Petitions
Modifying the petition process to import used class I substances for reuse and provide a certification process for the import of class I and class II substances for destruction
These proposed regulatory changes would reduce the petition and information requirements for importers, thus reducing burden.

Exempting halon 1211 in aircraft halon bottles from the import petition process
This proposed action would reduce the reporting burden that would otherwise be required by removing the requirement to submit information to the EPA prior to each import of aircraft halon bottles. Therefore, this proposed action would relieve burden on entities.
                               QPS Methyl Bromide
Extending a certification requirement for distributors of QPS methyl bromide to all distributors
The regulatory proposal would increase annual burden by one hour (equivalent to $117.92) per affected entity, and thus has a negligible cost to small business compared to the sales threshold for small businesses in the affected NAICS (see Table 5).[1]

Explicitly restrict the use of methyl bromide produced under the QPS exemption to QPS applications only
No new burden is introduced by this proposed action.

Amending the naming convention for methyl bromide in §82.4, §82.8, and §82.13
The intention of this change is to increase clarity of the regulatory language; no new burden is introduced.
                               Sales Restriction
Prohibiting the sale or distribution of any ODS that has been imported into the United States without consumption allowances or otherwise not subject to an exemption
No new burden is introduced by this proposed action.

Add foam blown or manufactured with class I substances and any foam systems containing class I substances to the list of nonessential products
This analysis assumes no incremental cost associated with this change in classification for foams blown with, manufactured with, or containing class I substances. All U.S. manufacturers have transitioned from class I ODS to non-ODS alternatives since the phaseout of CFCs in 1994. Thus, this regulatory change is not expected to impose new burden.
                          Updated Regulatory Language
Add destruction technologies that have been approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
No new burden is introduced by this proposed action.

Update definitions of "destruction" and "transform"
The intention of this change is to increase clarity of the regulatory language; no new burden is introduced.

Remove outdated provisions related to the allocation and transfer of class I ODS allowances that have been phased out
The intention of this change is to increase clarity of the regulatory language; no new burden is introduced.
      Source: Federal Register. "Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval: Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting of the Production, Import, Export, Destruction, Transhipment, and Exempted Uses of Ozone Depleting Substances (Renewal)" Vol. 83, No. 138.July 18, 2018. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-18/pdf/2018-15311.pdf
 Section 5: Conclusion
EPA's Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (2006) recommends performing a sales test to quantitatively assess the economic impact of a regulatory option on small businesses, and then to compare the results of that sales test to a decision matrix to determine whether to certify no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). Based on the screening analysis presented in Section 4, however, the proposed rulemaking is expected to have a net economic benefit to the small businesses that are directly impacted (allowance holders).
Thus, this screening analysis suggests that this rulemaking could be presumed to have no SISNOSE because it is expected to result in a net benefit to small businesses.
 Appendix: HCFC Allocations
HCFC allocation levels for each small business under the proposed rule are included in Table 7 and Table 8 below. The EPA has not assessed the alternatives.
             Table 7: HCFC-123 Allocations, by Small Business (MT)
                                    Company
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                     2024
                                     2025
                                     2026
                                     2027
                                     2028
                                     2029
Perfect Score Too
                                                                           2.94
                                                                           2.94
                                                                           2.94
                                                                           2.58
                                                                           2.21
                                                                           1.85
                                                                           1.49
                                                                           1.13
                                                                           0.77
                                                                           0.41
Tulstar Products
                                                                          11.23
                                                                          11.23
                                                                          11.23
                                                                           9.85
                                                                           8.47
                                                                           7.09
                                                                           5.70
                                                                           4.32
                                                                           2.94
                                                                           1.56

                Table 8: HCFC-124 Allocations, by Small Business (MT)
                                    Company
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                     2024
                                     2025
                                     2026
                                     2027
                                     2028
                                     2029
Tulstar Products
                                                                          19.16
                                                                          19.16
                                                                          19.16
                                                                          16.77
                                                                          14.37
                                                                          11.98
                                                                           9.58
                                                                           7.19
                                                                           4.79
                                                                              0
ICOR
                                                                           6.78
                                                                           6.78
                                                                           6.78
                                                                           5.93
                                                                           5.08
                                                                           4.24
                                                                           3.39
                                                                           2.54
                                                                           1.69
                                                                              0

 References
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2017, October 1). Table of Small Business Size Stadards matched to NAICS Codes. Retrieved from https://www.naics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SBA_Size_Standards_Table.pdf


[Federal Register: May 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 97)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28202-28204]
[DOCID:fr20my10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1057]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Escorted U.S. Navy Submarines in Sector Seattle
Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a moving security zone around
any U.S. Navy submarine that is operating in the Sector Seattle Captain
of the Port Zone, which includes the Puget Sound and coastal waters of
the State of Washington, and is being escorted by the Coast Guard. The
security zone is necessary to help ensure the security of the
submarines, their Coast Guard security escorts, and the maritime public
in general. The security zone will do so by prohibiting all persons and
vessels from coming within 1000 yards of an escorted submarine unless
authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander.

