[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17161-17168]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06421]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132; FRL- 9792-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration
portion of the attainment plan submitted by the District of Columbia,
the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia as revisions to
each of their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). These revisions
demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (1997 ozone NAAQS) for the Washington, DC-MD-VA,
moderate nonattainment area (the Washington Area) by the applicable
attainment date of June 2010. EPA has determined that each of the three
SIP revisions meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0132 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Planning Program, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0132. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the States'
submittals are available at the District of Columbia, Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor,
Washington, DC 20002; Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Background Information
III. CAA Requirements for Moderate 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas
IV. Description of the States' SIP Submittals
V. EPA's Review of the States' Modeled Attainment Demonstration and
Weight of Evidence Analysis for the Washington Area
VI. Description of the Control Measures and Emission Reductions
Included in the Plan for Attainment and Contingency Measures
VII. Transportation Conformity Budgets
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration, failure
to

attain contingency measures elements and the associated motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) of the SIP revisions submitted by the District
of Columbia, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia
(hereafter ``the 3 States'' \1\) to EPA on June 12, 2007, June 4, 2007
and June 12, 2007, respectively (hereafter the ``June 2007 SIP
revisions''). The June 2007 SIP revisions included, among other things,
the attainment plan and failure-to-attain contingency measures elements
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area. With the June 2007 SIP
revisions, the 3 States submitted an attainment demonstration for the
Washington Area and its associated proposed MVEBs used for
transportation conformity purposes in the Washington Area. With the
June 2007 SIP revisions, the 3 States also submitted a 2002 base year
emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available control
measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), the 2008
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan and its associated MVEBs for
2008, and contingency measures. The RFP plan with its MVEBs, the RACM/
RACT analysis, the 2002 base year emissions inventory, and contingency
measures for any failure to make RFP in the June 2007 SIP revisions
were approved by EPA on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58116) (the
``September 20, 2011 final rule''). Therefore, in this action, EPA is
only proposing to approve what remains from the June 2007 SIP revisions
including the attainment demonstration, failure to attain contingency
measures, and the associated MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the
Washington Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 302(d) confers upon the District of Columbia the
same rights and responsibilities for air pollution control as the 50
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that the 3 States' attainment demonstration
meets the applicable requirements of the CAA because it demonstrates
attainment by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010. EPA's
analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking. In
addition, a technical support document (TSD) for this proposal entitled
``Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and
Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate
Nonattainment Area'' (referred to hereafter as the ``Attainment TSD'')
is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0132. The Attainment TSD provides additional explanation on EPA's
analysis supporting this proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration.

II. Background Information

A. Background on the 1997 Ozone NAAQS and Designation of the Washington
Area

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated the 1997 ozone
NAAQS which revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone by setting the
NAAQS at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time
frame. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the
1997 ozone NAAQS would be more protective of human health, especially
for children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized the attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004.
Among those nonattainment areas was the Washington Area. The Washington
Area is comprised of: the entire District of Columbia (the District); a
portion of Maryland (Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince George's Counties); and a portion of Virginia (Alexandria City,
Arlington County, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church City,
Manassas and Manassas Park Cities, and Prince William County).
    In addition, on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA promulgated its
Phase 1 Implementation Rule which provided how areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be classified using the
design value for each nonattainment area. Based upon its design value
for the three-year period 2001-2003, the Washington Area was classified
as a moderate ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See
40 CFR 81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.
    Moderate areas are required to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by no
later than six years after designation. Therefore, the Washington Area
was to attain by no later than June 15, 2010. See 40 CFR 51.903 and 69
FR 23951, April 30, 2004.

B. Actions Regarding Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone
NAAQS by the Washington Area

    On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA published two
determinations regarding the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area.
First, EPA made a clean data determination that the Washington Area had
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    This determination was based upon complete, quality assured, and
certified ambient air monitoring data that showed the Washington Area
had monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2008-2010
monitoring period. Ambient air monitoring data for the 2009-2011
monitoring period is consistent with continued attainment. Second,
pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, EPA made a determination
of attainment that the Washington Area had attained the 1997 ozone
NAAQS by its attainment date of June 15, 2010 as required by section
181 of the CAA as interpreted by the implementation rule (40 CFR
51.903) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Even though the attainment date for the Washington Area has passed
and the area has in fact attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by that date,
EPA believes that approval of the attainment demonstration and
contingency measures plan in the June 2007 SIP revisions is important
because such approval strengthens the ozone SIP of each of the 3 States
by reserving reductions from various measures for air quality purposes
and by approving lower MVEBs into the SIP than those associated with
the 2008 RFP plan.

C. Adequacy of the 2009 and 2010 MVEBs

    EPA conducted the process to determine the adequacy of the MVEBs
for the entire Washington Area associated with the attainment
demonstration portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions for the
Washington Area. On September 27, 2012, EPA posted a notice on EPA's
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening a 30-day public comment period
on the adequacy of the MVEBs for the Washington Area in the June 2007
SIP revisions' attainment demonstration for the Washington Area. That
notice informed the public of the availability of the June 2007 SIP
revisions. EPA's public comment period closed on October 29, 2012, and
no comments were received. EPA published a notice of adequacy in the
Federal Register on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9044) which announced EPA
had

determined that the MVEBs were adequate. EPA's determination that the
2009 and 2010 MVEBs in the June 2007 SIP revisions has the effect of
making the 2009 volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 2010 nitrogen
oxides (NOX) MVEBs the MVEBs applicable for transportation
conformity purposes as of February 22, 2013. This proposed action, if
issued as a final rule, would approve these budgets into the ozone SIP
of each of the 3 States.

