[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51332-51333]
[DOCID:fr02se08-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58405; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc. Relating to Execution Fees on the XLE Fee Schedule

August 21, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 19, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend the Execution Fees on the XLE Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.phlx.com/regulatory/reg_rulefilings.aspx.

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to adjust the Execution
Fees for XLE[supreg], the Exchange's equity trading platform, in light
of the expected reduction in volume following the Exchange's
announcement to XLE Participants that XLE[supreg] will cease operations
in October 2008. The Exchange informed XLE Participants on August 4,
2008, that the Exchange intends to discontinue XLE[supreg] on or before
October 24, 2008. Following this announcement, the Exchange expects
that XLE Participants will now begin to reduce their operations on
XLE[supreg], thereby reducing volume on XLE[supreg].
    The amendments to the XLE Fee Schedule include a deletion of the
Execution Fees\5\ currently in place, including the categories of fees
based on the volume tier level executed through XLE[supreg] \6\ and on
the XLE Participant's status as a net maker or net taker of
liquidity.\7\ As amended, the Execution Fee for removing liquidity will
be $0.003 per share executed on XLE[supreg].\8\ There will be no credit
for providing liquidity. These fees will apply to XLE Participants
without regard to volume tiers or status as a net taker or net maker of
liquidity. In addition, the XLE Fee Schedule will be amended to delete
footnotes and references in footnotes referring to volume tier and net
maker and net taker qualifications. The remaining footnotes will be
renumbered. The amended Execution Fee will be operative for trades that
settle on or after September 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56526 (September 25,
2007), 72 FR 56117 (SR-Phlx-2007-67).
    \6\ See footnote 4 of the current XLE Fee Schedule.
    \7\ See footnotes 2 and 3 of the current XLE Fee Schedule.
    \8\ The current fee for securities executed on XLE[supreg] with
a per share price below $1.00 that remove liquidity will remain at
0.1% (i.e., 10 basis points) of the total dollar value of the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members who continue to use
XLE[supreg] as the amended fees apply equally to all XLE Participants
and will only operate for less than 60 days as the Exchange intends to
discontinue XLE[supreg] on or before October 24, 2008. In addition, the
Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Rule 610(c)(1)
of Regulation NMS \11\ as the amended Execution Fee for removing
liquidity from XLE[supreg] does not exceed $0.003 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.610(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-63 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-Phlx-2008-63. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 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 Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-63 and should be
submitted on or before September 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20250 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 30848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13962]

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

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-50-000.
    Applicants: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Revised Statement
of Operating Conditions to be effective 6/22/2017; Filing Type: 1000.
    Filed Date: 6/21/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>04.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-836-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Section 4 Rate Change Filing to be effective 8/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5066.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-837-000.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Retention Percentage Tracker of MIGC LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170621-5133.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2017.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13962 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15143-15145]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1036; Product Identifier 2018-SW-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that applied to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3,
SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require either
replacing the main gearbox (MGB) or as an alternative, replacing the
epicyclic reduction gear module for certain serial numbered planet gear
assemblies installed on the MGB. The NPRM also proposed to require
inspecting the MGB magnetic plugs and oil filter for particles and,
depending on the outcome of the inspection, further inspections and
replacing certain parts. The NPRM was prompted by the failure of an MGB
second stage planet gear. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the
applicability to include all Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365
N3, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters. Since these actions impose an
additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening
the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 6, 2021.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1036; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    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
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received 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 SNPRM 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 SNPRM, 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 SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Dynamic Systems
Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking

Discussion

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD
that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-
365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters with at least one Type X or Y planet
gear assembly with a serial number (S/N) listed in Appendices 4.A.
through 4.B of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-
05.00.78, Revision 3, dated March 2, 2018 (ASB AS-365-05.00.78)
installed on the MGB. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 7, 2020 (85 FR 47925). The NPRM proposed to require replacing
the MGB or as an alternative, replacing the epicyclic reduction gear
module for certain serial numbered planet gear assemblies installed on
the MGB. The NPRM also proposed to require inspecting the MGB magnetic
plugs and oil filter for particles. Depending on the outcome of those
inspections, the NPRM proposed to require further inspections and
replacing certain parts.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2017-0116, Revision 2, dated
March 2, 2018, (EASA AD 2017-01162R2), issued by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct
an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3,
SA 365 N, and SA 365 N1 helicopters. EASA advises that after an
accident on a Model EC225 helicopter, an investigation revealed the
failure of a second stage planet gear of the MGB. EASA states that one
of the two types of planet gear assemblies used in the MGB epicyclic
module is subject to higher outer race contact pressures and therefore
is more susceptible to spalling and cracking. Airbus Helicopters
reviewed its range of helicopters with regard to this issue and
provided instructions to improve the reliability of the installed MGB.
Therefore, EASA AD 2017-01162R2 requires repetitive inspections of the
MGB magnetic plugs and corrective action if any particles are detected.
EASA AD 2017-01162R2 also requires, if certain MGB planet gear

