[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46487-46492]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18942]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1956

[Docket No. OSHA-2015-0003]
RIN 1218-AC97

Maine State Plan for State and Local Government Employers

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of initial approval determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Maine State and Local Government Only State Plan, a state
occupational safety and health plan applicable only to public sector
employment (employees of the state and its political subdivisions), is
approved as a developmental plan under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 and OSHA regulations. Under the approved Plan, the
Maine Department of Labor is designated as the state agency responsible
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards applicable to state and local government employment
throughout the state. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) retains full authority for coverage of private sector employees
in the State of Maine, as well as for coverage of federal government
employees.

DATES: Effective: August 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Contact Francis
Meilinger, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general and technical information: Contact Douglas J.
Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State
Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Introduction

    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
``OSH Act''), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that a state which desires to
assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of standards
relating to any occupational safety and health issue with respect to
which a federal standard has been promulgated may submit a State Plan
to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health
(``Assistant Secretary'') documenting the proposed program in detail.
Regulations promulgated pursuant to the OSH Act at 29 CFR part 1956
provide that a state may submit a State Plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards applicable only
to employers of the state and its political subdivisions (``public
employers'').
    Under these regulations the Assistant Secretary will approve a
State Plan for State and Local Government Only if the Plan provides for
the development and enforcement of standards relating to hazards in
employment covered by the Plan, which are or will be at least as
effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as standards promulgated and enforced under Section 6 of the
OSH Act, giving due consideration to differences between public and
private sector employment. In making this determination the Assistant
Secretary will consider, among other things, the criteria and indices
of effectiveness set forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subpart B.
    A State and Local Government Only State Plan may receive initial
approval even though, upon submission, it does not fully meet the
criteria set forth in 29 CFR 1956.10 and 1956.11, if it includes
satisfactory assurances by the state that the state will take the
necessary steps, and establishes an acceptable developmental schedule,
to meet the criteria within a three year period (29 CFR 1956.2(b)). The
Assistant Secretary may publish a notice of ``certification of
completion of developmental steps'' when all of a state's developmental
commitments have been met satisfactorily (29 CFR 1956.23; 1902.33 and
1902.34) and the Plan is structurally complete. After certification of
a State Plan for State and Local Government Only, OSHA may initiate a
period of at least one year of intensive performance monitoring, after
which OSHA may make a determination under the procedures of 29 CFR
1902.38, 1902.39, 1902.40 and 1902.41 as to whether, on the basis of
actual operations, the criteria set forth in 29 CFR 1956.10 and 1956.11
for ``at least as effective'' State Plan performance are being applied
under the Plan.

B. History of the Present Proceeding

    Since 1971, the Maine Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Standards (Bureau), has adopted standards and performed inspections in
the public

sector (state, county, and municipal employers) as outlined under the
provisions of the state's existing enabling legislation: Maine Revised
Statutes, Title 26: Labor and Industry. Maine began working on a State
and Local Government Only State Plan in 2012 and submitted a draft Plan
to OSHA in February of 2013. OSHA reviewed the draft Plan and its
findings were detailed in various memoranda and other documents. OSHA
determined that the Maine statutes, as structured, and the proposed
State Plan needed changes in order to meet the State and Local
Government Only State Plan approval criteria in 29 CFR 1956. Maine
formally submitted a revised Plan applicable only to public employers
for federal approval on May 2, 2013. Over the next several months, OSHA
worked with Maine in identifying areas of the proposed Plan which
needed to be addressed or required clarification. In response to
federal review of the proposed State Plan, supplemental assurances, and
revisions, corrections and additions to the Plan were submitted on
September 4, 2013 and November 7, 2014. Further modifications were
submitted by the state on December 19, 2014. Amendments to Title 26 of
the Maine Revised Statutes were proposed and enacted by the Maine
Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in 2014. The amended
legislation provides the basis for establishing a comprehensive
occupational safety and health program applicable to the public
employers in the state. The revised Plan has been found to be
conceptually approvable as a developmental State Plan.
    The OSH Act provides for funding of up to 50% of the State Plan
costs, but longstanding language in OSHA's appropriation legislation
further provides that OSHA must fund `` . . . no less than 50% of the
costs . . . required to be incurred'' by an approved State Plan. Such
federal funds to support the State Plan must be available prior to
State Plan approval. The Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Act
includes $400,000 in additional OSHA State Plan grant funds to allow
for Department of Labor approval of a Maine State Plan.
    On May 20, 2015, OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register
(80 FR 28890) concerning the submission of the Maine State and Local
Government Only State Plan, announcing that initial federal approval of
the Plan was at issue, and offering interesting parties an opportunity
to review the Plan and submit data, views, arguments or requests for a
hearing concerning the Plan.
    To assist and encourage public participation in the initial
approval process, the documents constituting the Maine State and Local
Government Only State Plan were and remain available at http://regulations.gov as Docket No. OSHA-2015-0003. A copy of the Maine State
Plan was also maintained and is available for inspection in the OSHA
Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. This document, as well as news
releases and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web
page at: http://www.osha.gov.

C. Summary and Evaluation of Comments Received

    No comments were received.

D. Review Findings

    As required by 29 CFR 1956.2 in considering the grant of initial
approval to a State and Local Government Only State Plan, OSHA must
determine whether the State Plan meets or will meet the criteria in 29
CFR 1956.10 and the indices of effectiveness in 29 CFR 1956.11.
Findings and conclusions in each of the major State Plan areas
addressed by 29 CFR 1956 are as follows:

(1) Designated Agency

    Section 18(c)(1) of the OSH Act provides that a state occupational
safety and health program must designate a state agency or agencies
responsible for administering the Plan throughout the state (29 CFR
1956.10(b)(1)). The Plan must describe the authority and
responsibilities of the designated agency and provide assurance that
other responsibilities of the agency will not detract from its
responsibilities under the Plan (29 CFR 1956.10(b)(2)). The Maine
Department of Labor is designated by Title 26 of the Maine Revised
Statutes as the sole agency responsible for administering and enforcing
the State and Local Government Only State Plan in Maine. The Maine
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards is designated as the
sub-agency responsible for the State and Local Government Only State
Plan. The Plan describes the authority of the Maine Department of Labor
and its other responsibilities.

