[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13780-13785]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04912]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91258; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 4111
(Restricted Firm Obligations) and FINRA Rule 9561 (Procedures for
Regulating Activities Under Rule 4111)

March 4, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 16, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2020-041 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder to address the risks that can
be posed to investors and the broader market by broker-dealers that
have a history of misconduct. The proposed rule change was published
for public comment in the Federal Register on December 4, 2020.\3\ On
January 12, 2021, FINRA consented to extend, until March 4, 2021, the
time period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this order pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \5\ to institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 90527 (Nov. 27, 2020), 85 FR 78540
(Dec. 4, 2020) (File No. SR-FINRA-2020-041) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General Counsel,
OGC Regulatory Practice and Policy, FINRA, to Daniel Fisher, Branch
Chief, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated January
12, 2021.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would: (1) Adopt FINRA Rule 4111
(Restricted Firm Obligations) to require member firms that are
identified as ``Restricted Firms'' to maintain a deposit in a
segregated account with withdrawals requiring FINRA's approval, adhere
to specified conditions or restrictions, or comply with a combination
of such obligations; and (2) adopt FINRA Rule 9561 (Procedures for
Regulating Activities Under Rule 4111), and amend FINRA Rule 9559
(Hearing Procedures for Expedited Proceedings Under the Rule 9550
Series), to create a new expedited proceeding to implement proposed
Rule 4111.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice at 78541-78550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 4111 (Restricted Firm Obligations)

    Proposed Rule 4111 would establish numeric thresholds based on
firm-level and individual-level disclosure events to identify member
firms with a significantly higher level of risk-related disclosures as
compared to similarly-sized peers.\7\ Following a multi-step process of
evaluating a member firm, FINRA's Department of Member Regulation
(``Department'') would be permitted to impose on member firms it
determines pose a high risk to the investing public a ``Restricted
Deposit Requirement,'' \8\ conditions or restrictions on the member
firm's operations that are necessary or appropriate to protect
investors and the public interest, or both.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice at 78541.
    \8\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(15) (defining ``Restricted Deposit
Requirement'').
    \9\ See Notice at 78542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA would conduct the process annually for each member firm,
determining whether it should be designated (or re-designated) as a
Restricted Firm and whether it should be subject to any
obligations.\10\ Each member firm that is preliminarily identified
based on its firm-level and individual-level disclosure events would
have several ways to affect outcomes during subsequent steps in the
evaluative process, including a one-time opportunity to terminate
registered representatives with relevant disclosure events so as to no
longer trigger the numeric thresholds.\11\ The member firm would also
be able to explain to the Department why it should not be subject to a
Restricted Deposit Requirement or