assemblies are installed, replacing the planet gear assemblies.
Finally, the EASA AD prohibits installing an MGB with a Type X or Type
Y planet gear assembly on any helicopter.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA discovered that the proposed
applicability was limited to helicopters with at least one affected
assembly installed on the MGB, whereas all Airbus Helicopters Model AS-
365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters, regardless of the
assembly, are subject to the unsafe condition and require repetitive
inspections of the MGB magnetic plugs for particles. Therefore, this
SNPRM corrects the applicability to include all helicopter models. The
FAA also determined that any special flight permits would be limited to
flights with no passengers on board.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the original
NPRM (85 FR 47925, August 7, 2020). The FAA received no comments on
that NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this SNPRM after evaluating all known relevant
information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. Certain
changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM. As a
result, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued ASB AS365-05.00.78 for Model SA-365N,
SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. This service information
specifies performing periodic inspections of the MGB magnetic plugs for
particles. This service information also specifies identifying the type
of gear assembly installed in the MGB and replacing any Type X assembly
within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS). For Type Y gear assemblies, the
service information requires replacing the assembly within 50 hours TIS
or within 300 hours TIS, depending on the time since new. The service
information specifies Type Z gear assemblies should be left as is.
    Airbus Helicopters has also issued Service Bulletin No. AS365-
63.00.21, Revision 3, dated July 26, 2018, for Model AS365 helicopters.
This service information contains procedures for replacing the MGB
epicyclic reduction gear as an option to replacing the MGB.
    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.

Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM

    This SNPRM would maintain the proposed corrective actions from the
NPRM as follows, but would no longer limit the applicability to only
certain helicopters:
     Before further flight, for helicopters with a Type X
planet gear assembly with a certain S/N installed, replacing the MGB.
     For helicopters with no Type X planet gear assembly
installed but at least one Type Y planet gear assembly with a certain
S/N installed, replacing the MGB within 300 hours TIS or before any
planet gear assembly accumulates 1,300 hours TIS since new, whichever
occurs first.
     As an alternative to replacing the MGB, this SNPRM would
allow replacing the epicyclic reduction gear module in the affected
MGB.
    This proposed AD would also:
     Prohibit installing a MGB with Type Y or Type X planet
gear assembly installed on any helicopter.
     Require, within 10 hours TIS and thereafter before the
first flight of the day or at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,
whichever occurs first, inspecting the lower MGB magnetic plugs for
particles and, if there are particles, replacing the MGB, depending on
the type and the size of those particles.

Differences Between This SNPRM and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires a 50-hour or 300-hour TIS compliance time or
by June 30, 2019, whichever occurs first, to determine the type of
planet gear installed in the MGB, and depending on the outcome, to
replace the MGB. This proposed AD would set compliance deadlines based
only on hours TIS or before further flight. The EASA AD allows a pilot
to inspect the MGB magnetic plugs for particles, while this proposed AD
would not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 34 helicopters
of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based
on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the
following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
    Inspecting the magnetic plugs and oil filter for particle deposits
would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per
inspection cycle.
    Replacing an MGB would take about 42 work-hours for cost of $3,570
and parts cost about $295,000 (overhauled) for a total cost of $298,570
per helicopter.
    Replacing the epicyclic reduction gear would take about 56 work-
hours for an estimated cost of $4,760 and parts cost about $11,404 for
a total cost of $16,164 per helicopter.

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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2017-1036; Product Identifier
2018-SW-015-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Airbus Helicopters
Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a main
gearbox (MGB) planet gear assembly. This condition could result in
failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Affected ADs

    None.