(2) Scope

    Section 18(c)(6) of the OSH Act provides that the state, to the
extent permitted by its law, shall under its Plan establish and
maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health
program applicable to all employees of the state and its political
subdivisions. Only where a state is constitutionally precluded from
regulating occupational safety and health conditions in certain
political subdivisions may the state exclude such political subdivision
employees from further coverage (29 CFR 1956.2(c)(1)). Further, the
state may not exclude any occupational, industrial or hazard groupings
from coverage under its Plan unless OSHA finds that the state has shown
there is no necessity for such coverage (29 CFR 1956.2(c)(2)).
    The scope of the Maine State Plan includes any employee of the
state, including, but not limited to members of the Maine State
Legislature, members of the various state commissions, persons employed
by public universities and colleges, and employees of counties, cities,
townships, school districts, and municipal corporations. Volunteers
under the direction of a public employer or other public corporation or
political subdivision will also be covered. No employees of any
political subdivision are excluded from the Plan. However, the
definition of public employee does not extend to students or
incarcerated or committed individuals in public institutions. The Maine
Department of Labor will adopt all federal OSHA occupational safety and
health standards, and the Plan excludes no occupational, industrial or
hazard grouping.
    Consequently, OSHA finds that the Maine State Plan contains
satisfactory assurances that no employees of the state and its
political subdivisions are excluded from coverage, and the plan
excludes no occupational, industrial or hazard grouping (Maine State
Plan pp. 1-2).

(3) Standards

    Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act requires State Plans to provide
occupational safety and health standards which are at least as
effective as federal OSHA standards. A State Plan for State and Local
Government Only must therefore provide for the development or adoption
of such standards and must contain assurances that the state will
continue to develop or adopt such standards (29 CFR 1956.10(c);
1956.11(b)(2)(ii)). A state may establish the same standards as federal
OSHA (29 CFR 1956.11(a)(1)), or alternative standards that are at least
as effective as those of federal OSHA (29 CFR 2956.11(a)(2)). Where a
state's standards are not identical to federal OSHA's, they must meet
the following criteria: They must be promulgated

through a procedure allowing for consideration of all pertinent factual
information and participation of all interested persons (29 CFR
1956.11(b)(2)(iii)); they must, where dealing with toxic materials or
harmful physical agents, assure employees protection throughout his or
her working life (29 CFR 1956.11(b)(2)(i)); they must provide for
furnishing employees appropriate information regarding hazards in the
workplace through labels, posting, medical examinations, etc. (29 CFR
1956.11(b)(2)(vii)); and, they must require suitable protective
equipment, technological control, monitoring, etc. (29 CFR
1956.11(b)(2)(vii)).
    In addition, the State Plan must provide for prompt and effective
standards setting actions for protection of employees against new and
unforeseen hazards, by such means as authority to promulgate emergency
temporary standards (29 CFR 1956.11(b)(2)(v)).
    Under the Plan's legislation, Title 26 of the Maine Revised
Statutes, the Maine Department of Labor has full authority to adopt
standards and regulations (through the Board of Occupational Safety and
Health) and enforce and administer all laws and rules protecting the
safety and health of employees of the state and its political
subdivisions. The procedures for state adoption of federal occupational
safety and health standards include giving public notice, opportunity
for public comment, and opportunity for a public hearing, in accordance
with the Maine Administrative Procedures Act (Title 5, chapter 375 of
the Maine Revised Statutes). Maine has adopted state standards
identical to federal occupational safety and health standards as
promulgated through March 26, 2012 (General Industry) and November 8,
2010 (Construction). The State Plan includes a commitment to update all
standards by November 2016. The Plan also provides that future OSHA
standards and revisions will be adopted by the state within six months
of federal promulgation in accordance with the requirements at 29 CFR
1953.5.
    Under the Plan, the Maine Department of Labor (through the Board of
Occupational Safety and Health) has the authority to adopt alternative
or different occupational health and safety standards where no federal
standards are applicable to the conditions or circumstances or where
standards that are more stringent than the federal are deemed
advisable. Such standards will be adopted in accordance with Title 26
of the Maine Revised Statutes and the Maine Administrative Procedures
Act, which includes provisions allowing submissions from interested
persons and the opportunity for interested persons to participate in
any hearing for the development, modification or establishment of
standards (Maine State Plan p. 4).
    The Maine State Plan also provides for the adoption of federal
emergency temporary standards within 30 days of federal promulgation
(Maine State Plan p. 4).
    Based on the preceding Plan provisions, assurances, and
commitments, OSHA finds the Maine State Plan to have met the statutory
and regulatory requirements for initial plan approval with respect to
occupational safety and health standards.

(4) Variances

    A State Plan must provide authority for the granting of variances
from state standards upon application of a public employer or employers
which corresponds to variances authorized under the OSH Act, and for
consideration of the views of interested parties, by such means as
giving affected employees notice of each application and an opportunity
to request and participate in hearings or other appropriate proceedings
relating to application for variances (29 CFR 1956.11(b)(2)(iv)).
    Title 26, Chapter 6, Section 571 of the Maine Revised Statutes
includes provisions for the granting of permanent and temporary
variances from state standards to public employers in terms
substantially similar to the variance provisions contained in the
federal OSH Act. The state provisions require employee notification of
variance applications as well as employee rights to participate in
hearings held on variance applications. A variance may not be granted
unless it is established that adequate protection is afforded employees
under the terms of the variance.
    The state has provided assurances in its developmental schedule
that by May 2016, it will adopt regulations equivalent to 29 CFR 1905,
OSHA's variance regulations, or provide a citation to currently
existing equivalent regulations (Maine State Plan pp. 5 and 13).

