[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85126-85129]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9396; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-034-AD;
Amendment 39-18712; AD 2016-23-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France) Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-25-08 for
Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS
365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. AD 2007-25-08
required checking the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) oil, inspecting the
magnetic plug, and either replacing the TGB or performing additional
inspections. This AD was prompted by reports of new occurrences of loss
of yaw control due to failure of the control rod bearing. This AD
requires checking the TGB oil level and replacing the bearing with a
new part-numbered bearing. These actions are intended to detect and
prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss of tail rotor
pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 12, 2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 24, 2017.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9396; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The

street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    On November 27, 2007, we issued AD 2007-25-08, Amendment 39-15290
(72 FR 69604, December 10, 2007) for Eurocopter France (now Airbus
Helicopters) Model SA-365 N1, AS-365 N2, AS 365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B,
and EC155B1 helicopters. AD 2007-25-08 required repetitively checking
the TGB oil level to ensure it is at the maximum level. AD 2007-25-08
also required repetitively inspecting the magnetic plug for chips, and
depending on the quantity of chips found, either replacing the TGB or
further inspecting for axial play in the spider. If axial play is found
in the spider, AD 2007-25-08 required replacing the bearing. AD 2007-
25-08 was prompted by AD No. 2006-0258R1-E, dated August 29, 2006,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, as well as the finding that metal chips were not
detected on the magnetic plug due to insufficient oil flow because the
oil in the TGB was being maintained at the minimum level. The actions
of AD 2007-25-08 were intended to detect metal chips on the magnetic
plug and to prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss
of tail rotor pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2007-25-08 Was Issued

    After we issued AD 2007-25-08, we received reports of new
occurrences of loss of yaw control due to failure of the control rod
bearing and EASA superseded AD No. 2006-0258R1-E with several ADs,
including AD No. 2012-0170R2, dated June 20, 2014, to correct an unsafe
condition for these model helicopters. Therefore, we issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by removing AD 2007-
25-08 and adding a new AD. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53024). The NPRM proposed to retain the
pilot checks of the TGB oil level and the magnetic plug inspections of
AD 2007-25-08. The NPRM also proposed to revise the inspections for
play in the double bearing to improve the detection of play, require
replacing the TGB control shaft guide bushes, clarify the criteria
concerning particle detection, and change the inspection for play in
the double bearing after the guide bushes have been replaced.
    On May 23, 2016, EASA issued Emergency AD No. 2016-0097-E, which
superseded AD No. 2012 0170R2. EASA Emergency AD No. 2016-0097-E was
subsequently revised by EASA AD No. 2016-0097R1, dated May 25, 2016, to
correct a paragraph reference. EASA AD No. 2016-0097R1 advises that
after AD No. 2012-0170R2 was issued, a technical investigation of an AS
365 N3 accident revealed a damaged TGB bearing. EASA further states
that the affected control rod had been repetitively inspected as
required by EASA AD 2012-0170R2, and that the investigation is still
ongoing to determine the root cause of the damage and why the damage
was not discovered during previous inspections. EASA AD No. 2016-0097R1
requires repetitive inspections of the TGB oil level and magnetic chip
detector. EASA AD No. 2016-0097R1 also requires replacing bearing part
number (P/N) 704A33-651-093 or P/N 704A33-651-104, with an improved
bearing, P/N 704A33-651-245 or 704A33-651-246, which is terminating
action for the repetitive inspections of the magnetic chip detector but
not of the oil level. The EASA AD also describes an alternative
repetitive inspection for play that would defer replacing the bearing
for an additional 110 hours TIS. Lastly, the EASA AD requires that
helicopters with an improved bearing P/N 704A33-651-245 or 704A33-651-
246 (identified as post-modification 07 65B57 configuration) replace
the bearing at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS.
    In light of EASA AD No. 2016-0097R1 and the corrective actions
required by this final rule, we are issuing a separate action to
withdraw the NPRM (80 FR 53024, September 2, 2015).

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
AS365-01.00.67, Revision 0, dated May 4, 2016, for FAA type-
certificated Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters and
for non-FAA type-certificated Model AS365F, Fi, and K helicopters; ASB
No. EC155-04A014, Revision 0, dated May 4, 2016, for FAA type-
certificated Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters; and ASB No. SA366-
01.29, Revision 0, dated May 4, 2016, for FAA type-certificated Model
SA-366G1 and non-FAA type-certificated Model SA-366GA helicopters. Each
ASB describes procedures for ensuring the TGB oil level is at maximum
capacity; reducing the inspection interval for the TGB magnetic plug
pending initial replacement of the bearing; removing the control rod
assembly to inspect the bearing; and periodically replacing the
bearing.