propose alternatives that would still accomplish FINRA's goal of
protecting investors, and could request a hearing before a FINRA
Hearing Officer in an expedited proceeding to challenge a Department
determination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General (Proposed Rule 4111(a))
    Under the proposal, any member firm that is designated by the
Department as a Restricted Firm would be required to establish a
Restricted Deposit Account \13\ and maintain within that account
deposits of cash or qualified securities with an aggregate value that
is not less than the member firm's Restricted Deposit Requirement,
except in certain identified situations.\14\ Restricted Firms could
also be subject to conditions or restrictions on their operations,\15\
as determined by the Department to be necessary or appropriate to
protect investors and the public interest.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(14)(defining ``Restricted Deposit
Account''). Proposed Rule 4111(i)(14) would require that any
Restricted Deposit Account that is established must be in the name
of the member firm, at a bank or the member firm's clearing firm.
The account must be subject to an agreement in which the bank or the
clearing firm agrees: Not to permit withdrawals from the account
absent FINRA's prior written consent; to keep the account separate
from any other accounts maintained by the member firm with the bank
or clearing firm; that the cash or qualified securities on deposit
will not be used directly or indirectly as security for a loan to
the member firm by the bank or the clearing firm, and will not be
subject to any set-off, right, charge, security interest, lien, or
claim of any kind in favor of the bank, clearing firm or any person
claiming through the bank or clearing firm; that if the member firm
becomes a former member, the Restricted Deposit Requirement in the
account must be maintained, and withdrawals will not be permitted
without FINRA's prior written consent; that FINRA is a third-party
beneficiary to the agreement; and that the agreement may not be
amended without FINRA's prior written consent. In addition, the
account could not be subject to any right, charge, security
interest, lien, or claim of any kind granted by the member.
    In the event of a liquidation of a Restricted Firm, funds or
securities on deposit in the Restricted Deposit Account would be
additional financial resources available for the Restricted Firm's
trustee to distribute to those with claims against the Restricted
Firm.
    \14\ See Notice at 78542. FINRA is also proposing to include
Supplementary Material .01 to proposed Rule 4111 to clarify that due
to withdrawal restrictions from a Restricted Deposit Account,
deposits in such an account cannot be readily converted to cash and
therefore shall be deducted from the member's net capital under
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 and FINRA Rule 4110. See Notice at 78548.
    \15\ FINRA has also proposed adopting Supplementary Material .03
to proposed Rule 4111 to provide member firms with a non-exhaustive
list of examples of conditions and restrictions that the Department
could impose on Restricted Firms. See Notice at 78458.
    \16\ See Notice at 78452. FINRA has also proposed adding
Supplementary Material .02 to proposed Rule 4111 to clarify that
nothing in proposed Rule 4111 would alter a member firm's
obligations under Rule 1017 (Application for Approval of Change in
Ownership, Control, or Business Operations), and the need to submit
continuing membership applications as necessary. See Notice at
78458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual Calculation by FINRA of the Preliminary Criteria for
Identification (Proposed Rule 4111(b))
    The Department would begin a member firm's Rule 4111 review process
by calculating specified ``Preliminary Identification Metrics'' for
that firm across six categories of events or conditions, collectively
defined as the ``Disclosure Event and Expelled Firm Association
Categories.'' \17\ These six categories include risk events, covering
adjudicated and pending actions against firms and their registered
representatives, along with metrics addressing registered
representatives' termination and internal review history, and their
association with former member firms that were previously expelled by
FINRA.\18\ FINRA would use a formula to identify whether the firm has
exceeded certain established thresholds,\19\ set based on the firm's
size,\20\ across the six categories, starting by determining the sum of
the pertinent disclosure events or, for the Expelled Firm Association
category, the sum of the Registered Persons Associated with Previously
Expelled Firms as of the calculation date.\21\ Based on this
calculation, the Department would determine whether the particular
member firm meets the ``Preliminary Criteria for Identification.'' \22\
FINRA has indicated that it developed the criteria and thresholds for
identification with the intent to be replicable and transparent to both
FINRA and affected member firms; employ the most complete and accurate
data available to FINRA; be objective; account for different firm sizes
and business profiles; and target sales practice concerns.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(4) (defining ``Disclosure Event
and Expelled Firm Association Categories'').
    \18\ See Notice at 78542.
    \19\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(11) (defining ``Preliminary
Identification Metrics Thresholds'').
    \20\ Specifically, member firms would be divided into seven firm
size categories based on size, ranging from firms with 1-4
``Registered Persons In-Scope,'' defined in proposed Rule
4111(i)(13), to 500 or more Registered Persons In-Scope. See Notice
at 78544.
    \21\ See Notice at 78543.
    \22\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(9) (defining ``Preliminary
Criteria for Identification'').
    \23\ See Notice at 78542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Department Evaluation (Proposed Rule 4111(c)(1))
    The Department would then evaluate whether a member firm that has
met the Preliminary Criteria for Identification warrants further review
under Rule 4111.\24\ This would include consideration of: Whether non-
high-risk disclosure events or other conditions should not have been
included within the initial calculation of the firm's Preliminary
Identification Metric computations (e.g., because, for example, they
were not sales-practice related, or include duplicative events
involving the same customer and the same matter, or events involving
compliance concerns best addressed by a different regulatory response
by FINRA); \25\ whether the disclosure events pose risks to investors
or market integrity, as opposed to violations of procedural rules; \26\
and whether the member firm has already addressed the concerns signaled
by the disclosure events or conditions, or has altered its business
operations such that the threshold calculation no longer reflects the
firm's current risk profile.\27\ The Department would then either
determine that further review is necessary and continue the Rule 4111
process, or, if the Department concluded that no further review is
warranted, close out that member firm's Rule 4111 process for the year
without imposing any restrictions or obligations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice at 78544.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ See Notice at 78544-45.
    \27\ See Notice at 78545.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA originally stated that it would conduct this annual
evaluation on the same month and day each year where that date was a
business day, and that if that date were a weekend date or federal
holiday, the evaluation would shift to the next business day.\29\ FINRA
has since stated that it would announce the date of the first annual
evaluation (``Evaluation Date'') no less than 120 calendar days prior
to the first Evaluation Date.\30\ Subsequent Evaluation Dates would be
on the same month and day each year, whether that date certain falls on
a business day, a weekend day, or a holiday.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice at 78544.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See letter from Michael Garawski, Associate General
Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated March 4, 2021 (``FINRA March 4
Letter''). The FINRA March 4 Letter is available at the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2020-041/srfinra2020041.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-Time Opportunity To Reduce Staffing Levels (Proposed Rule
4111(c)(2))
    If the Department determines that a member firm warrants further
review under Rule 4111, and such member firm is meeting the Preliminary
Criteria for