III. CAA Requirements for Moderate 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas

    Pursuant to the Phase 1 Implementation Rule, the Washington Area
was classified under subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area. On
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA promulgated the second phase of
the implementation rule (Phase 2 Implementation Rule) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. The Phase 2 Implementation Rule set forth the submission
deadlines and the remaining substantive requirements for the attainment
demonstration, contingency measures and RFP requirements of section
172(c) as supplemented by section 182(b) of the CAA.
    The Phase 2 Implementation Rule addressed the control obligations
that apply to areas classified under subpart 2. Among other things, the
Phase 1 and 2 Implementation Rules outline the required SIP elements
and deadlines for those various requirements in areas designated as
moderate nonattainment.
    The requirements regarding a demonstration of attainment of the
1997 ozone NAAQS are:
    1. A demonstration that the SIP contains enough reductions in VOC
emissions and NOX emissions to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2010. See
section 172(c)(1) as amended by section 182(b)(1) as codified in 40 CFR
51.908. However, because compliance with the 1997 ozone NAAQS must be
determined using three years of complete, quality-assured air quality
monitoring data, any determination of attainment by June 15, 2010 would
have to be made upon the most recent three years of air quality
monitoring data available which would be 2007, 2008 and 2009. For this
reason, the Phase 1 Implementation Rule (40 CFR 51.908) required that
the emission reduction measures needed to be implemented no later than
the beginning of the 2009 ozone season and that the MVEBs associated
with the attainment demonstration be for 2009. As a result, the
modeling demonstration needed to use projected 2009 emissions
inventories reflecting the control strategies and predicted 2009 design
values;
    2. A demonstration that the SIP provides for the implementation of
all RACM (including at a minimum RACT on existing sources). Section
172(c)(1) includes two elements: (a) Under section 172(c)(1) RACM/RACT,
a state must ``consider all potentially available measures to determine
whether they [a]re reasonably available for implementation in the area,
and whether they would advance the [area's] attainment date.'' See 66
FR 585, 608 (January 3, 2001); and (b) under CAA section 182(b)(2), the
CAA sets a requirement for RACT not related to expeditious attainment
but requires a State adopt rules for any category of VOC sources for
which EPA has issued a control technique guideline (CTG) and for any
other major stationary sources of VOC emissions in the area. Section
182(f) extends the requirement for RACT under section 182(b)(2)(C) to
any major stationary sources of NOX emissions in the area.
    3. A demonstration that the SIP provides a minimum RFP towards
attainment by reducing baseline emissions of VOC and/or NOX
by 15 percent before December 31, 2008 and contains adequate MVEBs for
2008;
    4. A 2002 baseline inventory from which the 15 percent reduction in
baseline emissions is to be determined; and
    5. Specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to: (a)
attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010, or (b) fails to achieve
RFP. See section 179(c)(9).
    6. Adequate MVEBs: \2\ In the case of moderate nonattainment areas
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, RFP plans and attainment demonstrations
must contain adequate MVEBs for 2008 and 2009, respectively. In the
June 2007 SIP revisions, the 3 States also included a 2010 MVEB for
NOX as part of the contingency plan to address a failure to
attain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 64 FR 70460 at 70465, December 16, 1999 and 70 FR 6796
at 6799, February 9, 2005, citing CAA section 176(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Description of the States' SIP Submittals

    In the June 2007 SIP revisions, the 3 States submitted a
comprehensive attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The June 2007
SIP revisions included an attainment demonstration with 2009 MVEBs, the
RFP plan with 2008 MVEBs, a RACM/RACT analysis, the 2002 base year
emissions inventory, and contingency measures for any failure to make
RFP. This rulemaking action only addresses the portions of the June
2007 SIP revisions not previously approved by EPA including the
attainment demonstration, contingency measures for failure to attain,
and associated 2009 and 2010 MVEBs. By a separate and concurrent
process, EPA had already determined that the 2009 and 2010 MVEBs
associated with the ozone attainment demonstration and contingency
measures portions in the June 2007 SIP revisions are adequate. In this
proposed rule, EPA proposes to approve those 2009 and 2010 MVEBs into
the SIPs of each of the 3 States. As stated in section I of this
document, the other elements--including the RFP plan with MVEBs, a
RACM/RACT analysis, the 2002 base year emissions inventory, and
contingency measures for any failure to make RFP--in the June 2007 SIP
revisions were approved by the September 20, 2011 final rule.

V. EPA's Review of the States' Modeled Attainment Demonstration and
Weight of Evidence Analysis for the Washington Area

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires states to prepare air
quality modeling to show how they will meet ambient air quality
standards. EPA determined that areas classified as moderate or above
must use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method
determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone health-based standard by the
required attainment date. See 40 CFR 51.908. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951 and 40 CFR 51.903), EPA specified how areas would be classified
with regard to the 8-hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. On April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA followed these procedures and classified
the Washington Area as moderate, and the nonattainment area was
required to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 2010. Because the
attainment date was June 2010 for moderate areas, states had to achieve
emission reductions by the ozone season of 2009 in order for ozone
concentrations to be reduced and show attainment during the last
complete ozone season before the 2010 deadline.

