[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67278-67281]
[DOCID:fr18de09-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61154; File No. SR-ISE-2009-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Registered Representative Fee and an Options
Regulatory Fee

December 11, 2009.
    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 December 9, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to eliminate
registered representative fees and institute a new transaction-based
``Options Regulatory Fee.'' The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
Commission's Web site at (http://www.sec.gov) 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change is based on a filing previously submitted
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') that was effective on
filing.\3\ ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to eliminate
registered representative fees and institute a new transaction-based
``Options Regulatory Fee.'' ISE rules require that members who do
business with the public qualify and register their options principals
and representatives. Each ISE member that registers an options
principal and/or representative is assessed a registered representative
fee (``RR Fee'') based on the action associated with the registration.
RR Fees as well as other regulatory fees collected by the Exchange are
intended to cover a portion of the cost of the Exchange's regulatory
programs. RR Fees have been in place since ISE's inception in 2000 and
remained unchanged until 2007.\4\ There are annual fees as well as
initial, transfer and termination fees. Today, all options exchanges,
regardless of size, charge similar registered representative fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58817 (October 20,
2008), 73 FR 63744 (October 27, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-105).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55899 (June 12,
2007), 72 FR 33794 (June 19, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE believes the current RR Fee is not equitable. The options
industry has evolved to a structure with many more Internet-based and
discount brokerage firms. These firms have few registered
representatives and thus pay very little in RR Fees compared to full
service brokerage firms that have many registered representatives. More
importantly, the regulatory effort the Exchange expends to review the
transactions of each type of firm is not commensurate with the number
of registered representatives that each firm employs.
    Further, due to the manner in which RR Fees are charged, it is
possible for a member firm to restructure its business to avoid paying
these fees altogether. A firm can avoid RR Fees by terminating its ISE
membership and sending its business to the Exchange through another
member firm, even an affiliated firm that has many fewer registered
representatives. Indeed, some firms have done just this to avoid paying
these fees. If firms terminated their memberships to avoid RR Fees, the
Exchange would suffer the loss of a major source of funding for its
regulatory programs. The Exchange notes that at least three firms have
terminated their membership to avoid RR Fees. The Exchange believes
other firms may do the same unless the Exchange addresses its
regulatory fee structure.
    In order to address the inequity of the current regulatory fee
structure and to curtail any further loss of memberships and by
extension, loss of regulatory revenue, ISE proposes to eliminate the
current RR Fee and adopt an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') of $0.0035
per contract, with a minimum one-cent charge per trade. This fee would
be assessed by the Exchange to each member for all options transactions
executed or cleared by the member that are cleared by The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e.,
transactions that clear in the customer account of the member's
clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the marketplace of execution. In
other words, ISE would impose the ORF on all transactions executed by a
member, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.\5\
The ORF would also be charged for transactions that are not executed by
an ISE member but are ultimately cleared by an ISE member. In the case
where an ISE member executes a transaction and an ISE member clears the
transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the member who executed the
transaction. In the case where a non-ISE member executes a transaction
and an ISE member clears the transaction, the ORF would be assessed to
the ISE member who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ORF would apply to all customer orders executed by a
member on the Exchange. Exchange rules require each member to submit
trade information in order to allow the Exchange to properly
prioritize and match orders and quotations and report resulting
transactions to the OCC. See ISE Rule 712. The Exchange represents
that it has surveillances in place to verify that members comply
with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF would not be charged for member options transactions
because members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are
not applicable to non-members.\6\ The dues and fees paid by members go
into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to
help pay the costs of regulation. Based on the revenue model of the
Exchange, member fees fund the bulk of the Exchange's operations and
serve as the single-largest revenue source for the Exchange. Thus, the
Exchange believes members are already paying their fair share of the
costs of regulation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, most non-broker-dealer customers are not
charged transaction fees to trade on the Exchange.
    \7\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
propose to impose the ORF or a separate regulatory fee on members if
the Exchange deems it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the ORF would replace RR Fees, which relate to a member's
customer business. Further, RR Fees constituted the single-largest fee
assessed that is related to customer trading activity (in that the
Exchange generally does not charge customer transaction fees), the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes
that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to its members'
activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not
executed by a member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are
the same regardless of whether a member executes a transaction or
clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly
reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, frontrunning, contrary
exercise advice violations and insider trading.\8\ These activities
span across multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange also participates in The Options Regulatory
Surveillance Authority (``ORSA'') national market system plan and in
doing so shares information and coordinates with other exchanges
designed to detect the unlawful use of undisclosed material
information in the trading of securities options. ORSA is a national
market system comprised of several self-regulatory organizations
whose functions and objectives include the joint development,
administration, operation and maintenance of systems and facilities
utilized in the regulation, surveillance, investigation and
detection of the unlawful use of undisclosed material information in
the trading of securities options. The Exchange compensates ORSA for
the Exchange's portion of the cost to perform insider trading
surveillance on behalf of the Exchange. The ORF will cover the costs
associated with the Exchange's arrangement with ORSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the initial level of the fee is reasonable
because it relates to the recovery of the costs of supervising and
regulating members. In addition, the projected amount of revenue that
the ORF is intended to generate for the Exchange, on an annual basis,
is correlated to the amount of revenue that the RR Fee was intended to
generate at the time the RR Fee was first announced by the Exchange in