AD Requirements

    This AD applies to the affected model helicopters with bearing P/N
704A33-651-093 or P/N 704A33-651-104 and requires:
     Checking the TGB oil level at specified intervals. An
owner/operator (pilot) may perform this visual check and must enter
compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with
14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform
this check because it involves only a visual check for the oil level in
the TGB and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic.
This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.
     Replacing the bearing part number (P/N) 704A33-651-093 or
P/N 704A33-651-104 with a bearing, P/N 704A33-651-245 or 704A33-651-
246.
    This AD also prohibits installing bearing P/N 704A33-651-093 or P/N
704A33-651-104 on any helicopter.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires replacing bearing P/N 704A33-651-093 and P/N
704A33-651-104 that have 335 or more hours TIS within 15 hours TIS;
this AD requires replacing these bearings within 15 hours TIS
regardless of the amount of time the bearing has accumulated. The EASA
AD requires a repetitive TGB magnetic chip detector inspection, while
this AD does not. The EASA AD allows an alternative repetitive
inspection for play to defer replacing the bearing for an additional
110 hours TIS, while this AD does not. Lastly, the EASA AD requires
replacing the improved bearing at intervals of 500 hours TIS; an AD for
this action is not necessary because it is specified in the
manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and therefore
mandated by other regulatory requirements.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 43 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85, checking the TGB
oil level will require about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter
of $43 and a total cost of $1,849 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.
Replacing the bearing will require 16 work-hours and parts costing
$1,125, for a total cost of $2,485 per helicopter and $106,855 for the
fleet.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the initial inspections
required by this AD must be accomplished before further flight, and the
bearings must be replaced within 15 hours TIS, a very short interval
for these model helicopters.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-25-08, Amendment 39-15290 (72 FR 69604, December 10, 2007), and
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2016-23-05 Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France):
Amendment 39-18712; Docket No. FAA-2016-9396; Directorate Identifier
2016-SW-034-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-
366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters with a tail rotor gearbox
(TGB) pitch control rod assembly double bearing (bearing) part
number (P/N) 704A33-651-093 or P/N 704A33-651-104 installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as damage to the bearing,
which could result in end play, loss of tail rotor pitch control,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

 (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-25-08, Amendment 39-15290 (72 FR
69604, December 10, 2007).

 (d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 12, 2016.

 (e) Compliance

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

 (f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight and thereafter at the following
intervals, check the TGB oil level:
    (i) For Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters, at
intervals not to exceed 10 hours time-in-service (TIS).
    (ii) For Model SA366G1 helicopters, before the first flight of
each day.
    (iii) For Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters, at intervals
not to exceed 15 hours TIS.
    (iv) The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records
showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9
(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be
maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
    (2) If the oil level is not at maximum, before further flight, a
qualified mechanic must fill it to the maximum level.
    (3) Within 15 hours TIS, replace the bearing P/N 704A33-651-093
or P/N 704A33-651-104 with a bearing P/N 704A33-651-245 or P/N
704A33-651-246.
    (4) Do not install bearing P/N 704A33-651-093 or P/N 704A33-651-
104 on any helicopter.

 (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5116; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

 (h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-
01.00.67, No. EC155-04A014, and No. SA366-01.29, each Revision 0 and
dated May 4, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain
additional information about the subject of this final rule. For
service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0097R1, dated May 25, 2016. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2016-9396.

 (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520 Tail Rotor
Gearbox.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27638 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 131)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33196-33200]
[DOCID:fr10jy09-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0344; FRL-8929-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of California on June 15, 2004 and
February 3, 2009, relating to reformulated gasoline (RFG) and diesel
fuel sold or supplied as motor vehicle fuels in California. The
revisions relating to RFG include California Phase 3 RFG (CaRFG3)
regulations, correction of errors and streamlined requirements for
compliance with and enforcement of the CaRFG3 standards, and an update
to the State's predictive model to mitigate permeation emissions
associated with the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. The revisions
relating to diesel fuel establish test methods for determining the
aromatic hydrocarbon content in diesel fuel and lower the maximum
allowable sulfur content for motor vehicle diesel fuel.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2009-0344, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4152<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
proposed action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               NAICSs codes
          Category                  \a\        SIC codes \b\       Examples of potentially regulated parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................          324110            2911  Petroleum refiners.
Industry....................          422710            5171  Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
                                      422720            5172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether an entity is regulated by this proposed action, one should
carefully examine the RFG provisions at 40 CFR part 80. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. California Reformulated Gasoline and California Diesel Fuel
Programs