A. EPA Guidance for Using Models To Determine Attainment

    EPA's photochemical modeling guidance is found at Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/
B-07-002, April 2007. The photochemical modeling guidance is divided
into two parts. One part describes how to use a

photochemical grid model for ozone to assess whether an area will come
into attainment of the air quality standard. A second part describes
how the user should perform supplemental analyses, using various
analytical methods, to determine if the model over predicts, under
predicts, or accurately predicts the air quality improvement projected
to occur by the attainment date. The guidance indicates that states
should review these supplemental analyses, in combination with the
modeling analysis, in a ``weight of evidence'' assessment to determine
whether each area is likely to achieve timely attainment.
    A description of how the attainment demonstration from the June
2007 SIP revisions addresses this EPA modeling guidance for a modeled
attainment demonstration can be found in the Attainment TSD titled
``Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and
Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate
Nonattainment Area,'' available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132.
    In the June 2007 SIP revisions, the photochemical grid model used
projected emissions for 2009, including emission changes due to
regulations the 3 States and neighboring states were planning to
implement or had already implemented and due to expected growth by the
2009 ozone season. Meteorological conditions from 2002, the same as the
base year modeling, were used in the projection modeling for 2009.
Using base case meteorology allows the effect of changes in states'
emissions to be determined without being influenced by yearly
fluctuations in meteorology and is consistent with EPA guidance.
    The attainment test used in the Washington Area modeling
demonstration involved the application of model-based relative response
factors (RRFs) to base year design values at each monitor to produce
projected future year design values for 2009. The projected 2009 design
values represent design values that should result from emission
controls the 3 States and other states planned to have in place in
2009. As discussed in the Attainment TSD, the 2009 design values should
be less than or equal to 84 parts per billion (ppb) at all monitoring
stations to meet the attainment test. The SIP modeling predicts that in
2009, the Washington Area will not pass the attainment test because the
design values at two monitors are projected to be 1 or 2 ppb over the
84 ppb standard.
    In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling presented in the
3 States' June 2007 SIP revisions meets EPA's guidelines and when used
with the methods recommended in EPA's modeling guidance, is acceptable
to EPA. However, when EPA's attainment test is applied to the modeling
results, two of the seventeen monitors in the Washington Area had 2009
projected ozone design values predicted to exceed the 84 ppb standard
with design values of 85 and 86 ppb. Thus, based solely upon
consideration of EPA's modeled attainment test, the 3 States have not
conclusively demonstrated that the Washington Area will reach
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the attainment year with the
modeled emission reduction strategies committed to by the 3 States and
neighboring states. Therefore, a weight of evidence (WOE) analysis was
used by the 3 States and reviewed by EPA to demonstrate attainment of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area in accordance with EPA
guidance.

B. Weight of Evidence Demonstration

    EPA's modeling guidance describes how to use a photochemical grid
model and additional analytical methods to complete a WOE analysis to
estimate if emissions control strategies will demonstrate attainment of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This modeling guidance recommends a WOE analysis
beyond basic supplemental analyses if any future predicted design
values fall within the range of 82 to 87 ppb (inclusive). Only four
monitors in the Washington Area had model-predicted 2009 design values
within this range. The rest of the monitors in the Washington Area had
model-predicted design values of 81 ppb or less. A WOE analysis is a
supporting analysis that helps to determine if the results of the
photochemical modeling system are correctly (or not correctly)
predicting future air quality. The WOE analysis presented in the 3
States' June 2007 SIP revisions describes the analyses performed,
databases used, key assumptions and outcomes of each analysis, and why
the evidence, viewed as a whole, supports a conclusion that the
Washington Area will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS despite the model
prediction that some monitors' future design values exceed the levels
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's review of the 3 States' WOE analysis in the Attainment TSD
includes the following: (1) A comparison of model-predicted 2009 ozone
design values to monitored design values for 2003-2011; (2) an analysis
of recent ozone trends in the Washington Area; and (3) alternative
methods for calculating the predicted 2009 ozone design value using
modeling results. Further, in the Attainment TSD, EPA's analysis
concurs with the 3 States' analysis of significant declining trends for
the ozone design values, number of exceedances, ratio of exceedance
days to days with a maximum ambient temperature over 90 degrees
Fahrenheit and spatial extent of exceedances of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
the Washington Area.
    As discussed in detail in the Attainment TSD, the 3 States'
attainment demonstration also asserted an alternative baseline
concentration could be used to demonstrate attainment. However, EPA
determined in the Attainment TSD that the modeling would still not pass
the basic modeled attainment test even with this alternative baseline
value. Likewise, EPA determined in the Attainment TSD that the 3
States' recalculation of 2009 modeled ozone design values with a
relative response factor calculated using the alternative methods
presented in the 3 States' June 2007 SIP revisions reduced the modeled
2009 ozone design values slightly but not always below 85 ppb. The 3
States presented a range of predicted 2009 design values based upon the
modeling in terms of maximum and minimum predicted 2009 design values.
All of the minimum values were 82 ppb and lower but three of the
maximum values were 85 ppb or above. The 3 States' methodology can
yield up to nine separate 2009 predicted design values within the
range. For all but one monitor, the average value for the nine separate
2009 predicted design values were below 85 ppb.
    As discussed in the Attainment TSD, EPA concurs that the model over
predicted 2009 ozone design values relative to the actual monitored
2009 to 2011 design values for most cases and always for those four
monitors for which the modeled design values were in the range of 82 to
87 ppb when determined using EPA's preferred method for calculating the
baseline design value and the relative response factor. The Attainment
TSD notes that monitored ozone design values for each of the Washington
Area monitors continued to decline and that each monitor continued to
show attainment in 2010 and 2011.
    In conclusion, in the Attainment TSD, EPA determined with the
benefit of 2009 monitored design values that the model in the 3 States'
June 2007 SIP revisions over predicted 2009 predicted