DATES: This rule is effective May 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-1057 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1057 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail LT Matthew N. Jones, Staff Attorney, Thirteenth Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 13, 2010, we published an interim rule entitled
``Security Zone; Escorted U.S. Navy Submarines in Sector Seattle
Captain of the Port Zone'' in the Federal Register (75 FR 1709). We
received one comment on the proposed rule that was actually posted to
the docket of a related rule. No one requested a public meeting and
none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because waiting 30 days would be
contrary to the public interest since U.S. Navy submarine operations in
the Sector Seattle Captain of the Port Zone are ongoing, making the
security zone created by this rule immediately necessary to help ensure
the security of the submarines, their Coast Guard security escorts, and
the maritime public in general.

Background and Purpose

    U.S. Navy submarines frequently operate in the Sector Seattle
Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10, which includes
the Puget Sound and coastal waters of the State of Washington. Due to
the numerous security concerns involved with submarine operations near
shore, the Coast Guard frequently provides security escorts of
submarines when operating in that area. Security escorts of this type
require the Coast Guard personnel on-scene to make quick judgments
about the intent of vessels operating in close proximity to the
submarines and decide, occasionally with little information about the
vessels

or persons on board, whether or not they pose a threat to the
submarine.
    The security zone established by this rule will keep persons and
vessels a sufficient distance away from submarines operating in the
Sector Seattle Captain of the Port Zone so as to (1) avoid unnecessary
and potentially dangerous contact with or distraction of Coast Guard
security escorts and (2) give Coast Guard security escorts additional
time and space to determine the intent of vessels that, for whatever
reason, are operating too close to a submarine. Both of these effects
will help ensure the security of the submarines, their Coast Guard
security escorts, and the maritime public in general.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    This rule establishes a moving security zone encompassing all
waters within 1000 yards of any U.S. Navy submarine that is operating
in the Sector Seattle Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR
3.65-10, which includes the Puget Sound and coastal waters of the State
of Washington, and is being escorted by the Coast Guard. All persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering the security zone unless
authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander. While naval vessel
protection zones, under 33 CFR 165.2030, around these escorted U.S.
Navy submarines are still in effect, persons would need to seek
permission from the Coast Guard patrol commander to enter within 1000
yards of these escorted submarines while they are in the Sector Seattle
Captain of the Port Zone.
    One comment was received about this rule. The commenter expressed
concerns about the potential for commercial traffic to have to deviate
from established traffic lanes and/or instructions provided by Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) Puget Sound to avoid entering the security zone.
A change to the rule was made based on this comment. Specifically,
language was added to clarify that the Coast Guard patrol commander
will coordinate with Vessel Traffic System users on a case-by-case
basis to make appropriate passing arrangements under the circumstances.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that
(1) the security zone is only in effect for the short periods of time
when submarines are operating in the Sector Seattle Captain of the Port
Zone and are being escorted by the Coast Guard, (2) the security zone
moves with the submarines, (3) vessels will be able to transit around
the security zone at most locations in the Puget Sound and other
coastal waters of Washington, and (4) vessels may, if necessary, be
authorized to enter the security zone with the permission of the Coast
Guard patrol commander.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit an area covered by the security zone. The security zone will
not, however, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because (1) the security zone is only in
effect for the short periods of time when submarines are operating in
the Sector Seattle Captain of the Port Zone and are being escorted by
the Coast Guard, (2) the security zone moves with the submarines, (3)
vessels will be able to transit around the security zone at most
locations in the Puget Sound and other coastal waters of Washington,
and (4) vessels may, if necessary, be authorized to enter the security
zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the interim rule we offered
to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a security
zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.1327 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1327  Security Zone; Escorted U.S. Navy Submarines in Sector
Seattle Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters
within 1000 yards of any U.S. Navy submarine that is operating in the
Sector Seattle Captain of the Port Zone, as defined in 33 CFR Section
3.65-10, and is being escorted by the Coast Guard.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Section 165, Subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the security zone created by paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander. The Coast Guard patrol
commander will coordinate with Vessel Traffic System users on a case-
by-case basis to make appropriate passing arrangements under the
circumstances. 33 CFR Section 165, Subpart D, contains additional
provisions applicable to the security zone created in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (c) Notification. The Coast Guard security escort will attempt,
when necessary and practicable, to notify any persons or vessels inside
or in the vicinity of the security zone created in paragraph (a) of
this section of its existence via VHF Channel 16 and/or any other means
reasonably available.