(5) Enforcement

    Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1956.10(d)(1) require a
State Plan to include provisions for enforcement of state standards
which are or will be at least as effective in providing safe and
healthful employment and places of employment as the federal program,
and to assure that the state's enforcement program for public employees
will continue to be at least as effective as the federal program in the
private sector.
    a. Legal Authority. The state must require public employer and
employee compliance with all applicable standards, rules and orders (29
CFR 1956.10(d)(2)) and must have the legal authority for standards
enforcement (Section 18(c)(4) of the OSH Act), including compulsory
process (29 CFR 1956.11(c)(2)(viii)). Title 26, Chapters 3 and 6 of the
Maine Revised Statutes establishes the duty of public employers to
provide a place of employment free of recognized hazards, to comply
with the Maine Department of Labor's occupational safety and health
standards, to inform employees of their protections and obligations and
provide information on hazards in the workplace. Public employees must
comply with all standards and regulations applicable to their own
actions and conduct.
    b. Inspections. A State Plan must provide for the inspection of
covered workplaces, including in response to complaints, where there
are reasonable grounds to believe a hazard exists (29 CFR
1956.11(c)(2)(i)).
    When no compliance action results from an inspection of a violation
alleged by an employee complaint, the State must notify the complainant
of its decision not to take compliance action by such means as written
notification and opportunity for informal review (29 CFR
1956.11(c)(2)(iii)).
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Sections 44 and 50 of the Maine Revised
Statutes provides for inspections of covered workplaces, including
inspections in response to employee complaints, by the Director of the
Bureau of Labor Standards. If a determination is made that an employee
complaint does not warrant an inspection, the complainant will be
notified in writing of such determination. The complainant will be
notified of the results of any inspection in writing and provided a
copy of any citation that is issued. Employee complainants may request
that their names not be revealed (Maine State Plan pp. 5-7).
    c. Employee Notice and Participation in Inspection. In conducting
inspections, the State Plan must provide an opportunity for employees
and their representatives to point out possible violations through such
means as employee accompaniment or interviews with employees (29 CFR
1956.11(c)(2)(iii)).
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 44a of the Maine Revised Statutes
provides the opportunity for employer and employee

representatives to accompany a Bureau of Labor Standards inspector for
the purpose of aiding the inspection. Where there is no authorized
employee representative, the inspectors are required to consult with a
reasonable number of employees concerning matter of safety and health
in the workplace (Maine State Plan p. 6).
    In addition, the State Plan must provide that employees be informed
of their protections and obligations under the OSH Act by such means as
the posting of notices (29 CFR 1958.11(c)(2)(iv)); and provide that
employees have access to information on their exposure to regulated
agents and access to records of the monitoring of their exposure to
such agents (29 CFR 1956.11(c)(2)(vi)).
    Through Title 26, Chapter 4, Sections 44 and 45 of the Maine
Revised Statutes, the Plan provides for notification to employees of
their protections and obligations under the Plan by such means as a
state poster, required posting of notices of violation, etc. (Maine
State Plan p.8).
    Section 44 also authorizes the Director of Labor to issue rules
requiring employers to maintain accurate records relating to
occupational safety and health. Information on employee exposure to
regulated agents, access to medical and exposure records, and provision
and use of suitable protective equipment is provided through state
standards which will be updated by November 2016 (Maine State Plan p.
3).
    d. Nondiscrimination. A state is expected to provide appropriate
protection to employees against discharge or discrimination for
exercising their rights under the state's program, including provision
for employer sanctions and employee confidentiality (29 CFR
1956.11(c)(2)(v)).
    Title 26, Chapter 6, Section 570 of the Maine Revised Statutes
outlines the provisions that an employer cannot discharge or in any
manner discriminate against an employee filing a complaint, testifying,
or otherwise acting to exercise rights granted by the Maine Revised
Statutes.
    The Plan provides that an employee who believes that he or she has
been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of this
section may, within 30 days after the alleged violation occurs, file a
complaint with the Director of the Bureau, alleging discrimination. If,
upon investigation, the Director determines that the provisions of this
chapter have been violated, the Director shall bring an action in
Superior Court for all appropriate relief, including rehiring or
reinstatement of the employee to his or her former position with back
pay. Within 90 days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this
section, the Director shall notify the complainant of his or her
determination (Maine State Plan p. 7).
    The state has provided assurances in its developmental schedule
that by May 2016, it will adopt regulations equivalent to 29 CFR 1977,
OSHA's whistleblower regulations, or provide a citation to currently
existing equivalent regulations (Maine State Plan p. 13).
    e. Restraint of Imminent Danger. A State Plan is required to
provide for the prompt restraint of imminent danger situations (29 CFR
1956.11(c)(2)(vii)).
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 49 of the Maine Revised Statutes
provides that the Director may petition the Superior Court to restrain
any conditions or practices in any workplace subject to Section 45 in
which a danger exists which will reasonably be expected to cause death
or serious physical harm immediately or before the danger could be
eliminated through the enforcement process (Maine State Plan p. 6).
    f. Right of Entry; Advance Notice. A state program is required to
have the right of entry to inspect workplaces and compulsory process to
enforce such right equivalent to the federal program (Section 18(c)(3)
of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1956.10(e)). Likewise, a state is expected to
prohibit advance notice of inspection, allowing exception thereto no
broader than in the federal program (29 CFR 1956.10(f)).
    Title 26, Chapter 6, Section 566 of the Maine Revised Statutes
authorizes the Director of the Bureau, or his or her representatives,
to perform any necessary inspections or investigations. The Bureau
designates the Division of Workplace Safety and Health to carry out
these provisions. Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 44 provides that the
Director of the Bureau has the right to inspect and investigate during
regular working hours. The inspectors have the right of entry without
delay and at reasonable times. If the public employer refuses entry or
hinders the inspection process in any way, the inspector has the right
to terminate the inspection and initiate the compulsory legal process
and/or obtain a warrant for entry. The inspector has the right to
interview all parties and review records as they relate directly to the
inspection.
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 46 of the Maine Revised Statutes
prohibits advance notice of inspections. Advance notice of any
inspection, without permission of the Director of the Bureau, is
subject to a penalty of not less than $500 or more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both (Maine State Plan p.
6),
    g. Citations, Sanctions, and Abatement. A State Plan is expected to
have authority and procedures for promptly notifying employers and
employees of violations, including proposed abatement requirements,
identified during inspection; for the proposal of effective first-
instance sanctions against employers found in violation of standards;
and for prompt employer notification of any such sanctions. In lieu of
monetary penalties as a sanction, a complex of enforcement tools and
rights, including administrative orders and employees' right to
contest, may be demonstrated to be as effective as monetary penalties
in achieving compliance in public employment (29 CFR 1956.11(c)(2)(ix)
and (x)).
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 45 of the Maine Revised Statutes
establishes the authority and general procedures for the Director of
the Bureau to promptly notify public employers and employees of
violations and abatement requirements, and to compel compliance. If a
Bureau inspector believes that a violation of a safety and health
standard exists, he or she will issue a written citation report with
reasonable promptness. Section 45 provides that when an inspection of
an establishment has been made, and the Director of the Bureau has
issued a citation, the employer shall post such citation or a copy
thereof at or near the location where the violation occurred. Each
citation shall be in writing; describe with particularity the nature of
the violation and include a reference to the provision of the statute,
standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated; and
fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the violation (Maine State
Plan p. 7).
    Title 26, Chapter 3, Section 46 of the Maine Revised Statutes
contains authority for a system of monetary penalties. Monetary
penalties are issued for serious citations. The Director of the Bureau
has discretionary authority for civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day
the violation continues for repeat and willful violations. Serious and
other-than-serious violations may be assessed a penalty of up to $1,000
per violation, and failure-to-correct violations may be assessed a
penalty of up to $1,000 per day. In addition, criminal penalties can be
issued to public employers who willfully violate any standard, rule or
order. An alternative enforcement mechanism that includes
administrative orders may be used in limited circumstances (Maine State
Plan p. 8).