2007. Since that time, however, the number of registered
representatives has continued to materially decline, year over year.
Customer transaction volume, on the other hand, on the Exchange and in
the options industry overall, has, during that same period since 2007,
materially and continuously increased, year over year. As a result, the
spread between the amount of revenue collected under the RR Fee and the
Exchange's actual costs in administering its regulatory program has
continued to widen. As discussed herein, the Exchange believes that the
number of declining registered representatives is a result of firms
restructuring their business so as to avoid paying the RR Fee, to the
extent that the fee has caused a drop of nearly 25% in the number of
registered representatives in 2008, and cumulatively more than 35% in
2009. Accordingly, by correlating the amount of revenue to be generated
under the ORF to the amount of revenue that was intended to be
collected by the RR Fee at the time it was announced by the Exchange in
2007, the Exchange believes the amount of the ORF is fair and
reasonably allocated because it is a closer approximation to the
Exchange's actual costs in administering its regulatory program.
    The ORF would be collected indirectly from members through their
clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The Exchange expects
that member firms will pass-through the ORF to their customers in the
same manner that firms pass-through to their customers the fees charged
by Self Regulatory Organizations (``SROs'') to help the SROs meet their
obligations under Section 31 of the Exchange Act.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, as well as
policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover
substantially all of the Exchange's regulatory costs. At present, the
total amount of regulatory fees collected by the Exchange is less than
the regulatory costs incurred by the Exchange on an annual basis. RR
Fees make up the largest part of the Exchange's total regulatory fee
revenue. The Exchange generally does not charge customer transaction
fees. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to member compliance with options sales practice rules have
been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange would monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to
monitor regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on an annual basis.
If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs,
the Exchange would adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to
the Commission. The Exchange would notify members of adjustments to the
ORF via a Regulatory Information Circular.
    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitably allocated
because it would be charged to all members on all their customer
options business. The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is reasonable
because it will raise revenue related to the amount of customer options
business conducted by members, and thus the amount of Exchange
regulatory services those members will require, instead of how many
registered representative a particular member employs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange expects that implementation of the proposed ORF
will result generally in many traditional brokerage firms playing
less regulatory fees while Internet and discount brokerage firms
will pay more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a fully-electronic exchange without a trading floor, the amount
of resources required by ISE to surveil non-customer trading activity
is significantly less than the amount of resources the Exchange must
dedicate to surveil customer trading activity. This is because
surveilling customer trading activity is much more labor-intensive and
requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than
surveilling non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more
automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated
with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., market maker) of its
regulatory program.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by its members and their associated
persons with the Exchange Act and the rules of the Exchange and to
surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants
(including non-members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot
effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating
activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market
surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate
activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position
limit violations, manipulation, frontrunning and contrary exercise
advice violations.\10\ Also, ISE and the other options exchanges are
required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'')
system in order to surveil member activities across markets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2
agreement allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities
relating to compliance by the common members with rules for expiring
exercise declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and
Large Option Position Report reviews. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56941 (December 11, 2007).
    \11\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\12\ the Exchange shares information and coordinates
inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address
potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the Exchange Act requirement
that it have coordinated surveillance with markets on which security
futures are traded and markets on which any security underlying
security futures are traded to detect manipulation and insider
trading.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by cooperatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \13\ See Exchange Act Section 6(h)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share of
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then
members would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges could impose a similar fee on their member's
activity, including the activity of those members on ISE.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') currently assesses an options regulatory fee similar to
the one proposed herein, which fee is also assessed on the trading
activity of a CBOE member on ISE.