design values when compared to actual monitored design values since
2009. EPA has determined that the 3 States' photochemical grid modeling
results predict a 2009 projected design value at most 2 ppb above the
1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. However, after taking into
account WOE arguments regarding model over prediction of the 2009
monitored design values, recent ozone design value trends, and the
Washington Area's attainment of the standard by 2010, EPA has
determined that the 3 States' June 2007 SIP revisions demonstrate
attainment of the ozone standard by the attainment date of June 2010 as
discussed in detail in the Attainment TSD.

VI. Description of the Control Measures and Emission Reductions
Included in the Plan for Attainment and Contingency Measures

A. RFP Measures

    All of the measures which were used to demonstrate RFP in the June
2007 SIP revisions are part of the measures for obtaining the
reductions needed for attainment. These are described in the TSD
prepared for the approval of the RFP plan.\3\ The RFP plan relied
solely upon VOC reductions from these measures. See Table 6 in the June
30, 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (73 FR 38334, 38337) for
the September 20, 2011 final rule approving the RFP plan. Some of these
measures also provide reductions in NOX emissions as well.
These include most of the Federal nonroad and on-road mobile sources
emissions standards and other on-road mobile sources controls such as
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or the
transportation control measures. Most of the contingency measure
reductions to address any failure to achieve RFP were NOX
reductions. See Section II.E of the June 30, 2011 NPR (73 FR 38334,
38337-38338).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Refer to ``Technical Support Document--District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia; 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory,
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Reasonably
Available Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets
for the Metropolitan Washington, DC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate
Nonattainment Area,'' dated May 26, 2011, a copy of which has been
included in the docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the RFP plan measures also provide additional VOC
reductions in the 2009 attainment year over and above those projected
for the RFP year of 2008. These include Federal nonroad and on-road
mobile sources emissions standards and area source rules such as those
covering portable fuel containers, older vehicles and engines.

B. Additional Measures Beyond the RFP Plan

    The attainment demonstration for the Washington Area relied upon
some additional measures beyond those used to demonstrate RFP. Some of
the RFP measures also provide reductions in NOX emissions in
addition to the VOC reductions credited towards the RFP requirement.
    These included amending existing state regulations for area source
categories to add emission standards for additional categories of
consumer products and stricter standards for previously regulated
products such as portable fuel containers. Also, the 3 States adopted
regulations for industrial adhesives and sealants. Specifically, the
attainment plan also relied upon the following new measures:
    1. Regulations controlling VOC emissions from industrial adhesives
and sealants in Maryland and Virginia conforming to the emission
standards of a ``model rule'' prepared by the Ozone Transport
Commissions (OTC);
    2. Stricter standards representing a second ``phase'' of control by
Virginia on VOC emissions from portable fuel containers conforming to
those of a ``model rule'' prepared by the OTC; and
    3. Emissions standards for additional classes of consumer products
in a second ``phase'' of VOC control by Virginia on VOC emissions
conforming to those of a ``model rule'' prepared by the OTC.
    All of these rules have been fully approved by EPA into the
applicable State SIP. See 76 FR 64237 (October 18, 2011) and 76 FR
51925 (August 19, 2011) (regarding Maryland adhesives and sealants
rule), and 77 FR 3928 (January 26, 2012) and 76 FR 69214 (November 8,
2011) (regarding Virginia's adhesives and sealants rule, phase 2
portable fuel containers rule, and phase 2 consumer products rule).
    Maryland also instituted a second phase of control on consumer
products and portable fuel containers conforming to a ``model rule''
prepared by the OTC, but Maryland's rules required compliance before
the end of calendar year 2008 and so are not rules beyond those for the
RFP plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The District of Columbia committed to adopting and
submitting as a SIP revision regulations conforming to those of the
``model rules'' prepared by the OTC for these similar categories,
but any emission reductions arising from these measures in the
District were not applied to the emissions reductions upon which the
attainment modeling and contingency measure demonstration relied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some of emission reductions in the contingency plan
for a failure to achieve adequate RFP by the end of calendar year 2008
provide part of the reductions for the attainment demonstration. These
are emission reductions in the Washington Area scheduled to occur after
2008 but during 2009 such as the portable fuel containers rules
(additional reductions occurring as a result of rule phases 1 and 2)
and reductions from beyond RACT level control of NOX
sources. Table 1 provides a summary of the attainment plan's measures
and the projected 2009 emission reductions.