Identification for the first time, the member firm would have a one-
time opportunity to reduce its staffing levels to no longer meet these
criteria, within 30 business days after being informed by the
Department.\32\ The member firm would need to identify the terminated
individuals to the Department, and would be prohibited from rehiring
any of those terminated persons, in any capacity, for one year.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice at 78544.
    \33\ Id. If the member firm reduces its staffing levels, and the
Department then determines that the member firm no longer meets the
Preliminary Criteria for Identification, the Department would close
out the firm's Rule 4111 process for the year without seeking to
impose any restrictions or obligations on that firm. However, if the
Department determines that the member firm still meets the
Preliminary Criteria for Identification (or if the member firm did
not opt to reduce staffing levels) the Department would determine
the firm's maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement, and the member
firm would proceed to a ``Consultation'' with the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of a Maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement (Proposed
Rule 4111(i)(15))
    For firms still meeting the Preliminary Criteria for
Identification, the Department would then determine the firm's maximum
Restricted Deposit Requirement,\34\ and the member firm would proceed
to a ``Consultation'' with the Department.\35\ FINRA states that the
Department would seek to tailor a firm's maximum Restricted Deposit
Requirement amount to its size, operations and financial conditions,
and determine the member firm's maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement
consistent with the objectives of the rule, while not significantly
undermining the firm's continued financial stability and operational
capability as an ongoing enterprise over the next 12 months.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The term ``maximum'' is used to indicate that a firm's
maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement will be the figure FINRA
declares to the firm is the highest deposit requirement it may be
subject to during that year's Rule 4111 process. As discussed below,
firms could then seek to demonstrate to FINRA why a lower deposit
requirement would be more appropriate, during the Consultation. See
FINRA March 4 Letter supra n.31.
    \35\ See Notice at 78545.
    \36\ Id. The proposed factors that the Department would consider
when determining a maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement include
revenues, net capital, assets, expenses, and liabilities, the firm's
operations and activities, number of registered persons, the nature
of the disclosure events included in the numeric thresholds,
insurance coverage for customer arbitration awards or settlements
concerns raised during FINRA exams, and the amount of any of the
firm's or its associated persons' ``Covered Pending Arbitration
Claims'' or unpaid arbitration awards. See proposed FINRA Rule
4111(i)(15)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation (Proposed Rule 4111(d))
    During the Consultation, the Department would give the member firm
an opportunity to demonstrate why it does not meet the Preliminary
Criteria for Identification, why it should not be designated as a
Restricted Firm, and why it should not be subject to the maximum
Restricted Deposit Requirement.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Notice at 78545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member firm may overcome the presumption that it should be
designated as a Restricted Firm by clearly demonstrating that the
Department's calculation is inaccurate because, among other things, it
considered events that should not have been included.\38\ A member firm
also may overcome the presumption that it should be subject to the
maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement by clearly demonstrating that
such an amount would cause significant undue financial hardship, and
that a lesser deposit requirement would satisfy the objectives of Rule
4111 to impose obligations on those firms identified as presenting a
higher risk to investors; or that other operational conditions and
restrictions on the member and its associated persons would
sufficiently protect investors and the public interest.\39\ To the
extent a member firm seeks to claim undue financial hardship, it would
bear the burden of supporting that claim with documents and
information.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id. These would include, for example, events that are
duplicative, involving the same customer and the same matter, or are
not sales-practice related.
    \39\ Id. Proposed Rule 4111(d)(3) provides guidance to member
firms on what information the Department would consider during the
Consultation, and guidance on how to attempt to overcome the two
rebuttable presumptions (that the member firm should be designated
as a Restricted Firm, and that it should be subject to the maximum
Restricted Deposit Requirement). See Notice at 78546.
    \40\ See Notice at 78545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department Decision and Notice (Proposed Rule 4111(e)); No Stays
    After the Consultation, the Department would be required to render
a decision, pursuant to one of three paths: (1) If the Department
determines that the member firm has rebutted the presumption that it
should be designated a Restricted Firm, the Department would not
designate the firm as a Restricted Firm that year; (2) if the
Department determines that the member firm has not rebutted the
presumption that it should be designated as a Restricted Firm, but has
rebutted the presumption that it must maintain the maximum Restricted
Deposit Requirement, the Department would designate the member firm as
a Restricted Firm, but would either impose no Restricted Deposit
Requirement on the member firm, or require it to promptly establish a
Restricted Deposit Account, and deposit and maintain in that account a
lower Restricted Deposit Requirement in such dollar amount as the
Department deems necessary or appropriate; and would require the member
firm to implement and maintain specified conditions or restrictions on
the operations and activities of the member firm and its associated
persons, as necessary or appropriate, to address the concerns
identified by the Department, and protect investors and the public
interest; or (3) if the Department determines that the member firm has
rebutted neither presumption, the Department would designate the member
firm as a Restricted Firm, require it to promptly establish a
Restricted Deposit Account, deposit and maintain in that account the
maximum Restricted Deposit Requirement, and implement and maintain
specified conditions or restrictions on the firm's operations and
activities, and those of its associated persons, as necessary or
appropriate to address the concerns identified by the Department and
protect investors and the public interest.\41\ The Department would
provide the member firm with written notice of its decision no later
than 30 days from its latest scheduling letter provided to the member
firm, stating any obligations to be imposed, and the ability of it to
request a hearing with the Office of Hearing Officers in an expedited
proceeding.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice at 78546.
    \42\ Id. As noted below, any request for a hearing would not
stay the effectiveness of the Department's decision, but would
temporarily lower the necessary Required Deposit Requirement for
that member firm until the Office of Hearing Officers, or the
National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') issues a final written
decision, unless that firm was already operating as a Restricted
Firm based on a prior year's Department decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation or Termination of Restricted Firm Obligations (Proposed
Rule 4111(f))
    During the Department's annual Rule 4111 review, a Restricted Firm
could seek to terminate or modify any obligations that continue to be
imposed.\43\ Restricted Firms would only be permitted to seek this
result during their annual Consultation, and any ensuing expedited
proceedings after a Department decision; no interim termination or
modification of any