    The state has given an assurance that it will revise its Field
Operations Manual regarding inspections so that it, in conjunction with
the provisions of the Maine Revised Statutes, is at least as effective
as 29 CFR 1903 by January 2016 (Maine State Plan p. 13).
    h. Contested Cases. A State Plan must have authority and procedures
for employer contests of violations alleged by the state, penalties/
sanctions, and abatement requirements at full administrative or
judicial hearings. Employees must also have the right to contest
abatement periods and the opportunity to participate as parties in all
proceedings resulting from an employer's contest (29 CFR
2956.11(c)(2)(xi)).
    Title 26, Chapter 6, Section 568 of the Maine Revised Statutes and
Code of Maine Rules 12-179, Chapter 1 establish the authority and
general procedures for employer contests of violations alleged by the
state, penalties/sanctions and abatement requirements. State and local
government employers or their representatives who receive a citation, a
proposed assessment of penalty, or a notification of failure to correct
a violation may within 15 working days from receipt of the notice
request in writing a hearing before the Board of Occupational Safety
and Health on the citation, notice of penalty or abatement period. Any
public employee or representative thereof may within 15 working days of
the issuance of a citation file a request in writing for a hearing
before the Board on whether the period of time fixed in the citation
for abatement is unreasonable. Informal reviews can be held at the
division management level prior to a formal contest (Maine State Plan
p. 8).
    The Director of the Bureau will remain responsible for the
enforcement process, including the issuance of citations and penalties,
and their defense, if contested. All interested parties are allowed to
participate in the hearing and introduce evidence. The Board shall
affirm, modify, or vacate the citation or proposed penalty or direct
other appropriate relief. Any party adversely affected by a final order
or determination by the Board has the right to appeal and obtain
judicial review by the Superior Court (Maine State Plan p. 8).
    Enforcement Conclusion. Accordingly, OSHA finds that the
enforcement provisions of the Maine State Plan as described above meet
or will meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initial
State Plan approval.

(6) Staffing and Resources

    Section 18(c)(4) of the OSH Act requires State Plans to provide the
qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards. In
accordance with 29 CFR 1956.10(g), one factor which OSHA must consider
in reviewing a plan for initial approval is whether the state has or
will have a sufficient number of adequately trained and competent
personnel to discharge its responsibilities under the Plan.
    The Maine State Plan provides assurances of a fully trained,
adequate staff, including two safety officers and one health officer
for enforcement inspections, and three safety consultants and one
health consultant to provide consultation, training and education
services in the public sector. The Plan provides assurances that within
six months of plan approval the state will have a fully trained,
adequate, and separate staff of compliance officers for enforcement
inspections, and consultants to perform consultation services in the
public sector. The compliance staffing requirements (or benchmarks) for
State Plans covering both the private and public sectors are
established based on the ``fully effective'' test established in AFL-
CIO v. Marshall, 570 F.2d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1978). This staffing test,
and the complicated formula used to derive benchmarks for complete
private/public sector Plans, are not intended, nor are they
appropriate, for application to the staffing needs of State and Local
Government Only Plans. However, the state has given satisfactory
assurance in its Plan that it will meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1956.10 for an adequately trained and qualified staff sufficient for
the enforcement of standards (Maine State Plan pp.11-12).
    Section 18(c)(5) of the OSH Act requires that the State Plan devote
adequate funds for the administration and enforcement of its standards
(29 CFR 1956.10(h)). Maine has funded its state government safety and
health program since 1972 solely utilizing state funds. The State Plan
will be funded at $800,000 ($400,000 federal 50% share and $400,000
state matching share) during federal Fiscal Year 2015.
    Accordingly, OSHA finds that the Maine State Plan has provided for
sufficient, qualified personnel and adequate funding for the various
activities to be carried out under the Plan.