Table 1--Control Measures and 2009 Emission Reductions in the Washington
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Reductions (tons per day)
            Source sector            -----------------------------------
                                             VOC               NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source Measures...............              0.00            128.76
Area Sources Measures...............             36.97              0.00
Nonroad Measures (NONROAD Model)....             42.44             14.76
Locomotive Standards................              0.06              2.74
On-road Measures (MOBILE Model).....              7.17             37.63
Transportation Control Measures.....              0.18              0.45
Voluntary Bundle....................              0.19              0.30
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................             87.01            184.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Contingency Plan Reductions

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain additional
contingency measures that will take effect without further action by
the state or EPA if an area fails to attain an ambient air quality
standard by the applicable attainment date or fails to achieve
sufficient RFP.\5\ The CAA does not specify how many contingency
measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must
be provided by these measures. However, EPA provided initial guidance
interpreting the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9)
in the April 16, 1992, General Preamble for Implementation of the Act.
See 57 FR 13498, 13510 (April 16, 1992). In the April 16, 1992 initial
guidance, EPA indicated that states with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and above should include sufficient contingency
measures so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional
emission reductions of up to 3 percent of the emissions in the adjusted
base year inventory (or such lesser percentage that will cure the
identified failure) would be achieved in the year following the year in
which the failure has been identified. The state must show that the
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on
their part and with no additional rulemaking actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA has already approved contingency measures for failure to
make RFP as discussed in section IV.B of this document. This
proposed rule therefore only applies to approval of contingency
measures needed to address the failure to attain by the applicable
attainment date ``prong'' in section 179(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA allows areas to use as contingency measures one or more Federal
or local measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in
excess to the attainment demonstration (or RFP plan). See 70 FR 71612,
71651 (November 29, 2005). Further, EPA believes that any additional
reductions resulting from measures in the attainment strategy occurring
after the applicable attainment date are clearly in excess to those
needed for attainment. The modeling demonstration for the Washington
Area was based upon projected emissions levels for the year 2009, and
therefore reductions occurring after the end of calendar year 2009
would be excess to attainment needs.
    The applicable attainment date for the Washington Area was June 15,
2010 based upon an effective date of designation under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS of June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 28858 (April 30, 2004) and Table 1 in
40 CFR 51.903. The earliest EPA could have made a determination of
attainment or failure to achieve attainment for the Washington Area was
in June 2010; therefore, under the April 16, 1992 initial guidance, the
earliest the ``year following the year the failure was indentified''
would have been in 2011. Therefore, EPA believes that reductions that
occur after 2009 and as early as 2010 and as late as 2011 would qualify
for contingency measures to address any failure to attain as satisfying
both the excess to attainment and the timing of reductions
requirements. Excess reductions from measures already in place meet the
requirement that contingency measures be implemented with minimal
further action by the state and with no additional rulemaking actions.
For more information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992
General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, 71650).
    Because the Washington Area's attainment demonstration relies upon
both VOC and NOX reductions, acceptable contingency measures
can include NOX and VOC reductions.\6\ For the failure to
attain contingency requirement, the 3 States identified specific
measures yielding 8.46 tons per day of VOC emissions reductions and
6.05 tons per day of NOX emissions reductions. These
reductions represent a 1.941 percent reduction in VOC emissions and a
1.069 percent reduction in NOX emissions as shown in Table 2
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Such a result comports well with section 182(b)(1)(A) which
requires a moderate area plan to provide for ``reductions in
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to
attain'' the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for
moderate areas.

      Table 2--Calculation of VOC and NOX Reductions for Attainment
                               Contingency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         (Ozone season tons per day)
       Item          Description   -------------------------------------
                                           VOC                NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)                2002 Base-Year             448.28             597.22
                    Inventory.
(b)                Non-creditable              12.45              31.61
                    Emissions
                    Reduction.
(c)                Adjusted Base-             435.83             565.61
                    Year Inventory
                    = Item (a)
                    minus Item (b).
(d)                1.941% VOC                   8.459  .................
                    Reduction
                    Required for
                    Attainment.
                   Contingency =
                    (1.941/100)
                    times Item (c).
(e)                1.069% NOX       .................              6.046
                    Reduction
                    Required for
                    Attainment.
                   Contingency =
                    (1.069/100)
                    times Item (c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approved base year inventory for the Washington Area under the
1997 ozone NAAQS is from Table 2 of the NPR for the September 20, 2011
final rule. See 76 FR 38334, 38336 (June 30, 2011). In Table 3, the 3
States identified the following specific Federal and state measures as
providing contingency measures.

                               Table 3--Contingency Measures for Failure To Attain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Ozone season tons per day)
            Contingency measure             --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Source category affected           VOC                NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards....  On-road mobile...............               0                  1.77
Phase I and Phase II Emissions Standards     Nonroad Mobile...............               1.49               0.04
 for Gasoline-Powered Non-Road Utility
 Engines.
Emissions Standards for Diesel-Powered Non-  Nonroad Mobile...............               0.39               3.28
 Road Utility Engines of 50 or More
 Horsepower.

Emissions Standards for Spark Ignition       Nonroad Mobile...............               1.42               0
 Marine Engine.
Emissions Standards for Large Spark          Nonroad Mobile...............               0.54               0.96
 Ignition Engines.
Portable Fuel Containers Phase 1 and 2       Area.........................               4.62               0
 Rules.
                                                                           -------------------------------------
    Total Reductions.......................  .............................               8.46               6.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reductions from the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards
occurred between 2009 and 2010. The reductions from the other
identified measures occurred between 2009 and 2011. The 3 States have
implemented the contingency reductions from the on-road mobile sources
through establishment of a 2010 MVEB for NOX. Even though
additional reductions in VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources may
have occurred between 2009 and 2010, the States have elected not to
count these towards the contingency requirement. Thus, the 2010
NOX MVEB reflects only a reduction in NOX
emissions. EPA believes that all of these measures achieve additional
reductions beyond those needed to offset growth in activity levels as
new motor vehicles, nonroad vehicle and locomotive engines, or portable
fuel containers replace older items which either were subject to less
stringent emissions standards or no emission standards regulations.