obligations would be permitted.\44\ A Restricted Firm would not be
permitted to withdraw any portion of its Restricted Deposit
Requirement, or to seek to terminate or modify any other conditions or
obligations that have been imposed, without the prior written consent
of the Department.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice at 78547. See also proposed Rule 4111(f)(1).
    \44\ See Notice at 78547.
    \45\ Id. There would be a presumption that the Department shall
deny an application by a member firm or former member firm that is
currently designated as a Restricted Firm to withdraw all or any
portion of its Restricted Deposit Requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Department determines in one year that a member firm is a
Restricted Firm, but in the following year(s) determines that the
member firm or former member firm \46\ either does not meet the
Preliminary Criteria for Identification or should not be designated as
a Restricted Firm, the member firm or former member firm would no
longer be subject to any obligations previously imposed under proposed
Rule 4111.\47\ There would be one exception: A former Restricted Firm
would not be permitted to withdraw any portion of its Restricted
Deposit Requirement without submitting an application in the manner
specified under Rule 4111(f)(3)(A), and obtaining the Department's
prior written consent for the withdrawal.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Notice at 78547. See also proposed Rule 4111(i)(7)
(defining ``Former Member'').
    \47\ See Notice at 78547.
    \48\ Id. The Department would be required to issue a notice of
its decision within 30 days from the date it receives the relevant
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this situation, the Department would be subject to a presumption
that it shall approve an application for withdrawal if the member firm,
its associated persons, or the former member firm have no Covered
Pending Arbitration Claims \49\ or unpaid arbitration awards.\50\ The
rule would also establish presumptions that the Department shall: (a)
Deny an application for withdrawal if the member firm, the member
firm's associated persons who are owners or control persons, or the
former member have any Covered Pending Arbitration Claims or unpaid
arbitration awards, or if the member's associated persons have any
Covered Pending Arbitration Claims or unpaid arbitration awards
relating to arbitrations that involved conduct or alleged conduct that
occurred while associated with the member; but (b) approve an
application by a former member for withdrawal if the former member
commits in the manner specified by the Department to use the amount it
seeks to withdraw from its Restricted Deposit to pay the former
member's specified unpaid arbitration awards.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See proposed Rule 4111(i)(2) (defining Covered Pending
Arbitration Claim as an investment-related, consumer initiated claim
filed against the member or its associated persons in any
arbitration forum that is unresolved; and whose claim amount
(individually or, if there is more than one claim, in the aggregate)
exceeds the member firm's excess net capital).
    \50\ See Notice at 78547.
    \51\ Id. Proposed Rule 4111(f)(3) provides that the Covered
Pending Arbitration Claims and unpaid arbitration awards of a member
firm's associated persons are pertinent to an application for a
withdrawal from the Restricted Deposit Requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Books and Records (Proposed Rule 4111(g))
    Member firms would also be obligated to maintain books and records
that evidence its compliance with Rule 4111 and any Restricted Deposit
Requirement or other conditions or restrictions imposed under that
rule, that the member firm would need to provide to the Department upon
request.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Notice at 78548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planned Review of Proposed Rule 4111
    FINRA has indicated it intends to conduct a review of proposed Rule
4111 after gaining sufficient experience under Rule 4111 following its
effective date.\53\ FINRA has indicated that it expects to review,
among other items, whether the Preliminary Identification Metrics
Thresholds remain targeted and effective at identifying member firms
that pose higher risks.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 9561 (Procedures for Regulating Activities Under Rule
4111) and Amendments to Rule 9559 To Implement the Requirements of
Proposed Rule 4111

    FINRA is proposing Rule 9561 to establish new expedited proceedings
that would: (a) Provide member firms an opportunity to challenge any
requirements the Department has imposed, including any Restricted
Deposit Requirements, by requesting a prompt review of the Department's
decision in the Rule 4111 process; \55\ and (b) address a member firm's
failure to comply with any requirements imposed under Rule 4111.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Id. Proposed Rule 9561(a)(1) would define the ``Rule 4111
Requirements'' to mean the requirements, conditions, or restrictions
imposed by a Department determination under proposed Rule 4111. See
Notice at 78548.
    \56\ See Notice at 78549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notices Under Proposed Rule 4111 (Proposed Rule 9561(a))
    Under proposed Rule 9561(a)(1), the Department would be obligated
to serve a notice of its decision following the Rule 4111 process that
provides the specific grounds and factual basis for the Department's
action; states when the action will take effect; informs the member
firm that it may request a hearing in an expedited proceeding within
seven days after service of the notice; and explains the Hearing
Officer's authority.\57\ The proposed rule would also provide that, if
a member firm does not request a hearing, the decision will constitute
final FINRA action.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Id.
    \58\ See Notice at 78548-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any of the Rule 4111 Requirements imposed in the Department's
decision would be immediately effective.\59\ In general, a request for
a hearing would not stay those requirements.\60\ There would be one
exception: When a member firm requests review of a Department
determination to impose a Restricted Deposit Requirement on the member,
the firm would be required to deposit the lesser of 25% of its
Restricted Deposit Requirement or 25% of its average excess net capital
over the prior year, while the expedited proceeding was pending.\61\
This exception would not be available for a member firm that has been
re-designated as a Restricted Firm, and is already subject to a
previously imposed Restricted Deposit Requirement, which it will need
to maintain in full until the Office of Hearing Officers or NAC issues
a written decision.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Notice at 78549.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ See Notice at 78546. Thereafter, if a member firm is not in
compliance with its Restricted Deposit Requirement or with any
conditions or restrictions imposed under proposed Rule 4111, FINRA
would be authorized to issue a notice pursuant to proposed Rule 9561
directing a member firm to suspend all or a portion of its business.
See Notice at 78548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice for Failure To Comply With the Proposed Rule 4111 Requirements
(Proposed Rule 9561(b))
    After receiving authorization from FINRA's chief executive officer
(``CEO''), or such other executive officer as the CEO may designate,
the Department would be authorized to serve a notice stating that the
member firm's failure to comply with the Rule 4111 Requirements, within
seven days of service of the notice, will result in a suspension or
cancellation of membership.\63\ Proposed Rule 9561(b)