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

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee
\15\ and the CBOE's ORF.\16\ While the Exchange does not have all the
same regulatory responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that,
like the CBOE, its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to
its members' activities, irrespective of where their transactions take
place, supports a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other
markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only
to a member's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003).
    \16\ See supra Note 1 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
January 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes the ORF is objectively allocated
to ISE members because it would be charged to all members on all their
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange
believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those
member firms that require more Exchange regulatory services based on
the amount of customer options business they conduct.
    The Commission has addressed the funding of an SRO's regulatory
operations in the Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation \17\ and
the release on the Fair Administration and Governance of Self-
Regulatory Organizations.\18\ In the Concept Release, the Commission
states that: ``Given the inherent tension between an SRO's role as a
business and a regulator, there undoubtedly is a temptation for an SRO
to fund the business side of its operations at the expense of
regulation.'' \19\ In order to address this potential conflict, the
Commission proposed in the Governance Release rules that would require
an SRO to direct monies collected from regulatory fees, fines, or
penalties exclusively to fund the regulatory operations and other
programs of the SRO related to its regulatory responsibilities.\20\ The
Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will approximately be
equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the
Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes
and not to support the Exchange's business side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71256 (December 8, 2004) (``Concept Release'').
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004) (``Governance Release'').
    \19\ Concept Release at 71268.
    \20\ Governance Release at 71142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \21\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \22\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2009-105 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-ISE-2009-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 No. SR-ISE-2009-105 and should be
submitted on or before January 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30083 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46415-46417]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0386; FRL-9968-76-Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Adoption
of a New Chapter Under the Nebraska Administrative Code

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the state of Nebraska on November 14, 2011. Nebraska
is adding a new chapter titled ``Visibility Protection'' which provides
Nebraska authority to implement Federal regulations relating to
Regional Haze and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The new
chapter incorporates by reference EPA's Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule. The revision to the SIP
meets the visibility component of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 4, 2017,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
6, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0386, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Crable, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to
Nebraska's SIP that will amend title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative
Code to include rules regulating regional haze. This revision adds a
new chapter, chapter 43, entitled ``Visibility Protection'', to title
129 which incorporates by reference EPA Code of Federal Regulations
under title 40 part 51 of EPA's Guidelines for BART determiniations
under the Regional Haze Rule. This new chapter provides the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) the authority to require
sources to conduct BART determinations for the purpose of issuing BART
permits. This revision to title 129 is consistent with Federal
regulations related to Regional Haze and BART, adopting by reference
the definitions for the Federal Regional Haze rule at 40 CFR 51.301 and
adopts by reference, appendix Y, to 40 CFR part 51, ``Guidelines for
BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule.'' The revision to the
SIP also meets the visibility component of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(J). Approval of these revisions will not impact air quality
and will ensure consistency between the State and Federally approved
rules.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
revised chapter was placed on public notice and a public hearing was
held by the State on July 13, 2007, where no comments were received. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the state's request to revise the SIP to include
amendments to the Nebraska air quality rules as it relates to the
Regional Haze and Best Available Retrofit Technology.
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. EPA does not anticipate adverse comment because the
revisions to the existing rules are routine and consistent with the
Federal regulations, thereby, strengthening the SIP. However, in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing
a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to revise
title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, chapter 43, ``Visibility
Protection''. If adverse comments are received on this direct final
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Should EPA receive adverse comment on part of this rule
and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Nebraska
regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan,
are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and
will be incorporated by reference by the

Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1420(c) by revising the entry ``129-43'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
     Nebraska citation               Title         effective date   EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                STATE OF NEBRASKA
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                                       Department of Environmental Quality
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
                                   Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

                                                  * * * * * * *
129-43.....................  Visibility                    2/6/08  10/5/17 [Insert      ........................
                              Protection.                           Federal Register
                                                                    citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-21379 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10449-10451]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0120; Product Identifier 2018-NM-167-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of a cracked outboard spoiler
actuator mounting bracket. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections of the outboard spoiler actuator mounting brackets,
replacement of any cracked bracket, and eventual replacement of all
brackets with a re-designed part that would terminate the repetitive
inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