VII. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). EPA's
conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether or not
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of a national ambient air quality standard such
as the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The criteria by which EPA determines whether a
SIP's MVEBs are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). The process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP
budgets is described in 40 CFR 93.118(f).
    For an attainment demonstration states must establish VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the attainment year and submit these MVEBs to
EPA for approval. Upon adequacy determination or approval by EPA,
states must conduct transportation conformity analysis for their
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and long range
transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle emissions will not
exceed applicable MVEBs. Failure to demonstrate such transportation
conformity results in freezing of Federal highway funds and all Federal
highway projects in the lapsed area. The States discuss transportation
conformity in Section 8.0 of the June 2007 SIP revisions. The States
describe their methods and provide detailed input parameters used in
modeling the inventories in Appendices E1 and E2 of the June 2007 SIP
revisions. In the Washington Area, the Metropolitan Washington Air
Quality Committee (MWAQC) consulted with the Transportation Planning
Board (TPB) to establish mobile source emissions budgets. In addition
to the 2009 MVEBs required for the attainment year, the 3 States have
implemented the NOX contingency reductions from on-road
mobile sources by establishing a 2010 MVEB for NOX.
    The Washington Area MVEBs for the attainment demonstration and
contingency measures are based on projected 2009 and 2010 mobile source
emissions, accounting for all mobile control measures and
transportation control measures. As discussed in section II. C herein,
EPA has already determined these MVEBs are adequate. See 78 FR 9044.
The MVEBs for the 2009 attainment demonstration and the 2010
contingency plan NOX MVEBs are shown in Table 4.

            Table 4--The Washington Area MVEBs for the 2009 Attainment Plan and 2010 Contingency Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MVEBs
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                        Budget type                            Budget year     VOC  (tons per    NOX  (tons per
                                                                                day)              day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment Demonstration..................................              2009              66.5             146.1
Contingency Plan..........................................              2010               N/A             144.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 ozone NAAQS attainment
demonstration, included in the 3 States' June 2007 SIP revisions, as
demonstrating attainment for the Washington Area by the applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2010. On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739),
EPA determined that the Washington Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS
by its attainment date. EPA is also proposing to approve the
contingency measures plan from the June 2007 SIP revisions and the
MVEBs associated with the attainment demonstration and contingency
measures. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as

meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the 1997 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstration, contingency measures and MVEBs for the
Washington Area submitted by the State of Maryland, the District of
Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia on June 4, 2007, June 12,
2007 and June 12, 2007 respectively, does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the states, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-06421 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17513-17515]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06412]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0265; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00131-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG Trent XWB-75, Trent XWB-
79, Trent XWB-79B, and Trent XWB-84 model turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of a lack of weld fusion on the
resistance welding during manufacturing, which could result in air
leakage through the low-pressure turbine (LPT) rear support seal panel
assembly (``LPT seal panel''). This proposed AD would require
replacement of the LPT seal panel. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-
Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, 15827 Blankenfelde-
Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 708 6 0; email: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0265; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI),
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-
238-7236; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0265;
Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00131-E'' at the beginning of your
comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this NPRM because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch,
FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2019-0071, dated March 28, 2019 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The MCAI states:

    The affected parts, as defined in this [EASA] AD, are static
parts, located behind the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine 2 disc,
forming a seal between the IP and LP cavities through an interface
with the rotating IP

flying seal. It was recently determined that, on certain affected
parts, insufficient fusion was achieved on the resistance welding
during manufacturing.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to air leakage
through the LP seal panel, affecting the service lives of the IP
turbine 2 and LP turbine 1 discs, possibly resulting in premature
disc failure and high energy uncontained debris release from the
engine, with consequent damage to, and reduced control of, the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Rolls-Royce
identified the affected parts and published the NMSB, providing
instructions to replace these affected parts.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of affected parts during a qualified shop visit.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0265.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce plc Alert Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) Trent XWB 72-AJ994, Revision 2, dated August 29, 2019.
The Alert NMSB describes procedures for removing and replacing the LPT
seal panel. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. The FAA is proposing this AD because we evaluated all the
relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require replacement of the LPT seal panel.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 26 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the LPT seal panel............  1 work-hour x $85 per           $282,890        $282,975      $7,357,350
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in
our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2020-0265;
Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00131-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Trent XWB-75,
Trent XWB-79, Trent XWB-79B, and Trent XWB-84 model turbofan
engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a lack of weld fusion on the
resistance welding during manufacturing, which could result in air
leakage through the low-pressure turbine (LPT) rear support seal
panel assembly (``LPT seal panel'') causing a life reduction to the
intermediate pressure turbine (IPT) 2 and LPT 1 disks. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IPT 2 and LPT 1 disks. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained
debris release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    During the next qualified shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, or during the current shop visit, if, on the effective date
of this AD, the engine or module 51 is in a qualified shop visit,
remove the affected LPT seal panel from service and replace it with
a part eligible for installation in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A., of Rolls-Royce plc
Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent XWB 72-AJ994,
Revision 2, dated August 29, 2019.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``qualified shop visit'' is a
Level 4 (Overhaul) or Level 3 (Refurbishment) shop visit of an
affected engine with an affected LPT seal panel installed, or Level
2 shop visit (Check and Repair) of module 51 with an affected LPT
seal panel installed.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``module 51'' is the
intermediate pressure low-pressure turbine assembly.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, an ``affected LPT seal panel''
is LPT rear support seal panel assembly, identified as catalogue
serial number (CSN)<PHONE_NUMBER>0, with a serial number (S/N) listed
in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ994, Revision 2, dated
August 29, 2019. This appendix additionally lists the module 51 S/N
and engine S/N in which these panels were originally installed.
    (4) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is a LPT seal panel, CSN<PHONE_NUMBER>0, with a S/N not
listed in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent XWB 72-AJ994, Revision
2, dated August 29, 2019.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for replacement of the LPT seal panel
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD if you performed the
replacement before the effective date of this AD using RR Alert NMSB
Trent XWB 72-AJ994, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2018, or Initial
Issue, dated September 5, 2018.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Stephen Elwin,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0071, dated March 28, 2019, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2020-0265.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 708 6 0; email:
https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller
Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7759.