would establish an expedited proceeding to review the Department's
decision to issue a suspension or cancellation notice to a member firm
for its failure to comply with requirements of Rule 4111. If a member
firm does not request a hearing, the suspension or cancellation will
become effective seven days after service of the notice.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Notice at 78549. The notice must identify the
requirements with which the member firm is alleged to have not
complied; specify the facts involved in the alleged failure; state
when the action will take effect; explain what the member firm must
do to avoid the suspension or cancellation; inform the member firm
that it may file a request for a hearing in an expedited proceeding
within seven days after service of the notice under Rule 9559; and
explain the Hearing Officer's authority.
    \64\ Id. After a suspension has been imposed, a member firm
could file a request under Rule 9561(b) to terminate the suspension
on the ground of full compliance with the notice or decision, and
the head of the Department would be permitted to grant relief for
good cause shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearings (Proposed Amendments to the Hearing Procedures Rule)
    If a member firm requests a hearing under proposed Rule 9561, the
hearing would be subject to Rule 9559 (Hearing Procedures for Expedited
Proceedings Under the Rule 9550 Series). FINRA is proposing several
amendments to Rule 9559 that would be specific to hearings requested
pursuant to proposed Rule 9561.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id. Specifically, FINRA has proposed to (a) amend Rule
9559(d) and (n) to establish the authority of a Hearing Officer in
expedited proceedings under Rule 9561; (b) amend Rule 9559(f) to set
out timing requirements for hearings conducted under Rules 9561(a)
and (b); and (c) amend Rule 9559(p)(6) to account for the
obligations that may be imposed under proposed Rule 4111 within the
content requirements of any decision issued by a Hearing Officer
under the Rule 9550 Series. See proposed amended Rules 9559(d), (f),
(n), and (p)(6). Additionally, FINRA has noted that in expedited
proceedings conducted under proposed Rule 9561(a) to review a
Department determination under the Restricted Firm Obligations Rule,
a member firm would be permitted to try to demonstrate that the
Department incorrectly included disclosure events when calculating
whether the member firm meets the Preliminary Criteria for
Identification. However, the member firm attempting to do so would
not be permitted to collaterally attack the underlying merits of the
final actions underlying the disclosure events. See Notice at 78550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date

    If the proposed rule is approved by the Commission, FINRA has
indicated it will announce an effective date for the proposed rule in a
Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following the
Commission approval.\66\ FINRA originally stated that the effective
date would be no later than 60 days following publication of the
Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.\67\ However, FINRA
has since extended the timeline of the effective date to 180 days after
the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Notice at 78550.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ See FINRA March 4 Letter supra n.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove File No.
SR-FINRA-2020-041 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to further consider the
proposed rule change and the issues raised by commenters.
    Specifically, the Commission is providing notice of the following
grounds for possible disapproval under consideration:
     Whether FINRA has demonstrated how its proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
[Exchange Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is
on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \70\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\71\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \71\ See id.
    \72\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act to allow for additional consideration of the issues
raised by the proposed rule change as it determines whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.
    Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval
or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29, 89 Stat. 97
(1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of
1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.
30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by March 24, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
March 31, 2021. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-FINRA-2020-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2020-041. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2020-041 and
should be submitted on or before March 24, 2021. If comments are
received, any rebuttal comments should be submitted on or before March
31, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04912 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14903-14904]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1003]

Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Experiential Learning
Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (CDRH or Center) is announcing the 2017
Experiential Learning Program (ELP). This training component is
intended to provide CDRH staff with an opportunity to understand the
policies, laboratory practices, patient perspective/input, quality
system management, and other challenges that impact the device
development life cycle. The purpose of this document is to invite
medical device industry, academia, and health care facilities, and
others to participate in this formal training program for CDRH's
employees, or to contact CDRH for more information regarding the ELP.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written requests for participation
in the ELP by dates specified in the ELP Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/sciencecareeropportunities/ucm380676.htm.

ADDRESSES: Submit either electronic requests to https://www.regulations.gov or written requests to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify requests with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Hussong, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5261, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-2246<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CDRH is responsible for helping to ensure the safety and
effectiveness of medical devices marketed in the United States.
Furthermore, CDRH assures that patients and providers have timely and
continued access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices.
For 2016-2017, CDRH has identified Partnering with Patients and
Promoting a Culture of Quality and Organizational Excellence as
strategic priorities, specifically having the perspective of our
stakeholders and understanding implementation of these within their