A. What Is the SIP-Approved California Program for Reformulated
Gasoline?

    Gasoline sold in California is generally subject to federal
standards promulgated by EPA pursuant to section 211(k) of the CAA.\1\
The federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program has had two phases.
Phase I was effective from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1999 and
Phase II has been in effect since January 1, 2000. The Federal Phase II
program is similar to the Phase I program but requires additional
reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and toxic air pollutants. In addition to the
Federal standards, gasoline sold in California is also subject to
standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).\2\ The
California RFG program consists of three phases. California RFG Phase 1
was replaced by the more stringent requirements of California RFG Phase
2 (CaRFG2), effective March 1, 1996. CARB further strengthened its
standards when it promulgated the California RFG Phase 3 (CaRFG3)
regulations on August 3, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E and F.
    \2\ Section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits States (and political
subdivisions of states) from prescribing or attempting to enforce
controls or prohibitions respecting any fuel characteristic or
component if EPA has prescribed a control or prohibition applicable
to such fuel characteristic or component under section 211(c)(1).
This preemption applies to all states except California, as
explained in section 211(c)(4)(B). Thus, the SIP approval and
boutique fuels provisions of 211(c)(4)(C) do not apply here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, EPA adopted exemptions from certain enforcement provisions
in the Federal RFG regulations for refiners, blenders and importers of
gasoline sold for use in California and subject to CaRFG2.\3\ These
exemptions were based on a comparison of CaRFG2 with Federal RFG Phase
I, and later Federal RFG Phase II gasoline, and were based on the
following findings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 59 FR 7716, 7758 (February 16, 1994) and 63 FR 34818
(June 26, 1998). The original enforcement exemptions expired in 1999
when the Federal Phase II RFG started but, after comparing CaRFG2
and Federal Phase II RFG, we continued those exemptions. 64 FR 49992
(September 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The emissions reductions from the CaRFG2 standards would be
equal to or greater than the applicable Federal standards;
    (2) The benzene content of CaRFG2 would be equivalent in practice
to the Federal standards (as well as the then-applicable oxygen content
standard in Federal RFG areas); and
    (3) CARB's compliance and enforcement program was designed to be
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that Federal requirements would be
fulfilled in practice.
    We approved the California Phase 1 and Phase 2 regulation \4\ into
the SIP on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The California Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as
contained in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
sections 2250, 2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 2262.2,
2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, 2296,
and 2297, initially approved by CARB on November 17, 1988, and
formally adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991,
October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Is the SIP-Approved Program for California Diesel Fuel?

    On October 1, 1993, both Federal \5\ and California standards for
diesel fuel took effect. These standards required reductions in sulfur
particulate and NOX emissions from vehicles burning diesel fuel. While
the programs were substantially similar, the California program set a
more stringent standard for aromatic hydrocarbons than the Federal
program. In addition, the California program applied to diesel fuel
used in on-road applications, like the Federal program, but also for
nonroad diesel vehicles like construction and farm equipment. We
approved the California diesel fuel rules \6\ on August 21, 1995 (60 FR
43379).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 55 FR 34120 (August 21, 1990). Specific CAA requirements
for diesel fuel sulfur content are found in section 211(i). On
August 21, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations pursuant to that
section at 55 FR 34120. EPA subsequently established more stringent
regulations for diesel sulfur content under the authority of section
211(c). See, e.g., the current regulations in 40 CFR part 86. 66 FR
5001 (January 18, 2001). Section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits states (and
political subdivisions of states) from prescribing or attempting to
enforce controls or prohibitions respecting any fuel characteristic
or component if EPA has prescribed a control or prohibition
applicable to such fuel characteristic or component under section
211(c)(1). This preemption applies to all states except California,
as explained in section 211(c)(4)(B). Thus, the SIP approval and
boutique fuels provisions of 211(c)(4)(C) do not apply here.
    \6\ The California Diesel Fuel regulations, as contained in 13
CCR 2281 and 2282, adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April
15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Regulations Did the State Submit?

California Reformulated Gasoline
    On June 15, 2004, the State submitted a series of amendments to the
reformulated gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2260-2272 as approved by
EPA in 1995 and referenced in footnote 3. Specifically, on August 3,
2000, the State adopted amendments that