    Issued on March 24, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06412 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8280-8281]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2200]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 16, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2200, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Christian County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 19-07-0059S Preliminary Date: July 28, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Clever.........................  City Hall, 304 South Clarke
                                          Avenue, Clever, MO 65631.
City of Fremont Hills..................  City Hall, 1953 Fremont Hills
                                          Drive, Fremont Hills, MO
                                          65714.
City of Nixa...........................  City Hall, 715 West Mount
                                          Vernon Street, Nixa, MO 65714.
City of Ozark..........................  City Hall, 205 North 1st
                                          Street, Ozark, MO 65721.
City of Sparta.........................  City Hall, 200 North Avenue,
                                          Sparta, MO 65753.
Unincorporated Areas of Christian        Christian County Resource
 County.                                  Management Building, 1106 West
                                          Jackson Street, Ozark, MO
                                          65721.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Johnson County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 20-06-0101S Preliminary Date: September 24, 2021
City of Cleburne.......................  City Hall, 10 North Robinson
                                          Street, Cleburne, TX 76031.
City of Mansfield......................  City Hall, 1200 East Broad
                                          Street, Mansfield, TX 76063.
City of Venus..........................  City Hall, 700 West US Highway
                                          67, Venus, TX 76084.
Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County.  Johnson County Public Works
                                          Department, 2 North Mill
                                          Street, Suite 305, Cleburne,
                                          TX 76033.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-03123 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 42095-42097]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0374]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Petition to Request an Exemption From 100 Percent
Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing
Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations
for Dietary Supplements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on reporting requirements
contained in existing FDA regulations governing petitions to request an
exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All
comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Petition to Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of
Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in
Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary
Supplements--21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii) (OMB Control Number 0910-0608)--
Extension

    On October 25, 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act (DSHEA) (Public Law 103-417) was signed into law. DSHEA, among
other things, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) by adding section 402(g) of the act (21 U.S.C. 342(g)). Section
402(g)(2) of the act provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (the Secretary) may, by regulation, prescribe good
manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Section 402(g)(1) of
the act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if ``it has
been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet
current good manufacturing practice regulations.'' Under section 701(a)
of the act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), FDA may issue regulations necessary for
the efficient enforcement of the act.
    FDA published a final rule on June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34752) (the
final rule), that established, in part 111 (21 CFR part 111), the
minimum Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) necessary for
activities related to manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding
dietary supplements to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement. On
June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34959), FDA also published an Interim Final Rule
(the IFR) establishing a procedure for a petition to request an
exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients. The
IFR redesignated Sec.  111.75(a)(1) of the CGMP final rule as Sec.
111.75(a)(1)(i) and set forth a procedure for submission of a petition
to FDA in a new Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(ii), under which manufacturers may
request an exemption from the requirements set forth in Sec.
111.75(a)(1)(i) when the dietary ingredient is obtained from one or
more suppliers identified in the petition. The regulation clarifies
that FDA is willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, a
manufacturer's conclusion, supported by appropriate data and
information in the petition submission, that it has developed a system
that it would implement as a sound, consistent means of establishing,
with no material diminution of assurance compared to the assurance
provided by 100 percent identity testing, the identity of the dietary
ingredient before use.
    Section 111.75(a)(1) of the CGMP final rule reflects FDA's
determination that manufacturers that test or examine 100 percent of
the incoming dietary ingredients for identity can be assured of the
identity of the ingredient. However, FDA recognizes that it may be
possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate, through various methods and
processes in use over time for its particular operation, that a system
of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no material
diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary ingredient as
compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing. To
provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to make such a showing and
reduce the frequency of identity testing of components that are dietary
ingredients from 100 percent to some lower frequency, FDA added to
Sec.  111.75(a)(1), an exemption from the requirement of 100 percent
identity testing when a manufacturer petitions the agency for such an
exemption to 100 percent identity testing under Sec.  10.30 and the
agency grants such exemption. Such a procedure would be consistent with
FDA's stated goal, as described in the CGMP final rule, of providing
flexibility in the CGMP requirements. Section 111.75(a)(1)(ii) sets
forth the information a manufacturer is required to submit in such a
petition. The regulation also contains a requirement to ensure that the
manufacturer keeps FDA's response to a petition submitted under Sec.
111.75(a)(1)(ii) as a record under Sec.  111.95. The collection of
information in Sec.  111.95 has been approved under OMB control number
0910-0606.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are firms in the dietary supplement industry, including
dietary supplement manufacturers, packagers and re-packagers, holders,
labelers and re-labelers, distributors, warehouses, exporters,
importers, large businesses, and small businesses.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of        Annual Frequency       Total Annual          Hours per
                  21 CFR Section                        Respondents         per Response           Responses           Response           Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111.75(a)(1)(ii)                                                     1                     1                   1                   8                   8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In the last 3 years, FDA has not received any new petitions to
request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary
ingredients; therefore, the agency estimates that one or fewer
petitions will be submitted annually. Although FDA has not received any
new petitions to request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing
of dietary ingredients in the last 3 years, it believes that these
information collection provisions should be extended to provide for the
potential future need of a firm in the dietary supplement industry to
petition for an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary
ingredients. Based on our experience with petition processes, we
estimate that the assembly of information in support of the petition
required by Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(ii) will take 8 hours.