institutions would provide great insight to FDA review staff. The
Center encourages applicants to consider including opportunities to
discuss patient perspective and meeting the challenges of quality
systems design and management as they contribute to the success of the
device development life cycle.
    CDRH is committed to advancing regulatory science, providing
industry with predictable, consistent, transparent, and efficient
regulatory pathways, and helping to ensure consumer confidence in
medical devices marketed in the United States and throughout the world.
The ELP is intended to provide CDRH staff with an opportunity to
understand the policies, laboratory and manufacturing practices, and
the challenges addressing patient perspective/input, quality system
management, and other challenges that impact the device development
life cycle. This component is a collaborative effort to enhance
communication and facilitate the premarket review process. The Center
is committed to understanding current industry practices, innovative
technologies, regulatory impacts and needs, and how patient perspective
and quality systems management advances the development and evaluation
of innovative devices, and to monitoring the performance of marketed
devices.
    These formal training visits are not intended for FDA to inspect,
assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function (e.g., compliance
inspection), but rather, they are an opportunity to provide CDRH review
staff a better understanding of the products they review, how they are
developed, the voice of the patient, challenges related to quality
systems development and management in the product life cycle, and how
medical devices fit into the larger health care system. CDRH is
formally requesting participation from companies, academia, and
clinical facilities, medical device incubators and accelerators, health
insurers, health technology assessment groups, and others, including
those that have previously participated in the ELP or other FDA site
visit programs.
    CDRH encourages applicants to consider including opportunities to
discuss how patient perspective and effective quality systems
management contribute to the success of the device development life
cycle. Additional information regarding the CDRH ELP, including the
table of areas of interest, submission dates and deadlines, a sample
request, and an example of the site visit agenda, is available on
CDRH's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/sciencecareeropportunities/ucm380676.htm. The Center encourages
applicants to consider including opportunities to discuss patient
perspective and meeting the challenges of Quality Systems Design and
Management as they contribute to the success of the device development
life cycle.

II. CDRH ELP

A. Areas of Interest

    In this training program, groups of CDRH staff will observe
operations in the areas of research, device development, in making
coverage decisions and assessments, incorporating patient information
and reimbursement, manufacturing, academia, and health care facilities.
The areas of interest for visits include various topics identified by
managers at CDRH. These areas of interest are listed publicly and are
intended to be updated quarterly.
    To submit a proposal addressing one of the Center's training needs,
visit the link for the table of areas of interest to be addressed at:
http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/ScienceCareerOpportunities/
UCM380676.htm
    Once you have determined an area of interest to address in your ELP
proposal, follow the instructions in section III to properly fill out
the site visit request template and agenda provided at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/ScienceCareerOpportunities/UCM392988.pdf and at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/ScienceCareerOpportunities/UCM487190.pdf.

B. Site Selection

    CDRH will be responsible for CDRH staff travel expenses associated
with the site visits. CDRH will not provide funds to support the
training provided by the site to the ELP. Selection of potential
facilities will be based on CDRH's priorities for staff training and
resources available to fund this program. In addition to logistical and
other resource factors, all sites must have a successful compliance
record with FDA or another Agency with which FDA has a memorandum of
understanding (if applicable). If a site visit involves a visit to a
separate physical location of another firm under contract with the
site, that firm must agree to participate in the ELP and must also have
a satisfactory compliance history, and must be listed in the proposal
along with a Facility Establishment Identifier number (FEI #) if
applicable.

III. Request to Participate

    Submit proposals for participation with the docket number found in
the brackets in the heading of this document. Received requests may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Additional information regarding the CDRH ELP, including a sample
request and an example of a site visit agenda and submission deadlines,
is available on CDRH's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/sciencecareeropportunities/ucm380676.htm.

    Dated: March 17, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-05763 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2342]
[FR Doc No: 2012-540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: RTCA, Next Gen Advisory Committee

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

ACTION: Notice of RTCA, NextGen Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fifth meeting of RTCA, NextGen Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 3, 2012, from 9:30 a.m.-3:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University, Florida NextGen Test Bed, 557 Innovation Way, Daytona
Beach, FL 32114.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036: or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is
hereby given for a NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda will
include the following:

February 3, 2012

     Welcome and Introductions--Chairman Dave Barger, President
and CEO, JetBlue Airways
     Official Statement of Designated Federal Official, Michael
Huerta, FAA Administrator (Acting)
     Review and approval of September 29, 2011 meeting summary/
NACSC TORs Revisions
     Chairman's Report--Chairman Barger
     Subcommittee Report: NAC Subcommittee & Work Groups--
Subcommittee Co-Chairs--Steve Brown, Senior Vice President, Operations
and Administration, National Business Aviation Association/Tom
Hendricks, Senior Vice President, Safety, Security and Operations, Air
Transport Association
     Break
     Review and Approve Recommendation for Submission to FAA
     Applying the Metroplex Prioritization Criteria and Mapping
the Integrated Capabilities to Identified Metroplexes--a recommendation
derived from a mapping of integrated capabilities to seven Metroplexes.
This mapping enables an assessment of the benefits and feasibility of
these site specific capabilities.
     Lunch Break
     Review and Approve Recommendations for Submission to FAA
     DataComm Roadmap--a roadmap for Tower and domestic En
Route DataComm services and associated technologies
     Afternoon Break
     Review and Approve Recommendations for Submission to FAA
     Executive Level NextGen Implementation Metrics--an
executive-level set of metrics that capture an overall status of
NextGen implementation
     Other Business/Anticipated Issues for NAC Consideration
and Action at the next Meeting on May 24, 2012 in Seattle, Washington
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-540 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69231-69234]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1478; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00668-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2004-04-09, which applies to certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.
(P&WC) JT15D-1, JT15D-1A, and JT15D-1B model turbofan engines. AD 2004-
04-09 requires a one-time borescope inspection (BSI) of the rear face
of certain impellers for evidence of a machined groove or step, and
repair or replacement of the impeller if a groove or step is found.
Since the FAA issued AD 2004-04-09, the FAA was notified of an
uncontained failure of an impeller installed on a P&WC JT15D-1A engine
during takeoff and subsequent investigation by the manufacturer that
discovered machining marks on the impeller. This proposed AD would
require borescope fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the rear
face of certain impellers for evidence of machining witness lines and,
depending on the results of the inspection, replacement of the
impeller, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by January 3, 2023.