(7) Records and Reports

    State Plans must assure that employers in the state submit reports
to the Assistant Secretary in the same manner as if the Plan were not
in effect (Section 18(c)(7) of the OSH Act). Under a State and Local
Government Only State Plan, public employers must maintain records and
make reports on occupational injuries and illnesses in a manner similar
to that required of private sector employers under the OSH Act and 29
CFR 1956.10(i). The Plan must also provide assurances that the
designated agency will make such reports to the Assistant Secretary in
such form and containing such information as he or she may from time to
time require (Section 18(c)(8) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1956.10(j)).
    Maine has provided assurances in its State Plan that all
jurisdictions covered by the State Plan will maintain valid records and
make timely reports on occupational injuries and illnesses, as required
for private sector employers under the OSH Act (Maine State Plan pp. 9-
11). The records of occupational injuries and illnesses must be
completed and maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions
in Code of Maine Rules 12-179, Chapter 6 and Title 26, Chapter 3,
Section 44 of the Maine Revised Statutes. Title 26, Chapter 1, Section
2 of the Maine Revised Statutes provides the reporting requirements.
The state will provide a comparison of Code of Maine Rules 12-179,
Chapter 6 to the recordkeeping regulations contained in 29 CFR 1904 by
October 2015, and will amend Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the
Maine Revised Statutes in 2015, to ensure equivalency with 29 CFR 1904
in accord with its developmental schedule (Maine State Plan p. 13).
    Maine has also provided assurances in its State Plan that it will
continue to participate in the Bureau of Labor Statistics's Annual
Survey of Injuries and Illnesses in the state to provide detailed
injury, illness, and fatality rates for the public sector. Maine will
also provide reports to OSHA in the desired form and will join the OSHA
Information System within 90 days of plan approval, including the
implementation of all hardware, software, and adaptations as necessary
(Maine State Plan p. 11).
    OSHA finds that the Maine State Plan has met the requirements of
Section 18(c)(7) and (8) of the OSH Act on the employer and state
reports to the Assistant Secretary.

(8) Voluntary Compliance Program

    A State Plan must undertake programs to encourage voluntary
compliance by employers by such means as conducting training and
consultation with employers and employees (29 CFR 1956.11(c)(2)(xii)).

    The Maine State Plan provides that the Bureau will continue to
provide and conduct educational programs for public employees
specifically designed to meet the regulatory requirements and needs of
the public employer. The Plan also provides that consultations,
including site visits, compliance assistance and training classes, are
individualized for each work site and tailored to the public employer's
concerns. In addition, public agencies are encouraged to develop and
maintain their own safety and health programs as an adjunct to but not
a substitute for the Bureau enforcement program (Maine State Plan p.
9).
    The Bureau currently has a public sector on-site consultation
program. Maine will provide an outline of procedures for this program
to ensure equivalency with the regulations regarding consultation in 29
CFR 1908, or a timeline for their development by November 2016 (Maine
State Plan p. 13).
    OSHA finds that the Maine State Plan provides for the establishment
and administration of an effective voluntary compliance program.

E. Decision

    OSHA, after carefully reviewing the Maine State Plan for the
development and enforcement of state standards applicable to state and
local government employers and the record developed during the above
described proceedings, has determined that the requirements and
criteria for initial approval of a developmental State Plan have been
met. The Plan is hereby approved as a developmental State Plan for
State and Local Government Only under Section 18 of the OSH Act.
    In light of the pending reorganization of the State Plan
regulations through the streamlining of 29 CFR part 1952 and 29 CFR
part 1956, OSHA is deferring any change to those regulatory provisions
relating to the Maine State Plan until the streamlining changes take
effect. The change to the regulatory text will be accomplished through
a separate Federal Register Notice.
    The initial approval of a State Plan for State and Local Government
Only in Maine is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OSHA certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the initial approval of the Maine State
Plan will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. By its own terms, the Plan will have no
effect on private sector employment, but is limited to the state and
its political subdivisions. Moreover, Title 26, Labor and Industry, of
the Maine Revised Statutes was enacted in 1971. This legislation
established the Board, whose purpose is to formulate rules that shall,
at a minimum, conform with federal standards of occupational safety and
health, so the state program could eventually be approved as a State
and Local Government Only State Plan. Since 1971 the Maine program for
public employers has been in operation under the Maine Department of
Labor with state funding and all state and local government employers
in the state have been subject to its terms. Compliance with state OSHA
standards is required by state law; federal approval of a State Plan
imposes regulatory requirements only on the agency responsible for
administering the State Plan. Accordingly, no new obligations would be
placed on public sector employers as a result of federal approval of
the Plan.

G. Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' emphasizes consultation
between federal agencies and the states and establishes specific review
procedures the federal government must follow as it carries out
policies that affect state or local governments. OSHA has consulted
extensively with Maine throughout the development, submission and
consideration of its proposed State Plan. Although OSHA has determined
that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive
Order 13132 are not applicable to initial approval decisions under the
OSH Act, which have no effect outside the particular state receiving
the approval, OSHA has reviewed today's Maine initial approval
decision, and believes it is consistent with the principles and
criteria set forth in the Executive Order.

H. Effective Date

    OSHA's decision granting initial federal approval to the Maine
State and Local Government Only State Plan is effective August 5, 2015.
Although the state has had a program in effect for many years,
modification of the program will be required over the next three years
by today's decision. Federal 50% matching funds have been explicitly
provided in OSHA's FY 2015 final appropriation. Notice of proposed
initial approval of the Plan was published in the Federal Register with
request for comment. No comments were received, and OSHA believes that
no party is adversely affected by initial approval of the Plan. OSHA
therefore finds, pursuant to Section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedures Act, that good cause exists for making federal approval of
the Maine State and Local Government Only State Plan effective upon
publication in today's Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29
CFR parts 1902 and 1956.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 28, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-18942 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Comments for EPA hearing on Particulate Pollution Harold J. Farber, MD, FAAP, FCCP Pediatric Pulmonology Vallejo, CA Author of the book Control Your Child's Asthma As a Pediatric Pulmonologist I see the effects of air pollution on children's health!

 Cystic Fibrosis is the most common inherited lung disease.

 A 10 µ g/ m3 risk in PM2.5 lead to:

a 21% increase in risk for 2 or more pulmonary exacerbations needing IV antibiotics.

Decreased lung function ( a mean 155 ml loss of FEV1).

Goss CH et al, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 169: 816 As a Pediatric Pulmonologist I see the effects of air pollution on children's health!

 Particulate pollution increases asthma hospitalizations   especially among preschool children!

In the Utah Valley one steel mill is the major source of particulate pollution

When it was shut down, respiratory illness hospitalizations in preschool children DECREASED by half. The rates doubled when the mill went back into operation.

Similar changes were not seen in neighboring communities.

Pope CA. Arch Environ Health. 1991 Mar Apr; 46( 2): 90 7. Many other studies have similar findings.