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-2019-
0120; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristopher Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
Aviation Safety Section AIR-7B1, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0120;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-167-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-21R1, effective
November 1, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled aileron inspection, a crack was found in the
right-hand outboard spoiler bracket of an in-service aircraft. An
investigation concluded that the crack was caused by low load, high
cycle fatigue. A cracked bracket could cause inoperability or jam of
a single spoiler panel and possible jam of the aileron circuit. This
condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the continued
safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.
    The original version of this [Canadian] AD required initial and
repetitive inspections of the outboard spoiler brackets, and
required

replacement of any brackets found cracked. It also required
replacement of the brackets with a new design, which terminates the
inspection requirement.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to correct an error
in the date of Service Bulletin (SB) 84-27-72 Revision A. This
[Canadian] AD also clarifies the part numbers of the outboard
spoiler actuator brackets and their assemblies.

The bracket replacement includes related investigative actions
(inspecting for damage of the fastener holes in the rear spar web) and
corrective actions (oversizing holes or other repair). You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0120.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-72, Revision A, dated
November 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
repetitively inspecting the left and right outboard spoiler actuator
mounting brackets for cracks, replacing cracked brackets, and
eventually replacing all brackets with re-designed parts, and related
investigative and corrective actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 53 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700........................          $4,142           $5,842         $309,626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0120; Product Identifier 2018-
NM-167-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 6, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, Serial Numbers 4001
through 4547 inclusive,

having outboard spoiler actuator brackets with part numbers
85714052-101 or 85714052-102.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked outboard spoiler
actuator mounting bracket. We are issuing this AD to address
cracking of the outboard spoiler actuator mounting brackets, which
could cause inoperability or jam of a single spoiler panel and
possible jam of the aileron circuit. This condition, if not
corrected, could adversely affect the continued safe operation and
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for cracks in the left
and right outboard spoiler actuator mounting brackets having part
number (P/N) 85714052-101 or 85714052-102 (belonging to assemblies
having P/N 85714018-001 or P/N 85714018-002, respectively), in
accordance with Section 3.B, Part A, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-72, Revision A,
dated November 9, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight hours.
    (1) For airplanes having less than 12,000 total flight hours as
of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of
18,000 total flight hours.
    (2) For airplanes having 12,000 total flight hours or more as of
the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) Part Replacement