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 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.

    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1478 or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact
Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-
3639; email: [email protected]. You may find this material on the
Transport Canada website at tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1478; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00668-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

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

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2004-04-09, Amendment 39-13490 (69 FR 9520, March
1, 2004) (AD 2004-04-09), for certain P&WC JT15D-1, JT15D-1A, and
JT15D-1B model turbofan engines. AD 2004-04-09 was prompted by three
reports of uncontained failure of the impeller. AD 2004-04-09 requires
a one-time borescope inspection of the rear face of certain impellers
for evidence of a machined groove or step, and repair or replacement of
the impeller if a groove or step is found. The FAA issued AD 2004-04-09
to prevent uncontained failure of the impeller and possible damage to
the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2004-04-09 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2004-04-09, Transport Canada, which is the
aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-
27, dated June 2, 2022 (Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27), to address an
unsafe condition for P&WC JT15D-1, JT15D-1A, and JT15D-1B model
turbofan engines. The MCAI states that there has been one recent in-
service event of a JT15D-1A engine uncontained failure during a takeoff
roll of the airplane. An investigation by P&WC has determined that a
crack originated from machining marks on the back face of the impeller
and subsequently propagated until the impeller fractured. There is
evidence that the event engine had been previously inspected in
accordance with P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. JT15D-72-7590, dated May
23, 2003 (mandated by Transport Canada AD CF-2003-17, dated June 23,
2003), but it appears that the machining marks were not detected. P&WC,
therefore, published P&WC SB JT15D-72-7655, Original Issue, dated April
14, 2022, to inspect the rear face of the impeller using a new
borescope FPI procedure. As a result, Transport Canada issued AD CF-
2022-27 to require accomplishment of the borescope FPI at the next hot
section inspection until the impeller, part number (P/N) 3020365, is
replaced at the next scheduled engine overhaul.
    This proposed AD was prompted by three prior reports of uncontained
failure of the impeller, and one additional recent report of an in-
service uncontained failure event. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address uncontained failure of the impeller. This condition, if not
addressed, could result in fracture of the impeller, subsequent
uncontained failure of the engine, and damage to the airplane. See
Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27 for additional background information.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1478.

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 the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the
Transport Canada AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27. Transport Canada
AD CF-2022-27 specifies instructions for performing a one-time
inspection of the rear face of the impeller and replacing the impeller
if unacceptable machining witness lines or crack indications are found.
Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27 also specifies instructions for
replacing the impeller at the next scheduled engine overhaul.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2004-
04-09. This proposed AD would require

accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27,
described previously.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since
coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a
result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference Transport Canada
AD CF-2022-27 in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore,
require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27 in its entirety
through that incorporation. Using common terms that are the same as the
heading of a particular section in the Transport Canada AD does not
mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example,
where the AD requirement refers to ``Compliance,'' compliance with this
AD requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Corrective
Actions'' in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27. Service information
required by the Transport Canada AD for compliance will be available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1478
after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 100 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. Registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect impeller......................  6 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $510         $51,000
                                         hour = $510.
Replace impeller......................  30 work-hours x $85 per           75,000          77,550       7,755,000
                                         hour = $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2004-04-09, Amendment 39-13490 (69
FR 9520, March 1, 2004); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Docket No. FAA-2022-1478; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-00668-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by January 3, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2004-04-09, Amendment 39-13490 (69 FR 9520,
March 1, 2004) (AD 2004-04-09).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. JT15D-1, JT15D-
1A, and JT15D-1B model turbofan engines as identified in Transport
Canada AD CF-2022-27, dated June 2, 2022 (Transport Canada AD CF-
2022-27).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine
Engine Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by three prior reports of uncontained
failure of the impeller, and one additional recent report of an in-
service uncontained failure event. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent uncontained failure of the impeller. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in fracture of the impeller,
subsequent uncontained failure of the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all
required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27.

(h) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in Transport Canada
AD CF-2022-27 specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD,

if requested using the procedures found in Sec.  39.19. In
accordance with Sec.  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 (j) of this AD and email it 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.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27, dated June 2, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2022-27, contact Transport
Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-
3639; email: [email protected]; website: tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 10, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25016 Filed 11-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13173-13174]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of a Non-Aeronautical Land-Use Change Effecting the
Quitclaim Deed and Federal Grant Assurance Obligations at Blythe
Airport, Blythe, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a Non-aeronautical land-use change.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the application for a non-aeronautical land-
use change for approximately 829 acres of airport property at Blythe
Airport, Blythe, California, from the aeronautical use provisions of
the Quitclaim Deed and Grant Agreement Assurances since the land is not
needed for aeronautical purposes. The property will be leased for its
fair market value and the rental proceeds deposited in the airport
account for airport use. The reuse of the land for a solar farm
represents a compatible land use that will not interfere with the
airport or its operation, thereby protecting the interests of civil
aviation and contributing to the self-sustainability of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on the request may be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Tony Garcia, Airports