established the CaRFG3 standards and program, including revisions
leading to the phase out of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) as a
gasoline oxygenate. Starting March 21, 2001, the State adopted a series
of rulemakings to amend 13 CCR 2260-2272 regarding certain limits for
denatured ethanol used in California gasoline and the model for
``California reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending'' or
``CARBOB.'' These amendments also allowed certain small refiners to
offset excess emissions from CaRFG3 with additional emission reductions
from lowering the aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel. On May
1, 2003, the State adopted amendments to 13 CCR 2262.6 and 2263 that
updated test methods used to comply with CaRFG3 regulations and also
delayed the phase out of MTBE by one year to avoid disrupting the
supply of gasoline in California.
    On February 3, 2009, the State submitted revisions to the
reformulated gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5,
2262.9, 2265 and 2266.5. These revisions were adopted by the State on
November 18, 2004. Among other things, the revisions updated the
procedure for evaluating alternative specifications for CaRFG3 using
the California Predictive Model. Also, the State submitted new
reformulated gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2260(a)(0.5), (0.7), (6.9),
(7.5), (8.5), (10.5), (10.7), (19.7), (19.8), (23.5), (23.7), (37),
(38), 2262.3(d), 2264.2(a)(3), (b)(5), and (d), 2265(c)(4), 2265.1,
2265.5 and 2266(b)(3), (4), and (5); and revisions to the existing
reformulated gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5,
2262.9, 2263, 2263.7, 2264.2, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2271 and 2273. These
new rules and revisions were adopted by the State on August 7, 2008.
Among other things these rules updated the California Predictive Model
in the CaRFG3 regulations to mitigate permeation emissions associated
with the use of ethanol as a fuel additive.
California Diesel Fuel
    On February 3, 2009, the State submitted revisions to the diesel
fuel rules found in 13 CCR 2281(c), 2282(b), 2282(c), and 2282(g).
These revisions were adopted on June 4, 1997. Among other things, the
revisions establish test methods for determining aromatic hydrocarbon
content in diesel fuel. Because Sections 2281 and 2282 are incorporated
by reference into the State's rules concerning exhaust and emission
standards and test procedures, those rules \7\ were amended to
incorporate the new language as well. Also, the State submitted new
diesel fuel rules found in 13 CCR 2284 and 2285 and amendments to the
diesel fuel rules found in 13 CCR 2281 and 2282. Because these
revisions pertain to rules that are incorporated by reference
elsewhere, those rules were amended to reflect the new language in 13
CCR 2281 and 2282.\8\ These rule changes, among other things, lowered
the maximum allowable sulfur content for motor vehicle diesel fuel and
were adopted by the State on July 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 13 CCR 1956.8(b) and 13 CCR 1961.1(d), which include
nonsubstantive changes that corrected the publication dates of
certain documents incorporated by reference.
    \8\ See 13 CCR 1961 (Exhaust Emission and Test Standards--2004
and Subsequent Model Passenger Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks and
Medium-Duty Vehicles), 13 CCR 2701 (adding the definition of ``15
ppmw or less sulfur fuel''), and 17 CCR 93114 (applying the
requirements of 13 CCR 2281, 2282 and 2284 to nonvehicular diesel
fuel except diesel fuel solely for use in locomotives and marine
engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation of California Reformulated Gasoline and California
Diesel Fuel SIP Submittals

A. What Requirements Apply to These SIP Submittals?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable. See CAA section 110(a).
Monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and associated requirements
generally ensure that the submitted rule can be enforced. In addition,
section 110(l) of the CAA provides that EPA shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.
    Some of the SIP revisions submitted by the State are non-
substantive editorial or format changes. Some substantive changes are
considered minor. Major substantive changes are discussed below. A
detailed analysis of all revisions can be found in the Technical
Support Document that accompanies this proposed action.

B. Are These SIP Submittals Approvable?

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG3) Regulations and Subsequent
Amendments
    The applicable Federal requirements for reformulated gasoline are
found in section 211(k) of the CAA. Section 211(k) directs EPA to set
requirements for Federal RFG in certain ozone nonattainment areas, as
well as ``anti-dumping'' requirements for the rest of the nation. The
current requirements for Federal RFG include reductions in ozone-
forming VOCs, NOX, and toxic air pollutants from gasoline-
powered motor vehicles. As stated above, the regulations for Federal
RFG can be found at 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E and F. In California,
Federal RFG is required in the San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, San
Diego and Sacramento.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm for a map
and 40 CFR 80.70 for a list of covered areas in the State. A copy of
the map has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2005, we exempted refiners, blenders and importers
of CaRFG3 from certain enforcement provisions in the Federal RFG
regulations found at 40 CFR 80.81.\10\ In extending the enforcement
exemption to CaRFG3, we made the following determinations: (1) That
emission reductions from CaRFG3 would be equal to or greater than the
emission reductions from Federal Phase II RFG standards; (2) that the
content standard for benzene in CaFRG3 would be equivalent in practice
to the Federal Phase II RFG standard and that the oxygen content
standard of 2.0 weight percent would be met in Federal RFG areas; \11\
and (3) that the CARB compliance and enforcement program is
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that Federal Phase II RFG requirements
would be met in practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 70 FR 75914. The CaRFG3 regulations and related
standards that are the subject of EPA's December 21, 2005
enforcement exemption represent the May 1, 2003 version of the
California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, 13 CCR 2250 et seq.
    \11\ In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Act), Congress
removed the oxygen content requirement for RFG found in Section
211(k) of the CAA. The Energy Act made this change immediately
effective in California, and 270 days after enactment for the rest
of the country. We published a direct final rule to remove the
oxygen content requirement for RFG for gasoline produced and sold
for use in California, thereby making the fuels regulations
consistent with amended Section 211(k)at 71 FR 8965 (February 22,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's compliance and enforcement program has not changed since we
made the above finding regarding its adequacy.\12\ Therefore we are
proposing to approve as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)
the CaRFG3 regulations and subsequent amendments to those regulations,
submitted to us on February 3, 2009, to correct errors, allow
additional compliance options, and update recordkeeping requirements.
Moreover, because the submitted SIP revisions strengthen the
requirements in the