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, either the left or right outboard spoiler actuator mounting
bracket is found cracked: Before further flight, replace both the
left and right brackets with new bracket assemblies having P/N
85714018-003 or P/N 85714018-004, including doing all applicable
related investigative actions and corrective actions, in accordance
with Section 3.B, Part B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-72, Revision A, dated November 9,
2017; except, where the service information specifies contacting
Bombardier for corrective action, this AD requires accomplishing the
action using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch,
FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier,
Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the
DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, no cracking is found on the left and right outboard spoiler
actuator mounting brackets, and the left and right outboard spoiler
actuator mounting brackets have not already been replaced per the
requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Replace both the left
and right brackets with new bracket assemblies having P/N 85714018-
003 or P/N 85714018-004, including doing all applicable related
investigative actions and corrective actions, at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, in
accordance with Section 3.B, Part B, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-72, Revision A,
dated November 9, 2017; except, where the service information
specifies contacting Bombardier for corrective action, this AD
requires accomplishing the action using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature. Related investigative and corrective actions
must be done before further flight.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 34,000 total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Replace the
outboard spoiler actuator mounting brackets prior to the airplane
accumulating 40,000 total flight hours.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 34,000 total flight
hours or more as of the effective date of this AD: Replace the
outboard spoiler actuator mounting brackets within 6,000 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Replacement of an outboard spoiler actuator mounting bracket, in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, is
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for the replaced bracket.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-27-72, dated January 19, 2017.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 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.
    (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, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-21R1, effective November 1, 2018, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0120.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kristopher
Greer, Aerospace Engineer, Aviation Safety Section AIR-7B1, Boston
ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For information about AMOCs, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 516-794-
5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) 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. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 13, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05209 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76206-76209]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-1044]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill
Basin; Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Mill Basin surrounding the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge. This
rule allows the Coast Guard to prohibit all vessel traffic through the
safety zone during bridge replacement operations, both planned and
unforeseen, that could pose an imminent hazard to persons and vessels
operating in the area. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety
of life in the vicinity of the construction of the new Shore (Belt)
Parkway Bridge and demolition of the old Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2014-1044 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
LNM Local Notice to Mariners
nm Nautical miles
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NYC DOT New York City Department of Transportation
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On Friday, March 13, 2015 the Coast Guard published a NPRM titled,
``Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill Basin,
Brooklyn, NY'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 13309). There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to this bridge construction. During the comment period
that ended May 12, 2015, we received one comment. No public meetings
were requested or held.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The COTP New
York has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge
construction may occur within a 200-yard radius of the bridge. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels, workers, and the
navigable waters in the safety zone associated with the bridge
construction operations.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published March
13, 2015. In response, there are two changes in the regulatory text of
this rule from the published NPRM.
    A representative of Miramar Yacht Club, located on Sheepshead Bay,
NY, submitted a comment identifying nine issues to the proposed
rulemaking. Many of the omissions cited by Miramar Yacht Club occurred
due to the limited construction schedule timeline in possession of the
Coast Guard at the time the proposed rulemaking was published. The nine
issues are as follows:
    1. Failure to require entry and egress to Mill Basin at least 3-4
days every week during daylight hours.
    Access to Mill Basin will be provided daily during daylight hours.
The existing work plan will only require an approximate 30-minute
channel closure, approximately July through August, during steel
erection. This is similar to the steel erection procedures and channel
closures in use at the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge replacement project
over Gerritsen Inlet, approximately 1.2 nm to the southwest. Upon
completion of the new bridge, channel closures during demolition of the
existing bridge are scheduled during the winter of 2016-2017. NYC DOT
must still submit channel closure requests to USCG Sector New York for
final approval. Enforcement times may last longer than 30 minutes
during demolition of the existing Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge.
    2. Failure to ensure that entry and egress to Mill Basin is
available in advance of a named storm in order to take refuge and be
hauled out at a boat yard.
    Entry and egress to Mill Basin will be available in advance of a
named storm.
    3. Failure to require at least two weeks prior notice of pending
closures to Mill Basin users.
    NYC DOT will provide at least two weeks' notice prior to pending
channel closures. NYC DOT has established a community relations liaison
position for this project as they have for the Shore (Belt) Parkway
Bridge replacement project over Gerritsen Inlet. Persons requesting to
be added to the liaison's notification list for project updates may
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> extension
114. Additional project information is available at https://www.facebook.com/beltparkway and http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/beltpkwybrgs_eng.pdf.
    4. Failure to prohibit or significantly limit closures from May
through October during high recreational traffic in Mill Basin.
    In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See
our response in paragraph 1 above.
    5. Failure to restrict NYC DOT operations which create or are at
risk of creating an imminent hazard to Mill Basin users or limit vessel
access when vessel traffic is least affected.
    In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See
our response in paragraph 1 above.
    6. Failure to require NYC DOT to establish and maintain a
construction schedule which minimizes and mitigates interference with
vessel access to, from, and through Mill Basin.
    In actuality, channel closures are limited during this project. See
our response in paragraph 1 above. In addition, the USCG Bridge Permit
5-09-1 requires that, ``All work shall be so conducted that the free
navigation of the waterway is not unreasonably interfered with and the
present navigable depths are not impaired. Timely notice of any and all
events that may affect navigation shall be given to the District
Commander during construction of the bridge''.
    7. Failure to address the fact that NYC DOT operations are
subordinate to the USCG's obligations to keep access to the navigable
waterways of the United States free from obstruction and interference
and not vice-versa.
    The bridge is being constructed under the authority of a bridge
permit issued by the USCG. The safety zone is being established under
the Federal authorities listed in the Regulatory text. NYC DOT must
still submit channel closure requests to USCG Sector New York for final
approval. However, USCG Bridge Permit 5-09-1 states, ``Issuance of this
permit does not relieve the permittee of the obligation or
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of any other law or
regulation as may be under the jurisdiction of any federal, state or
local authority having cognizance of any aspect of the location,
construction or maintenance of said bridge''.
    8. Failure to require the least burdensome restriction of access
possible.
    See our response in paragraphs 1 and 6 above as to how channel
closures are limited during this project.
    9. Failure to have a ``sun set'' provision in the rule which
clarifies the temporary right to direct Mill Basin waterway closures.
    As stated in the NPRM (Discussion of Proposed Rule), the current
construction completion date for the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge
Replacement work over Mill Basin is 2021. Not publishing a contract
completion date in the Regulatory text allows the USCG to enforce the
safety zone if there are any unforeseen circumstances that prevents the
contractors from finishing the project on time. If a contract
completion date (``sun set provision'') was published in the Regulatory
text and the project was not completed on time, then publication of an
additional Temporary Final Rule would have been required that in all
likelihood would not have provided a public comment period. Once the
bridge project is complete, the USCG will disestablish this regulation
via a Direct Final Rule.
    As a result of the comment we received, we are making the following
two changes to the regulatory text:
    1. This regulation is assigned the permanent section number of 33
CFR