Wordley J, Walters S, Ayres JG. Related Articles, Links Short term variations in hospital admissions and mortality and particulate air pollution.

Occup Environ Med. 1997 Feb; 54( 2): 108 16.

Petroeschevsky A, Simpson RW, Thalib L, Rutherford S. Related Articles, Links Associations between outdoor air pollution and hospital admissions in Brisbane,

Australia.

Arch Environ Health. 2001 Jan Feb; 56( 1): 37 52.

McGowan JA, Hider RN, Chacko E, Town GI. Related Articles, Links Particulate air pollution and hospital admissions in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002 Feb; 26( 1): 23 9.

Schwartz J. Related Articles, Links Air pollution and hospital admissions for respiratory disease. Epidemiology. 1996 Jan; 7( 1): 20 8.

Braga AL, Saldiva PH, Pereira LA, Menezes JJ, Conceicao GM, Lin CA,

Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, Dockery DW. Related Articles, Links Health effects of air pollution exposure on children and adolescents in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2001 Feb; 31( 2): 106 13.

Wong TW, Lau TS, Yu TS, Neller A, Wong SL, Tam W, Pang SW. Related Articles, Links Air pollution and hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in Hong Kong. Occup Environ Med. 1999 Oct; 56( 10): 679 83. The Science is Clear

Fine particulate pollution is the nation's DEADLIEST air pollutant.

Fine particulates can lodge deep in the lungs, enter the blood stream, and cause severe problems for the lungs, heart, and circulation.

The most vulnerable among us are most at risk

The very young

The very old

Those of us with chronic illness The Science is Clear  More than 2000 peer reviewed scientific research articles confirm the relation between particulate pollution and health problems

and at levels well below current air quality standards.

 Current air quality standards for particulate pollution DO NOT sufficiently protect the public health. The Science is Clear Fine particulate air pollution causes:

Asthma flare ups

Lung cancer

Heart attacks

Strokes

Premature Death  Infant mortality  Reduced lung growth A mining and agricultural exception from air pollution standards makes no sense.

California's Central Valley   has high levels of air pollution AND the highest level of childhood asthma in the state.

Agriculture is the major industry

Crop burning triggers asthma.

Diesel smoke both causes and triggers asthma.

Particulate pollution created by agricultural activities harms children's breathing.

There are cost effective methods to reduce this pollution. The EPA is taking a " head in the sand"

approach to public health

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ( CASAC) concluded that standards for fine particulate pollution need to be substantially strengthened. This conclusion is based on well established, solid science.

EPA Rejection of the CASAC recommendations is unprecedented.

The determination that children who live in agriculture and mining communities should tolerate higher pollution levels is outrageous! " This is a head in the sand approach by the administration's top leaders on a critical public health issue.

Instead of facing the facts, Bush appointees have adopted weak rules that neglect a dangerous source of disease" Conclusions:

The EPA should follow the recommendations of the CASAC, ALA, ATS, AAP, and many other respected medical and scientific leaders and:

Adopt an annual standard for fine particulate pollution no higher than 12 µ g/ m3

Adopt a daily standard no higher than 25 µ g/ m3

A strong coarse particle standard and monitoring requirement that protects ALL Americans   urban and rural.

Adoption of these standards is important for the life and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80369-80371]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25381]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98910; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-068]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

November 13, 2023.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, effective November
1, 2023. The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More
specifically, the Exchange is only one of 17 options venues to which
market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of
the market share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange,
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order
flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories
of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (October 30, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides standard
rebates ranging from $0.01 up to $0.21 per contract for Customer orders
in both Penny and Non-Penny Securities. The Fee Codes and Associated
Fees section of the Fees Schedule also provides for certain fee codes
associated with certain order types and market participants that
provide for various other fees or rebates. For example, the Exchange
assesses a fee of $0.05 per contract for AIM \4\ Contra orders,
yielding fee code BB; assesses a fee of $1.05 per contract for AIM
Responder orders in Non-Penny Securities, yielding fee code BE; and
provides a rebate of $0.06 for AIM Agency Customer orders, yielding fee
code BC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``AIM'' refers to Automated Improvement Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Codes and Associated Fees
table of the Fee Schedule to adopt new fee codes for AIM Contra and AIM
Agency Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to adopt new fee codes, BF and BG, to apply to AIM
Contra \5\ orders in Non-Penny Securities and AIM Agency \6\ Customer
orders in Non-Penny Securities, respectively. The Exchange proposes to
assess a fee of $0.02 per contract for AIM Contra orders in Non-Penny
Securities yielding fee code BF and to assess no fee per contract for
AIM Agency Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities yielding fee code
BG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``AIM Contra Order'' refers to an order submitted
by a Member entering a AIM Agency Order for execution within AIM
that will potentially execute against the AIM Agency Order pursuant
to Rules 21.19 and 21.22.
    \6\ The term ``AIM Agency Order'' refers to an order represented
as agent by a Member on behalf of another party and submitted to AIM
for potential price improvement pursuant to Rules 21.19 and 21.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the description of current fee
code BB to provide it applies to AIM Contra orders in Penny Securities,
and to amend the current description of current fee code BC to provide
it applies to AIM Agency Customer orders in Penny Securities. The
Exchange also proposes to increase the standard fee for AIM Responder
orders in Non-Penny Securities (i.e., yield fee code BE) from $1.05 per
contract to $1.15 per contract.
    The proposed rule change also amends Footnote 6 of the Fee Schedule
to include new fee codes BF and BG, and to reflect the proposed change
in fees for orders yielding fee code BE.\7\ Further, AIM Agency
Customer order in Non-Penny Securities yielding fee code BG will not be
eligible for rebates under the Automated Improvement ``AIM'' Tiers set
forth in Footnote 9 of the Fee Schedule. As such, the Exchange proposes
to rename Footnote 9 as Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') Penny
Tiers, and revise the definition of Interaction Rate set forth in
Footnote 9 to state that the Interaction Rate is the percentage of the
Penny Agency Order that trades against the Initiating Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As part of the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes
to delete duplicative information in the chart in Footnote 6 related
to Customer AIM and SAM Auction fees. Further, the Exchange proposes
to delete headers in the table referring to issues and consolidate
all fee code and rate information on an order type basis. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 6 to remove an inadvertent
reference to XB, as such fee code was previously removed from the
Exchange Fee Schedule.