approved SIP, EPA has determined that approval of these regulations is
consistent with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CARB's most recent annual enforcement report indicates that
fuels inspection and enforcement cases are slightly higher now than
when we approved the State's compliance and enforcement program in
2006. See ``2007 Annual Enforcement Report'' California Air
Resources Board, May, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Diesel Fuel
    As stated above, specific CAA requirements for reformulated diesel
fuel are found in section 211(i) of the CAA. Additionally, EPA has
promulgated diesel fuel regulations, known as the ``Highway and Nonroad
Diesel Rule,'' pursuant to section 211(c) of the Act which improved
fuel quality by lowering sulfur levels for onroad diesel fuel from 500
ppm to 15 ppm (``ultra-low sulfur diesel''), starting June 1, 2006.\13\
This improvement allowed for the use of new technologies to reduce
emissions from diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 80.29. See 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001). See also
70 FR 70498 (November 22, 2005) and 71 FR 25705 (May 1, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective May 31, 2006, as part of technical amendments to its
Highway and Nonroad Diesel Rule,\14\ EPA exempted ``California diesel
fuel'' from certain labeling, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.\15\ The basis for this exemption was that California
diesel was subject to requirements that equaled or exceeded the
requirements for diesel fuel in the Highway and Nonroad Diesel Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 71 FR 25705 (May 1, 2006).
    \15\ See 40 CFR 80.616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California regulations at 13 CCR 2281, proposed for approval in
this action, impose a 15 ppm sulfur content standard in diesel fuel as
of June 1, 2006 and this standard applies to diesel fuel used in
intrastate locomotive and marine engines as of January 2007. Moreover,
the California sulfur standard for diesel fuel does not include a
temporary compliance option for highway diesel fuel or the small
refiner and credit provisions included in the Federal program.
Consequently, the California sulfur content standard for diesel fuel
exceeds the requirements of the Federal ultra-low sulfur diesel program
at 40 CFR 80.29.
    California requires the use of ASTM standard D5186, a Supercritical
Fluid Chromatography method, to measure the aromatic hydrocarbon
content of diesel fuel. 13 CCR 2282(c). This method replaced ASTM D1319
which is a column chromatography method originally designed for use
with gasoline. The replacement method, D5186, was developed for use
with diesel fuels and is a more reliable measure of aromatic
hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel. Consequently, this test method is
an improvement over the past SIP-approved test method.
    The State's compliance and enforcement program for diesel fuel is
part of the fuels inspection program reviewed by EPA and found on
December 21, 2005 to be sufficient to ensure that State standards for
RFG would be met. Because the State's inspection program covers both
RFG and diesel fuel, we make the same determination today for diesel
fuel.
    CARB's compliance and enforcement program for its diesel fuel
program is the same as for California RFG. As stated above, we
determined that the enforcement and compliance program for RFG was
adequate in connection with our extension of our enforcement exemption
to CaRFG3. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the State's revisions
and amendments to its diesel fuel rules as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a). Moreover, because the submitted SIP revisions
strengthen the approved SIP, EPA has determined that approval of these
regulations is consistent with CAA section 110(l).

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to approve as
revisions to the California SIP the California RFG regulations sold or
supplied as motor vehicle fuel in California as submitted on June 15,
2004 and February 3, 2009. Additionally, we are proposing approval of
the revisions to the diesel fuel regulations sold or supplied in
California as submitted on February 3, 2009.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by
directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. Today's action involves proposed approvals of
test methods for determining the aromatic hydrocarbon content in diesel
fuel and the lowering of the maximum allowable sulfur content for motor
vehicle diesel fuel in California; and corrects errors and streamline
certain requirements for compliance and enforcement of the Phase III
California RFG and update its predictive model to mitigate permeation
emissions associated with the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. It
will not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on any
communities in the state, including minority and low-income
communities.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-16364 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41114-41117]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1025; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-096-AD;
Amendment 39-17894; AD 2014-13-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; and DHC-8-
200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of
a beta warning horn (BWH) system failing to activate when the beta mode
was triggered. This AD requires modifying the BWH microswitch
installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent the inadvertent
activation of ground beta mode during flight, which could lead to
engine overspeed, engine damage or failure, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 19, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 19,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1025 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email thd.qseries@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Fredrickson, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Flight Test Branch, ANE-173, FAA; NY Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.,
Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; and DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75291).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2012-01R1, dated March 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -
106 airplanes; and DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI
states:

* * * * *
    During an on-ground Beta Warning Horn (BWH) system check
conducted in the wake of an in-flight Beta range operation incident
on a DHC-8 Series 200 aeroplane, it was discovered that the BWH
system failed to activate when the Beta mode was triggered.
    An investigation by Bombardier had determined that the
deformation of the flexible center console cover could cause the BWH
system triggering microswitch to malfunction, resulting in dormant
failure of the BWH system. To mitigate the safety risk by minimizing
the risk exposure period, [TCCA] * * * mandate[d] a 50 hours
periodic operational test of the BWH system functionality.
    To address the root cause of the subject problem, Bombardier has
issued Service Bulletin (SB) 8-76-33 that modifies the BWH
microswitch installation by replacing the BWH microswitch attachment
bracket with a new, more robust bracket that is not affected by
deformation of the center console cover. [Canadian] AD CF-2012-01 is
therefore revised to mandate compliance with SB 8-76-33 as
terminating action for the 50 hours periodic operational test
requirement.

The unsafe condition is the inadvertent activation of ground beta mode
during flight, which could lead to engine overspeed, engine damage or
failure, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. You
may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1025-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 75291, December 11,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in this AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a
foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (78 FR 75291, December 11, 2013), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (78 FR 75291, December 11,
2013 about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed
wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that
Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or
Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). Where necessary
throughout this AD, we also replaced any reference to approvals of
corrective actions with a reference to the Contacting the Manufacturer
paragraph.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not DAO-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase

flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM discussed previously, Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out
that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the
foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the
FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an
approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition,
before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with
the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the
manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and
expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have
decided not to include a generic reference to either the ``delegated
agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design organization
approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific delegation
approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH in the
Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 75291, December 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 75291, December 11, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $117 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $66,928, or $712 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1025; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-13-18 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17894. Docket No. FAA-
2013-1025; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-096-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 19, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -
106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any
category; serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive with a beta
warning horn (BWH) (Mod 8/2852) incorporated; except for airplanes
that have incorporated Bombardier option CR873CH00003, CR873CH00005,
CR873SOO8112, or MS8Q902206.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments;
Code 76, Engine Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a BWH system failing to
activate when the beta mode was triggered. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the inadvertent activation of ground beta mode during
flight, which could lead to engine overspeed, engine damage or
failure, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Terminating Modification

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD: Modify the BWH microswitch
installation by replacing the existing BWH microswitch installation
bracket with a new bracket having part number 87610164-003, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-76-33, dated December 13, 2012.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport
Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-01R1, dated March 6, 2013,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2013-1025-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-33, dated December 13,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15952 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C.

Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology Office of Water MEMORANDUM DATE: December 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Observations of Foam in Discharge Canals of 2 Power Plants FROM: Dana A. Thomas, Ph. D.

TO: W 00 32 Docket On a recent ( 12/ 26/ 02) personal visit to Tampa Electric Company's Manatee Viewing Center at the Big Bend Station in Apollo Beach, FL, I observed foam in the discharge canal clearly flowing out of the discharge pipe. Inside the discharge structure, I observed large amounts of foam accumulate before being discharged into the canal. On an EPA site visit to the Chalk Point facility in Maryland on 5/ 1/ 02, I observed the same sort of foam in the discharge canal. At both locations, foam was not present elsewhere in the waterbody. The presence of foam in a waterbody is indication of high levels of dissolved organic carbon.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 26451]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-681-001.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Connector, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing CC Cheyenne Connector (CP18-102-001)
Amendment Compliance to be effective 5/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-682-001.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing REX Cheyenne Hub Enhancement (CP18-
103-001) Amendment Compliance to be effective 5/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-801-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Filing-Macquarie Energy LLC to be effective 5/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-802-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report of Alliance
Pipeline L.P. under RP20-802.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-803-000.
    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 4-24-20 to be
effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-804-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 4-24-20 to be
effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200424-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-805-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2020 Operational and Purchases Sales
Report.
    Filed Date: 4/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200427-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-806-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing 2020 Operational Purchases and Sales
Report.
    Filed Date: 4/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200427-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-807-000.
    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2020 Operational Purchases and Sales
Report.
    Filed Date: 4/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200427-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-808-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--NJR Energy
910531 & 911426 eff 5-1-2020 to be effective 5/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/27/20.
    Accession Number: 20200427-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 28, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09442 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 71790]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0114; Notice No. 2016-19]

Hazardous Materials: International Standards on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform interested persons that PHMSA will
conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, in preparation
for the 50th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG) to be held in Geneva,
Switzerland from November 28 to December 6, 2016. During this public
meeting, PHMSA will be requesting comments relative to potential new
work items that may be considered for inclusion in the international
agenda.