165.161, instead of the temporary section number of 33 CFR 165.T01-1044
as published in the NPRM. This is because we did not provide a project
completion date in the regulatory text in case the project is not
completed on time. We will disestablish this permanent rule by
publishing a Direct Final Rule upon project completion.
    2. The Enforcement Periods notification regulations proposed in
Sec.  165.161(c)(2) of the NPRM is revised to the standard notification
requirement listed in 33 CFR 165.7. The two week notification process
for channel closures does not allow sufficient time for us to draft,
review, and obtain the COTP's signature, and have the Notification of
Enforcement published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to
each channel closure.
    This rule establishes a safety zone on January 7, 2016. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the Shore
(Belt) Parkway Mill Basin Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels, workers, and the navigable waters in
the safety zone associated with the bridge construction and demolition
operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety
zone will impact a small designated area of Mill Basin for
approximately 30 minute intervals during weekdays when vessel traffic
is normally low. Safety zone enforcement times may be longer during
demolition operations of the old Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge. Moreover,
the Coast Guard will issue a District One Local Notice to Mariners
(LNM) via http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lnmMain about the zone.
In addition, NYC DOT has established a community liaison to notify
affected mariners about this project. Persons requesting to be added to
the liaison's notification list for project updates may email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> extension 114.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 30
minutes during steel erection that will prohibit entry within 200 yards
of the Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge over Mill Basin. Enforcement times
may last longer than 30 minutes during demolition of the old Shore
(Belt) Parkway Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.161 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.161  Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction,
Mill Basin, Brooklyn, NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters from
surface to bottom of Mill Basin within 200 yards of the Shore (Belt)
Parkway Mill Basin bridge, east of a line drawn from 40[deg]36'24.29''
N., 073[deg]54'02.59'' W. to 40[deg]36'11.36'' N., 073[deg]54'04.69''
W., and west of a line drawn from 40[deg]36'21.13'' N.,
073[deg]53'47.38'' W. to 40[deg]36'11.59'' N., 073[deg]53'48.88'' W.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
New York, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative
may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will
communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition,
members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel
operators of this regulation.
    (2) Official patrol vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement periods. (1) This safety zone is in effect
permanently starting January 7, 2016, but will only be enforced when
deemed necessary by the COTP.
    (2) The COTP will rely on the methods described in Sec.  165.7 to
notify the public of the enforcement of this safety zone. Such
notifications will include the date and times of enforcement, along
with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23, as well as the regulations in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this
section, apply.
    (2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must
comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's
designated representative.
    (3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the
operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