    Dated: April 25, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-12064 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 71)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19775-19777]
[DOCID:fr11ap08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0423; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GENERAL AVIA Costruzioni Aeronatiche
Models F22B, F22C, and F22R Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    ENAC Italy AD 2004-376 was issued in response to two separate
reports of cracks found in the Firewall-to-Engine mounting
attachments. Detachment of the engine mounts from the structure is
the possible consequence. Although the actual cause has not been
finally determined, some repairs have been approved to address and
correct the unsafe condition.
    This new AD, which supersedes ENAC Italy AD 2004-376, retains
the initial inspection requirement, adds repetitive inspections and
clarifies the conditions under which aircraft that have been
repaired by an approved method can be allowed to return to service.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 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 Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0423;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-010-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2008-0015, dated January 18, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    ENAC Italy AD 2004-376 was issued in response to two separate
reports of cracks found in the Firewall-to-Engine mounting
attachments. Detachment of the engine mounts from the structure is
the possible consequence. Although the actual cause has not been
finally determined, some repairs have been approved to address and
correct the unsafe condition.
    This new AD, which supersedes ENAC Italy AD 2004-376, retains
the initial inspection requirement, adds repetitive inspections and
clarifies the conditions under which aircraft that have been
repaired by an approved method can be allowed to return to service.

The MCAI requires you to repetitively inspect the structure surrounding
the heads of the four bolts of the engine mount attachment bracket for
cracks or damage and repair any cracks or damage found as a result of
the inspection. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Gomolzig Flugzeug-und Maschinenbau GmbH has issued General Avia F22
Modification 15328 Repair Instructions, dated September 10, 2007. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    There are no products of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are
placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect no products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 100 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $740 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $0, or $8,740 per product.
    We have no way of determining the number of products that may need
any necessary follow-on actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory 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, 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 AD:

General Avia Costruzioni Aeronatiche: Docket No. FAA-2008-0423;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-010-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 12, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models F22B, F22C, and F22R airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power
Plant--General.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    ENAC Italy AD 2004-376 was issued in response to two separate
reports of cracks found in the Firewall-to-Engine mounting
attachments. Detachment of the engine mounts from the structure is
the possible consequence. Although the actual cause has not been
finally determined, some repairs have been approved to address and
correct the unsafe condition.
    This new AD, which supersedes ENAC Italy AD 2004-376, retains
the initial inspection requirement, adds repetitive inspections and
clarifies the conditions under which aircraft that have been
repaired by an approved method can be allowed to return to service.

The MCAI requires you to repetitively inspect the structure
surrounding the heads of the four bolts of the engine mount
attachment bracket for cracks or damages and repair any cracks or
damages found as a result of the inspection.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Do the following actions:
    (1) Unless already done within the last 100 hours time-in-
service (TIS) before the effective date of this AD, before further
flight and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100
hours TIS, inspect the structure surrounding the heads of the four
bolts of the engine mount attachment bracket, approaching from the
cabin of the aircraft in the zone below the instrument panel. In
case the indicated area (in particular for the upper bolts) is not
visible due to equipment presence (relay, cooling fan, and so
forth), remove all of the upper right-hand panel and part of the
left-hand panel of the fireproof bulkhead to approach the area to be
inspected through the engine compartment. In this case the use of a
small mirror is necessary.
    (2) If as a result of any inspection required by paragraphs
(f)(1) of this AD you find any discrepancies (for example, cracked
or broken parts), do one of the following actions before further
flight:
    (i) Repair the aircraft following Gomolzig Flugzeug-und
Maschinenbau GmbH General Avia F22 Modification 15328 Repair
Instructions, dated September 10, 2007; or
    (ii) Repair the aircraft following a repair method approved by
the FAA for this AD.
    (3) If you repair the aircraft as specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect the aircraft
at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS following the instructions
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If as a result of these repetitive
inspections you find any discrepancies, prior to further flight,
repair the aircraft following Gomolzig Flugzeug-und Maschinenbau
GmbH General Avia F22 Modification 15328 Repair Instructions, dated
September 10, 2007.
    (4) If you repair the aircraft as specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect the aircraft
using the repetitive inspection interval established by the FAA-
approved repair method used. Follow the inspection instruction in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If as a result of the inspection you
find any discrepancies, repair before further flight following a
repair method approved by the FAA for this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to ensure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2008-0015, dated January 18, 2008; and Gomolzig Flugzeug-und
Maschinenbau GmbH General Avia F22 Modification 15328 Repair
Instructions, dated September 10, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 3, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-7657 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P