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 6, 2021.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters with at least one Type X planet gear
assembly with a serial number (S/N) listed in Appendix 4.A. of
Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-05.00.78,
Revision 3, dated March 2, 2018 (ASB AS-365-05.00.78) installed on
the main gearbox (MGB), before further flight, replace the MGB or as
an alternative to replacing an affected MGB, replace the epicyclic
reduction gear module Post Modification (MOD) 0763C52 in the
affected MGB in accordance with paragraph 3.B.2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin
No. AS365-63.00.21, Revision 3, dated July 26, 2018 (SB AS365-
63.00.21), except you are not required to contact Airbus
Helicopters.
    (2) For helicopters without any Type X planet gear assembly
installed but with at least one Type Y planet gear assembly with an
S/N listed in Appendix 4.B. of ASB AS-365-05.0078 installed on the
MGB, within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), or before any gear
accumulates 1,300 hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first,
replace the MGB or as an alternative to replacing the MGB, replace
the epicyclic reduction gear module MOD 0763C52 in the affected MGB
in accordance with paragraphs 3.B.2. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of SB AS365-63.00.21, except you are not required to
contact Airbus Helicopters.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an MGB
with a Type X or Type Y gear assembly with an S/N listed in Appendix
4.A. or 4.B. of ASB AS-365-05.0078 installed on the MGB, on any
helicopter.
    (4) For all helicopters, within 10 hours TIS and thereafter
before the first flight of the day or at intervals not to exceed 10
hours TIS, whichever occurs first, inspect the lower MGB magnetic
plugs for particles.
    (i) If there are particles that consist of any scale, flake, or
splinter, or particles other than cotter pin fragments, pieces of
lock wire, swarf, abrasion, or miscellaneous non-metallic waste and
the planet gear assembly has logged less than 50 hours TIS since
new, inspect the MGB plugs for particles before further flight and
inspect the oil filter for particles within 5 hours TIS. Thereafter,
for 25 hours TIS, continue to inspect the MGB plugs for particles
before each flight, inspect the oil filter for particles at
intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS, and perform the actions
required by paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) through (B) of this AD.
    (ii) If there are particles that consist of any scale, flake, or
splinter, or particles other than cotter pin fragments, pieces of
lock wire, swarf, abrasion, or miscellaneous non-metallic waste and
the planet gear assembly has logged more than 50 hours TIS since
new, inspect the cumulative surface area of the particles collected
from both the magnetic plug and the oil filter, since last MGB
overhaul or since new if no overhaul has been performed.
    (A) If the total surface area of the particles is less than 3
mm\2\, examine the particles with largest surface area (S), longest
particle length (L) and thickest particles (e).
    (1) If largest surface area (S) of a particle is less than 1
mm\2\, the L is less than 1.5 mm, and the e is less than 0.2 mm,
inspect the MGB plugs for particles before further flight and
inspect the oil filter for particles within 5 hours TIS. Thereafter,
for 25 hours TIS, continue to inspect the MGB plugs for particles
before each flight, inspect the oil filter for particles at
intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS, and perform the actions
required by paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) through (B) of this AD.
    (2) If largest particle size (S) is greater than 1 mm\2\, the L
is greater than 1.5 mm, or the e is greater than 0.2 mm, perform a
metallurgical analysis for any 16NCD13 particles using a method in
accordance with FAA-approved procedures.
    (3) If there are any 16NCD13 particles, replace the MGB with an
airworthy MGB.
    (4) If there are no 16NCD13 particles, inspect the MGB plugs for
particles before further flight and inspect the oil filter for
particles within 5 hours TIS. Thereafter, for 25 hours TIS, continue
to inspect the MGB plugs for particles before each flight, inspect
the oil filter for particles at intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS,
and perform the actions required by paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) through
(B) of this AD.
    (B) If the total surface area of collected particles is greater
than or equal to 3 mm\2\, before further flight, perform a
metallurgical analysis for any 6NCD13 particles using a method in
accordance with FAA-approved procedures.
    (1) If there are any 16NCD13 particles, before further flight,
replace the MGB with an airworthy MGB.
    (2) If there are no 16NCD13 particles, inspect the MGB plugs for
particles before further flight and inspect the oil filter for
particles within 5 hours TIS. Thereafter, for 25 hours TIS, continue
to inspect the MGB plugs for particles before each flight, inspect
the oil filter for particles at intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS,
and perform the actions required by paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) through
(B) of this AD.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be permitted provided that there are
no passengers on board.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti,
Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD No.
2017-0116R2, dated March 2, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2017-1036.

 (j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, Main Rotor
Drive System.

    Issued on February 19, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05355 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


           Information Collection Request (ICR) Supporting Statement
                                      for
 Guidance for Applicants Requesting to Treat/Dispose of PCBs Using Incineration or an Alternative Method

 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a). Title and Number of the Information Collection

      This ICR is entitled, "Guidance for Applicants Requesting to Treat/Dispose of PCBs Using Incineration or an Alternative Method (New)," EPA ICR No. 2596.01, OMB Control No. 2070-NEW.