DATES: Tuesday, November 15, 2016; from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOT Headquarters, West Building, Oklahoma City Conference
Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Advanced Meeting Registration: DOT requests that attendees pre-
register for this meeting by completing the form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CRPK2YY. Failure to pre-register may delay your
access into the DOT Headquarters building. Additionally, if you are
attending in person, arrive early to allow time for security checks
necessary to access the building.
    Conference call-in and ``Skype meeting'' capability will be
provided. Specific information on such access will be posted when
available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international under
``Upcoming Events.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Webb or Aaron Wiener, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington,
DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this meeting is to
prepare for the 50th session of the UNSCOE TDG. This session represents
the final meeting scheduled for the 2015-2016 biennium. UNSCOE will
consider proposals for the 20th Revised Edition of the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations
(Model Regulations), which may be implemented into relevant domestic,
regional, and international regulations from January 1, 2019. Copies of
working documents, informal documents, and the meeting agenda may be
obtained from the United Nations Transport Division's Web site at
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc3/c3age.html.
    General topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE TDG meeting include:
     Explosives and related matters;
     Listing, classification, and packing;
     Electric storage systems;
     Transport of gases;
     Global harmonization of transport of dangerous goods
regulations with the Model Regulations;
     Guiding principles for the Model Regulations;
     Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA);
     New proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations;
     Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); and
     Miscellaneous pending issues.
    Following the 50th session of the UNSCOE TDG, a copy of the Sub-
Committee's report will be available at the United Nations Transport
Division's Web site at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc3/c3rep.html. PHMSA's Web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international provides additional information regarding the UNSCOE TDG
and related matters.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 13, 2016.
Rachel Meidl,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-25181 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12803-12805]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04268]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68951; File No. SR-BATS-2013-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

February 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 11, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify pricing applicable to the
Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options'') with respect to orders
routed away by the Exchange and executed at BOX Options Exchange LLC
(``BOX'') and C2 Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2''). The Exchange also
proposes to modify BATS Options pricing for certain directed
intermarket sweep orders (``Directed ISOs'') routed to BOX [sic], C2,
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCA'') and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options''), as
further described below.
    BATS Options currently charges certain flat rates for routing to
other options exchanges that have been placed into groups based on the
approximate cost of routing to such venues. The grouping of away
options exchanges is based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). As explained below, the
Exchange proposes to impose the same pricing for executions at C2 as is
currently charged by the Exchange for orders routed to and executed at
BX Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities and to eliminate fees for
Customer orders executed at BOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange currently charges different fees and provides
different rebates depending on whether an options class is an
options class that qualifies as a Penny Pilot Security pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01 or is a non-Penny
Pilot Security. Certain other options exchanges also have different
pricing for Penny Pilot Securities and non-Penny Pilot Securities.
Accordingly, in certain cases, the Exchange's routing fees also vary
with respect to the fees for orders executed at such exchanges.
However, in order to maintain a simple routing table, depending on
the level of applicable fees and the affect of such fees upon
Exchange Routing Costs, the Exchange has also chosen to charge all
executions at certain venues a flat rate rather than differentiating
between Penny Pilot Securities and non-Penny Pilot Securities. This
is the case with respect to routing to BOX and C2, as proposed to be
amended by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on applicable Routing Costs, the Exchange currently charges
$0.11 per contract for Customer \7\ orders executed at BOX, NYSE MKT
LLC (``AMEX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), the
MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX''), BX Options in Penny Pilot Securities,
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') in Classic issues, and
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX''). The Exchange currently charges $0.57
per contract for Professional,\8\ Firm, and Market Maker \9\ orders
executed at BOX, AMEX, CBOE, MIAX, BX Options in Penny Pilot
Securities, ISE in Classic issues, and PHLX. BOX currently charges an
initial base fee for transactions that remove liquidity and then
certain credits are applied to such transactions that remove liquidity.
This results in variable rebates for Customer orders routed by the
Exchange to BOX. Based on this fee structure, the Exchange proposes to
provide routing of Customer orders to BOX without imposing a fee, which
is the same pricing currently applied by the Exchange to executions of
Customer orders routed to BX Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities,
which, like BOX,