    Dated: November 24, 2015.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-30906 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 39506]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2006-24812]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by letters received on April
19, 2023, and May 4, 2023, BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232 (Brake System Safety Standards
for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train
Devices). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2006-24812.
    Specifically, BNSF requests a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.213,
Extended haul trains, to continue operating extended haul trains for
distances of up to 1,702 miles, beyond the limit of 1,500 miles stated
in the regulation. In support of its request, BNSF states that it
maintains a 24-hour hotline to ``support FRA in identification of
active trains operating under this waiver and answer any operational
questions.'' BNSF further states that ``operations under this waiver
have reduced risk exposure for personal injuries involving walking and
driving vehicles during inspections on every train under this waiver.''
BNSF explains the relief has also ``improved upon crew rest and
eliminated 1,000s of hours of idle time[,] resulting in noise reduction
and reduced pollutant[s].''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by August 15, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-12929 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3926-3928]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00807-G;
Amendment 39-21924; AD 2022-03-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Stemme AG TSA-M Model S6 and S6-RT gliders. This AD was
prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as a new version of the propeller gearbox tooth
belt with a reduced life limit. This AD requires establishing a life
limit of 5 years for certain propeller gearbox tooth belts. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Stemme AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg,
Germany; phone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0; fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.stemme.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817)
222-5110. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1010.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1010; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Stemme AG TSA-M
Model S6 and S6-RT gliders. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on November 22, 2021 (86 FR 66229). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI
originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which
is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union.
EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0140, dated June 23, 2020 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition on Stemme AG
(Stemme) TSA-M Model S6 and S6-RT powered sailplanes (gliders) and ASP
S15-1 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Stemme TSA-M powered
sailplanes and Stemme ASP aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA,
are currently defined and published in Chapter 4 of the applicable
AMM [aircraft maintenance manual]. These instructions have been
identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    During a regular incoming part inspection at Stemme, the
supplier delivered a new version of the tooth belts used in the
propeller gearbox. The new part (with marking ``Carbon'') deviates
from the previously used part (with marking ``Extreme'') by its
layer build up. The new tooth belt has been found airworthy,
although with a reduced life limit.
    Before Stemme identified the issue, new tooth belts were
delivered, identified as Part Number (P/N) 830.185, the same as the
previous part. These parts have to be identified by inspection,
changed to P/N 832.502, and the reduced life limit implemented.
    Consequently, Stemme issued the applicable ALS [airworthiness
limitations section] introducing the new life limit for the new
part. Stemme also issued the SB [service bulletin] providing
additional instructions on relevant inspections and corrective
actions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the propeller gearbox tooth belts, and, depending
on findings, re-identification. This [EASA] AD also requires
implementation of the reduced life limit by accomplishment of the
actions specified in the applicable ALS.

    After issuance of the MCAI, EASA approved extending the life limit
of the new ``Synchroforce Carbon'' belt to 5 years, the same as the
original ``Extreme'' belt, as documented by Stemme in Revision 15 to
the AMM Chapter 04 ALS.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1010.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received one comment from an individual commenter. The
commenter supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Stemme Service Bulletin Doc. No. P062-980049,
Revision 00, dated May 27, 2020. This service information specifies
identifying the front propeller gearbox tooth belt, revising the AMM
and illustrated parts catalogue, and introducing a life limit for the
propeller gearbox tooth belt marked ``Synchroforce Carbon.''

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI applies to Stemme AG Model ASP S15-1 airplanes, and this
AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.
    The MCAI requires an inspection to determine whether the propeller
gearbox tooth belts are ``Synchroforce Carbon'' or ``Extreme.'' This AD
does not require this inspection because instead, it applies only to
gliders with a ``Synchroforce Carbon'' propeller gearbox tooth belt
installed.
    The MCAI requires revising the existing aircraft maintenance
program (AMP) to introduce the reduced life limit for the affected
propeller gearbox tooth belt, as well as other life limits, as
specified in the Temporary Revision to the aircraft maintenance manual
airworthiness limitations section (ALS). After the AMP is revised, the
MCAI does not require recording AD compliance on a continued basis each
time a task in the revised AMP is performed. Because the AMP is not
required for U.S. operators and the ALS specified in the MCAI includes
additional tasks that do not address the unsafe condition, this AD
establishes a life limit for the affected propeller gearbox tooth belt
by requiring that it be removed from service after 5 years. Operators
are required to record AD compliance each time an affected propeller
gearbox tooth belt reaches its life limit and is replaced.
    Stemme Service Bulletin Doc. No. P062-980049, Revision 00, dated
May 27, 2020, requires reporting information to Stemme AG, and this AD
does not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 gliders of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates that it will take 4 work hours to replace the
propeller gearbox tooth belt and require a part costing $300. The
average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
FAA estimates the cost to replace the propeller gearbox tooth belt on
U.S. operators to be $1,920 or $640 per glider, every 5 years.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-03-07 Stemme AG: Amendment 39-21924; Docket No. FAA-2021-1010;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00807-G.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 2, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Stemme AG TSA-M Model S6 and S6-RT gliders,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category, with a propeller
gearbox tooth belt marked ``Synchroforce Carbon'' installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6100, Propeller
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a new version of
the propeller gearbox tooth belt with a reduced life limit. The FAA
is issuing this AD to prevent a propeller gearbox tooth belt
remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller gearbox
tooth belt and reduced control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Before the propeller gearbox tooth belt accumulates 5 years
since installation on a glider or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 5 years, remove the propeller gearbox tooth belt from
service and install a propeller gearbox tooth belt with zero hours
time-in-service.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0140, dated June 23, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1010.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on January 20, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-01479 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P