    Dated: July 13, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-17608 Filed 7-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71586-71588]
[DOCID:fr29no05-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52790; File No. SR-OCC-2005-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Clearing Fees for Certain Transactions Executed on
OneChicago, LLC

November 17, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 29, 2005, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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
primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to charge clearing fees
to OneChicago, LLC (``ONE'') for cleared trades where an OCC clearing
member is on one or both sides of the trade based on OCC's standard
rebate-eligible fee schedule (``Standard Fee Schedule''), rather than
under the alternate rebate-ineligible fee schedule (``Alternate Fee
Schedule'') adopted when OCC and ONE entered into the Security Futures
Agreement for Clearing and Settlement Services (``ONE Clearing
Agreement'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the Standard Fee Schedule, OCC clearing members pay OCC's
standard clearing fees and are eligible to receive rebates of excess
clearing fees when and as determined by OCC's Board of Directors. When
negotiating its clearing agreement with OCC, ONE preferred to pay OCC's
clearing fees itself rather than have OCC charge those fees to clearing
members.\5\ Because ONE wanted to plan on set fees and avoid the
uncertainty of a rebate that might be less than expected, OCC agreed to
an Alternate Fee Schedule which provides for the following fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At that time, clearing fees under OCC's Standard Fee
Schedule were:
     9[cent] per side for trades of 1 to 500 contracts.
     7[cent] per side for trades of 501 to 1,000 contracts.
     6[cent] per side for trades of 1,001 to 2,000
contracts, and
     $110 for trades larger than 2,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     7[cent] per side for trades of 1 to 500 contracts.
     6[cent] per side for trades of 501 to 1,000 contracts.
     5[cent] per side for trades of 1,001 to 2,000 contracts,
and
     $85 for trades larger than 2,000 contracts.\6\

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47196 (January 15,
2003), 68 FR 3922 (January 27, 2003) [File No. SR-OCC-2002-20].
Pursuant to the ONE Clearing Agreement, the CME has been designated
as an associated clearinghouse (``ACH'') for ONE. Under the
Alternate Fee Schedule, different fees are charged where the ACH is
on one or both sides of a trade. Those fees are not being changed by
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Alternate Fee Schedule also includes certain new product
discounts.\7\ Under the terms of the ONE Clearing Agreement, the
Alternate Fee Schedule expired on November 8, 2005.

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47196. The ``new
securities future product'' discounts are as follows:
     First month traded: No fee.
     Second month traded: 2.5[cent] regardless of size.
     Third month traded: The lesser of the total at 5[cent]
or $85.
     Fourth month traded: Reverts to Alternate Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the adoption of the Alternate Fee Schedule, OCC has both
reduced and discounted its Standard Fee Schedule.\8\ The current
discounted Standard Fee Schedule is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49436 (March 17,
2004), 69 FR 13932 (March 24, 2004) [File No. SR-OCC-2004-01], 50080
(July 26, 2004), 69 FR 45873 (July 30, 2004) [File No. SR-OCC-2004-
12], 50951 (December 30, 2004), 70 FR 1489 (January 7, 2005) [File
No. SR-OCC-2004-22], and 52034 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42134 (July
21, 2005) [File No. SR-OCC-2005-08].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     5[cent] per contract for trades of 1 to 500 contracts.
     4[cent] per contract for trades of 501 to 1,000 contracts.
     3[cent] per contract for trades of 1,001 to 2,000
contracts, and
     $55 for trades larger than 2,000 contracts.

This discounted fee structure remains in effect until further action by
OCC's Board of Directors.

    In response to a request by ONE, OCC has agreed to charge fees to
ONE under the Standard Fee Schedule including standard new product fee
discounts \9\ for trades where at least one side is cleared by an OCC
clearing member. OCC is willing to provide ONE with the benefit of the
Standard Fee Schedule for such trades before the date the Alternate Fee
Structure for ONE is set to expire. Accordingly, effective October 1,
2005, OCC charged ONE clearing fees based on the Standard Fee Schedule.
Any refund of clearing fees charged under the Standard Schedule will be
paid to ONE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``new products'' discounts under the Standard Schedule
are as follows:
     First month traded: No fee.
     Second month traded: For trades with contracts of:
     1-4,400--1 cent/side.
     > 4,400--$40.
     Third month traded: For trades with contracts of:
     1-2,200--2 cents/side.
     > 2,200--$40.
     Fourth month traded: Reverts to Standard Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act because it provides the benefit of a discounted, rebate-
eligible clearing fee schedule for certain trades to a market for which
OCC provides clearance and settlement services. The proposed rule
change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including
any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\
thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-OCC-2005-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2005-13. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com.

    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-OCC-2005-13
and should be submitted on or before December 20, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6618 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P