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

    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to amend certain Break-Up
Credits located under the AIM and SAM Pricing table in Footnote 6. The
Break-Up Credits provision applies to agency orders submitted in either
the AIM or SAM auction that trades with a response order in the
respective auction. Specifically, the Exchange will apply a Break-Up
Credit to the Member that submitted an Agency Order (i.e., either an
AIM or SAM Agency Order), including a Member who routed an order to the
Exchange with a Designated Give Up, when the Agency Order trades with a
Response Order (i.e., an AIM or SAM Response Order, as applicable). The
Exchange proposes to amend the Break-Up Credit for qualifying AIM
Agency Orders in Non-Penny Securities, from $0.60 per contract to $1.06
per contract.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange is only one of several options venues
to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small percentage of the overall market. The proposed fee
changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize
market participants to direct their order flow, which the Exchange
believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members.
    Overall, the Exchange believes that its proposed adoption of new
fee codes for AIM Contra and AIM Agency Customer orders in Non-Penny
Securities (and related changes for AIM Contra and AIM Agency Customer
orders in Penny Securities) is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act in that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that
competing options exchanges offer a similar distinction between order
types in connection with similar price improvement auctions,\12\ as the
Exchange now proposes. Further, competing exchanges charge different
rates for transactions in their price improvement mechanisms, for
orders in Penny or Non-Penny Securities, in a manner similar to the
proposal. The Exchange believes the fee and rebate schedule as proposed
continues to reflect differentiation among different product classes
typically found in options fee and rebate schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Box Options Fee Schedule, Section IV(B), ``PIP and
COPIP Transactions'', which, for certain fees, provides varying
rates for orders in Penny Interval Classes and Non-Penny Interval
Classes submitted into its PIP and COPIP auction mechanism. See also
MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(v), ``MIAX Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees'', which, for certain fees, provides for
varying rates for orders in Non-Penny Classes and Penny Classes
submitted into its PRIME auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees in relation to AIM orders are designed to promote
order flow through AIM and, in particular, to attract liquidity, which
benefits all market participants by providing additional trading
opportunities at improved prices. This, in turn, attracts increased
large-order flow from liquidity providers which facilitates tighter
spreads and potentially triggers a corresponding increase in order flow
originating from other market participants.
    Also, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee for AIM Contra
and AIM Agency Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities ($0.02 per
contract and no charge, respectively) is reasonable because it
encourages participation in AIM by offering a rate that is equivalent
to or better than most other price improvement auctions offered by
other options exchanges as well as the Exchange itself.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(v), ``MIAX
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees'', which provides for a
fee of no charge to $0.30 per contract for PRIME Agency orders,
depending on market participant; and provides for a fee of no charge
to $0.05 per contract for PRIME Contra-side orders, depending on
market participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed change to the standard
fee for AIM Responder orders in Non-Penny Securities (i.e., yield fee
code BE) from $1.05 per contract to $1.15 per contract is reasonable as
the rate is equivalent to fees at competing exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Box Options Fee Schedule, Section IV(B), ``PIP and
COPIP Transactions'', which provides for a fee of $1.15 for
Professional Customer or Broker Dealer or Market Maker Improvement
Orders in Non-Penny Interval Classes. Footnote 21 to the Fee
Schedule states that an Improvement Order is a response to a PIP or
COPIP auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes its proposal to amend the AIM-
related Break-Up Credit for qualifying orders in Non-Penny Securities
is reasonable because it encourages use of AIM. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that the proposed Break-Up Credit for AIM Agency
Orders in Non-Penny Securities will encourage increased Agency Order
flow to AIM Auctions, thereby potentially increasing the initiation of
and volume executed through AIM Auctions. Additional auction order flow
provides market participants with additional trading opportunities at
improved prices. The Exchange also believes that the proposed AIM
Break-Up Credit of $1.06 for Non-Penny Securities is reasonable and
equitable as this credit is in-line with, albeit slightly higher than,
corresponding break-up fee for a price improvement auction offered by
other options exchanges.\15\ Also, the proposed AIM Break-Up Credits,
as amended, are not unreasonably discriminatory because such credits
are

equally available to all Members submitting AIM Agency Orders to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Box Options Fee Schedule, Section IV(B), ``PIP and
COPIP Transactions'', which provides for PIP and COPIP Break-Up
Credits of $0.81 per contract for Non-Penny Interval Classes. See
also ``MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(v), ``MIAX Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees'', which provides for PRIME
Break-Up Credits ranging from $0.60 to $0.73 per contract for Non-
Penny Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes apply
uniformly to similarly situated Members. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes related to AIM transactions would not impose any
burden on intramarket competition, but rather, serves to increase
intramarket competition by incentivizing members to direct their AIM
orders to the Exchange, in turn providing for more opportunities to
compete at improved prices.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and
direct their order flow, including 17 other options exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall
market. Based on publicly available information, no single options
exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow.
Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \17\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number
    SR-CboeEDGX-2023-068 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 number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-068. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-068 and should
be submitted on or before December 8, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25381 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61232-61233]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11 and 13

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-1051; Amdt. No.: 13-40A]
RIN 2120-AK85

Update to Investigative and Enforcement Procedures and General
Rulemaking Procedures; Technical Amendments

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is making technical amendments to the Update to
Investigative and Enforcement Procedures final rule, which was
published on October 1, 2021. The final rule document inadvertently
removed a delegation of authority from the Administrator for
certificate actions. Also, the FAA is adding the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number for an information collection in the
final rule.

DATES: Effective October 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole R. Milliard, Office of the Chief
Counsel, AGC-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected], or Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez, Office of the Chief
Counsel, AGC-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the Update to Investigative and Enforcement Procedures
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 3614, February 12, 2019),
comments received, and final rule may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of
these technical amendments will be placed in the same docket.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic
copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the
Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the
Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov. A
copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and Policies website at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing these technical
amendments, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be
accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

Good Cause for Adoption Without Prior Notice

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Section 553(d)(3) of the APA requires that
agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective
date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.
    This action makes technical amendments that will not impose any
additional substantive restrictions or requirements on any persons
affected by the regulations. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) is unnecessary and that good
cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective in
less than 30 days.