Compliance Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports
Division, Federal Register Comment, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA
90009-2007. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA
must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Colby Cataldi, Assistant Director,
Economic Development Agency/Aviation, 3403 10 Street, Suite 500,
Riverside, CA 92501.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Riverside County Economic Development Agency requested a
modification of the conditions in the Quitclaim Deed and Grant
Agreement Assurances to permit non-aeronautical use of approximately
829 acres of land at Blythe Airport. The subject property is located
northeast of the airfield. The land is presently unused and
undeveloped. The land will be redeveloped for a solar farm. Riverside
County Economic Development Agency proposes to lease the property under
the terms of a long-term lease for a solar farm since the land is not
needed for aeronautical purposes. Reuse of the land for a solar farm
will not impede future development of the airport, which has an
abundance of land. The lease rate will be based on the appraised market
value and the lease proceeds will be deposited in the airport account
and used for airport purposes. The use of the property for a solar farm
represents a compatible use. Construction and operations of the solar
farm will not interfere with airport operations. The land will become
revenue-producing property, which will enhance the self-sustainability
of the airport and, thereby, serve the interests of civil aviation.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on February 28, 2012.
Brian Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-5299 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45902-45905]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2967; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-072-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DASSAULT AVIATION Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-23-
20, for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and MYSTERE-FALCON
900 airplanes. AD 2002-23-20 currently requires repetitive operational
tests of the flap asymmetry detection system to verify proper
functioning, and repair if necessary; repetitive replacement of the
inboard flap jackscrews with new or reconditioned jackscrews; and
repetitive measurement of the screw/nut play of the jackscrews on the
inboard and outboard flaps to detect discrepancies, and corrective
action if necessary. AD 2002-23-20 currently requires a revision of the
airplane flight manual. Since we issued AD 2002-23-20, the maintenance
manual has been revised. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the
maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations specified in the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual.
This proposed AD also removes the Model FALCON 900EX airplanes from the
applicability of the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2015-
2967; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2967;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-072-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 3, 2003, we issued AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67
FR 71098, November 29, 2002); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23579). AD
2002-23-20 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67 FR 71098,
November 29, 2002); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23579), the
maintenance manual has been revised. In addition, we are removing the
Model 900EX airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD and
those airplanes are addressed through a separate AD action (AD 2014-16-
26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014)).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0053, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all MYSTERE-FALCON
900 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 type design are included in Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA issued AD 2008-
0221[http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2008_0221_Corrected.pdf/AD_2008-0221_1] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks,
and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in
Dassault Aviation F900 AMM chapter 5-40 referenced DGT 113873 at
revision 16.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued
revision 20 of F900 AMM chapter 5-40 which contains new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations and introduces, among others, the following changes:

--Tasks renumbering;
--Introduction of a Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP);
--Upgrade of screwjack of flap actuators from the older to the
latest -3 version;
--Revised Time Between Overhaul for screwjack of flap actuators -3
version;
--Revised interval for checking the screw/nut play on screwjack of
flap actuators -3 version;
--Removal of calendar limit for checking the screw/nut play on
screwjack of external flap actuators -1 and -2 versions;
--Removal of service life limit for screwjack of flap actuators;
--Test of flap asymmetry protection system. Compliance with this
test is required by [a certain AD ***], but F900 AMM chapter 5-40 at
revision 20 introduces an extended inspection interval;
--Inspection procedures of fuselage and wings;
--Check of overpressure tightness on pressurization control
regulating valves. Compliance with this check is required by EASA AD
2008-0072 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2008_0072.pdf/AD_2008-0072_1] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-26-05, Amendment
39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010], but F900 AMM chapter 5-40
at revision 20 introduces an extended inspection interval;
--Check of overpressure relief valve vacuum supply lines.

    The maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as
specified in the F900 AMM chapter 5-40, have been identified as
mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the F900 type
design. Failure to comply with AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 20 may
result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the
airplane].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness
limitations, as specified in the Dassault Aviation F900 AMM chapter
5-40 DGT 113873 at revision 20.

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-2015-
2967.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 20,
dated October 2012, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance
Manual. This service information describes procedures, maintenance
tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the AMM. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with 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 pertinent information and determined an unsafe

condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 112 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,520, or $85 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67 FR 71098, November 29, 2002);
corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23579); and adding the following new AD:

DASSAULT AVIATION: Docket No. FAA-2015-2967; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-072-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2002-23-20, Amendment 39-12964 (67 FR 71098,
November 29, 2002); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23579). This AD
also affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON
900 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by our determination of the need for a
revision to the airplane airworthiness limitations to introduce a
corrosion prevention control program, among other changes, to the
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 20, dated October 2012, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900
Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing
the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 20, dated October 2012, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900
Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the
maintenance manual or within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
    (1) The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total airplane landings.
    (2) The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight hours.
    (3) The term ``FC'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight cycles.
    (4) The term ``M'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means months.

(h) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-
16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010), for DASSAULT AVIATION Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0053, dated March 4, 2013,
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-2015-2967.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18689 Filed 7-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P