also provides rebates for Customer orders. The Exchange is not
proposing to change pricing for executions for Professional, Firm and
Market Maker orders at BOX and will continue to charge $0.57 per
contract for such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, a ``Customer''
order is any transaction identified by a Member for clearing in the
Customer range at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), except
for those designated as ``Professional''.
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' is defined in Exchange Rule 16.1
to mean any person or entity that (A) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (B) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
    \9\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the terms
``Firm'' and ``Market Maker'' apply to any transaction identified by
a member for clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range,
respectively, at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on applicable Routing Costs, the Exchange currently charges
$0.52 per contract for Customer orders executed at C2, ARCA in Penny
Pilot Securities, and the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') in Penny
Pilot Securities. The Exchange currently charges $0.57 per contract for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders executed at C2, ARCA in
Penny Pilot Securities, and NOM in Penny Pilot Securities. Recent
pricing changes by C2 will result in a maximum fee of $0.85 per
contract for Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders executed at C2
and rebates or free executions for Customer orders executed at C2.
Based on such changes, the Exchange proposes to align the pricing for
orders routed to and executed at C2 with the pricing currently charged
by the Exchange for orders routed to and executed at BX Options in non-
Penny Pilot Securities. Accordingly, with respect to orders routed to
C2, the Exchange proposes to provide executions of Customer orders
without imposing a fee and to charge $0.95 per contract for
Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders.
    In order to cover the cost of removing liquidity in non-Penny Pilot
Securities at NOM, including Routing Costs, the Exchange currently
charges a flat fee of $0.95 per contract for all executions of Directed
ISOs routed to NOM in non-Penny Pilot Securities. This is the same fee
as the Exchange charges for executions of Professional, Firm and Market
Maker orders routed to NOM in non-Penny Pilot Securities generally. The
fee of $0.95 per contract is slightly more than the Exchange's standard
fee of $0.90 per contract for Customer orders executed at NOM in non-
Penny Pilot Securities.
    In order to achieve consistency with the Exchange's fees for
Directed ISOs routed to NOM, the Exchange proposes to extend its
Directed ISO pricing to all other types of routed executions for which
the Exchange charges a routing fee of $0.90 or more. Specifically, in
addition to continuing to charge $0.95 per contract for all executions
of Directed ISOs routed to NOM in non-Penny Pilot Securities, the
Exchange proposes to charge a flat fee of $0.95 per contract for
Directed ISOs routed to and executed by: (1) ARCA in non-Penny Pilot
Securities, (2) BX Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities to the extent
such Directed ISOs are Professional, Firm or Market Maker orders, and
(3) C2 to the extent such Directed ISOs are Professional, Firm or
Market Maker orders.
    The Exchange will continue to impose a flat fee of $0.60 per
contract for any other Directed ISO.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\10\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes
that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees to BOX and C2 is
fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an
approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such
exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure for orders
routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing,
as it provides certainty with respect to execution fees at groups of
away options exchanges. Under its flat fee structure, taking all costs
to the Exchange into account, the Exchange may operate at a slight gain
or a slight loss for orders routed to and executed at C2 and will
operate at a gain for Customer orders routed to BOX. As a general
matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will allow it to
recoup and cover its costs of providing routing services to such
exchanges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure
for orders routed to and executed at these away options exchanges is
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it
applies equally to all Members.
    The Exchange notes that under their pricing models, BOX and C2
provide certain rebates for executions that the Exchange is not
proposing to pass on to the entering Member; instead, the Exchange
proposes to provide such executions free of charge. The Exchange
specifically believes that its pricing structure for Customer orders
routed to BOX and C2 is reasonable because, although not an
approximation of the cost of routing per se, Customer orders will still
receive executions free of charge, whereas all other routed orders
(other than Customer orders to BX Options) are charged a fee that
includes applicable Routing Costs. The Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing for Customer orders routed to BOX and C2 is fair and
equitable and non-discriminatory because it will apply equally to all
Members, and because Members can and will likely route directly to BX
Options to the extent they are specifically seeking the rebate provided
for such orders. Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposed fee
for routing of Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders to C2 is
reasonable because it is an approximation of the maximum fees the
Exchange will be charged for such executions, including Routing Costs.
    As explained above, the Exchange has also proposed to increase fees
for Directed ISO's to ARCA in non-Penny Pilot Securities, to BX Options
in non-Penny Pilot Securities (Professional, Firm or Market Maker
orders only), and to C2 (Professional, Firm or Market Maker orders) to
$0.95 per contract (from the current charge of $0.60 per contract for
all Directed ISO's other than in non-Penny Pilot Securities routed to
NOM). The Exchange believes that this increase is fair, equitable and
reasonable because the fees are also an approximation of the cost to
the Exchange for routing orders to such options exchanges. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and
executed at these away options exchanges is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
    The Exchange reiterates that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. Finally,
the Exchange notes that it constantly evaluates its routing fees,
including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in

connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would
consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the
extent it was recouping a significant profit from routing to another
options exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will
assist the Exchange in recouping costs for routing orders to other
options exchanges on behalf of its participants. The Exchange also
notes that Members may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for
routing to avoid incurring routing fees.\12\ As stated above, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers of routing
services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See BATS Rule 21.1(d)(8) (describing ``BATS Only'' orders
for BATS Options) and BATS Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the BATS
Options routing process, which requires orders to be designated as
available for routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\14\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to the
Exchange's Members and non-members, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2013-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-012. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-BATS-2013-012 and should be
submitted on or before March 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-04268 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P