Background

    On October 1, 2021, the Update to Investigative and Enforcement
Procedures final rule (RIN 2120-AL00) was published in the Federal
Register at 86 FR 54514. After the rule was published, the FAA
discovered that a delegation of the Administrator's authority under 49
U.S.C. 44709 and 5121 previously codified in 14 CFR 13.19(b) was
inadvertently deleted. On March 17, 2022, the Administrator issued a
Delegation of Authority that authorized the Chief Counsel, the Deputy
Chief Counsel, and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement to
exercise his authority under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and 5121 to issue orders,
including emergency orders, and also ratified all orders issued under
these statutes between publication of the final rule and March 17,
2022.
    This technical amendment restores the delegation of the
Administrator's authority under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), and
5121 to part 13 by inserting it in Sec. Sec.  13.19(a)(2) and 13.70.
This places part of the prior delegation that pertained to the
Administrator's authority to take certain certificate actions, as
currently codified in 49 U.S.C. 44709(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2), in Sec.
13.19 because this section pertains to certificate actions. The other
part of the prior delegation that addressed the Administrator's
authority under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as
currently codified in 49 U.S.C. 5121, is being placed in Sec.  13.70 of
subpart E because it pertains to hazardous material actions. It is
necessary to restore this delegation to the text of these regulations
because it was inadvertently deleted, and to ensure consistency
throughout part 13, which contains other codified delegations of the
Administrator's authority.
    This same final rule included an information collection subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act: formal complaints, codified at 14 CFR
13.5. Since the publication of the final rule, OMB has approved the
formal complaint information collection. The FAA is therefore adding
the formal complaint control number to the list of OMB control numbers
for FAA information collections at 14 CFR 11.201.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 13

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation, Aviation
safety, Hazardous materials transportation, Investigations, Law
enforcement, Penalties.

The Amendments

    Accordingly, the FAA amends 14 CFR parts 11 and 13 as set forth
below:

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109,
40113, 44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 50901-
50923.

0
2. Amend the table in paragraph (b) of Sec.  11.201 by adding an entry
for ``13.5'' before the entry ``Part 14'' to read as follows:

Sec.  11.201  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Current OMB
     14 CFR part or section identified and described      control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.5....................................................       2120-0795

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

PART 13--INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

0
3. The authority citation for part 13 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461 (note); 49 U.S.C.
106(g), 5121-5124, 5127, 40113-40114, 44103-44106, 44701-44704,
44709-44710, 44713, 44725, 44742, 44802 (note), 46101-46111, 46301,
46302 (for a violation of 49 U.S.C. 46504), 46304-46316, 46318,
46501-46502, 46504-46507, 47106, 47107, 47111, 47122, 47306, 47531-
47532; 49 CFR 1.83.

0
4. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  13.19 to read as follows:

Sec.  13.19  Certificate actions appealable to the National
Transportation Safety Board.

    (a) This section applies to certificate actions by the
Administrator that are appealable to the National Transportation Safety
Board.
    (1) Under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b) the Administrator may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking all or part of any type
certificate, production certificate, airworthiness certificate, airman
certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air navigation facility
certificate, or air agency certificate if as a result of a
reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation, the Administrator
determines that the public interest and safety in air commerce requires
it, if a certificate holder has violated an aircraft noise or sonic
boom standard or regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 44715(a), or if
the holder of the certificate is convicted of violating 16 U.S.C. 742j-
1(a).
    (2) The authority of the Administrator to issue orders under 49
U.S.C. 44709(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) is delegated to the Chief Counsel,
each Deputy Chief Counsel, and the Assistant Chief Counsel for
Enforcement.
* * * * *

0
5. Add Sec.  13.70 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  13.70  Delegation of authority.

    The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 5121(a) and (d)
is delegated to the Chief Counsel, each Deputy Chief Counsel, and the
Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note and 44807.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-21354 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9795-9796]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1079; Product Identifier 2017-CE-039-AD; Amendment
39-19206; AD 2018-04-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pilatus
Aircraft Limited Model PC-7 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as the brakes remaining activated after release of the brake
pedal. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 12, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 12,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1079; or in person at Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS
Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371
Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67
73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No.
FAA-2017-1079.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Pilatus Aircraft Limited
Model PC-7 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
November 21, 2017 (82 FR 55332). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    This [FOCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to a
report where the brakes have remained activated after release of the
brake pedals before taxing.
    Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could lead to an
asymmetric braking and subsequent loss of directional control.
    In order to correct and control the situation, this [FOCA] AD
requires the modification of the brake-pedal interconnecting tie-rod
by removing the bonding straps and attachment hardware currently
installed on the left and right brake-pedal interconnecting tie-
rods.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-1079-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 32-028, dated September
20, 2017. The service bulletin describes procedures for removing the
left and right brake pedal interconnecting tie rods. 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 the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 18 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2.5 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $3,825, or $212.50 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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1079; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-04-10 Pilatus Aircraft Limited: Amendment 39-19206; Docket No.
FAA-2017-1079; Product Identifier 2017-CE-039-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 12,
2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC-7
airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 101 through 618, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the brakes
remaining activated after release of the brake pedal. We are issuing
this AD to prevent the brakes from remaining activated after the
brake pedal has been released, which could lead to asymmetric
braking and subsequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 90 days after the effective
date of this AD, modify the brake pedal interconnecting tie rods by
removing the bonding straps and attachment hardware following
sections A, B, and C of the Accomplishment Instructions in Pilatus
Service Bulletin 32-028, dated September 20, 2017.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) 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, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, FAA; or the Federal Office of Civil Aviation
(FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI FOCA AD HB-2017-002, dated October 20, 2017, for
related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the
internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-1079-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pilatus Service Bulletin 32-028, dated September 20, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box
992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax:
+41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1079.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 16, 2018.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04267 Filed 3-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P