      1(b). Short Characterization

      The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6(e), 15 USC 2605(e), directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Implementing regulations have been codified in Part 761 in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 761). Under these rules, persons disposing of regulated PCBs are required to use approved methods and, in some cases, obtain an approval. Two of the approved methods to dispose of PCB wastes includes incinerators or high efficiency boilers that comply with requirements in §§761.70 or 761.71, respectively. Section 761.70(d) discusses the approval process where an application and a demonstration test are required prior to destroying PCBs in an incinerator. Under §761.60(e), facilities may request approval of a method alternative to incinerators or high efficiency boilers if the method can achieve a level of performance equivalent to an incinerator approved under §761.70. As such, the approval process for §761.60(e) is generally similar to the discussion presented in §761.70(d).

      Guidance documents were developed in 1986 for persons applying to EPA for approval to dispose of PCBs using incineration (§761.70) or a method alternative to incineration (§761.60(e)). The guidances are split into two document (thermal and non-thermal) and they present and discuss the format, content, and suggested level of detail for approval applications, test plans, and test reports. These guidance documents are being updated and combined into a single document.

      This ICR describes the guidance and estimates the annual hour and cost burden to respondents and EPA who choose to use the guidance. This includes burden associated with reading the document and using the tables.

      The overall reporting and recordkeeping requirements for obtaining a §§761.60(e) and 761.70 approval is reported in a separate ICR, OMB Control No. 2070-0112 (EPA ICR No. 1446.12). Although this ICR (2596.01) includes a burden increase in terms of reviewing and using the guidance document, EPA notes that the guidance will reduce the overall burden in ICR OMB Control No. 2070-0112 to respondents applying for a PCB disposal approval under §§761.60(e) and 761.70 through improved clarification and streamlining of the approval process.

2. NEED, AUTHORITY, AND USE FOR THE COLLECTION

      2(a). Need and Authority for the Collection

      Section 6(e) of TSCA directs EPA to regulate the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Under EPA's regulations, respondents can apply to the EPA to obtain approval to dispose of PCBs through incineration (§761.70) or a method alternative to incineration (§761.60(e)).

      The guidance is intended to help respondents in obtaining EPA approval for PCB disposal using these methods. This guidance benefits both applicants and EPA because it clarifies expectations and promotes consistency. The new guidance document combines information from the 1986 guidance documents with current standard practices, policy, and regulation changes that have occurred since 1986. No new requirements or interpretations were created in this guidance. EPA believes that incorporating both 1986 guidance documents and current standard practices into one document will reduce the back-and-forth between the applicant and EPA and reduce the overall time spent on an application.

      2(b). Use of the Data

      Respondents and EPA will use the data to:

          Develop higher quality applications which will reduce revisions to address deficiencies during EPA review;
          Reduce overall time to obtain an operating approval;
          Increase transparency and expectations by incorporating regulatory changes, guidance documents, and policy decisions since 1986; and
          Improve use of existing guidance (e.g., the document is now word searchable).

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

      3(a). Nonduplication

      None of the information required by the draft guidance would duplicate information required by existing TSCA regulations. This draft guidance updates and replaces existing guidance published in 1986.

	3(b). Public Notice

      In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA submitted the first notice for this ICR on April 16, 2019 and opened a 60-day public comment period. At the end of the comment period, no comments were received. A second notice will be submitted with a 60-day comment period. EPA will review public comments received in response to the notice and will address comments received, as appropriate.

      In addition, EPA released the draft guidance on December 13, 2018, for a 45-day public comment period. See Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0305.

	3(c). Consultations

      EPA contacted the following companies requesting their consultation on this burden estimate:
Name
Company
Contact Information
Ted Sinclair
Crystal Clean
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Miller
Safety-Kleene
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>L Butler
Heartland Petroleum
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tomey Tuttle
FPL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Melvin Keener
CRWI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jim Roewer
USWAG
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Vanessa Caron
Northeast Utilities
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ECOS
ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      One response was received. They estimated that it would take 40 to 50 hours to read the guidance and 20 hours to read and use the checklists. They estimated a total burden of 60 to 70 hours. EPA's original estimate of 9.9 hours relied on standard estimates of reading speed by individuals (Carver, 1990).

	3(d). Effect of Less Frequent Collection

      If these activities were conducted less frequently, the universe of §§761.60(e) and 761.70 applicants would not have access to tools to assist them with applying to EPA for approval to dispose of PCBs.

	3(e). General Guidelines

      This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's implementing regulations, EPA's ICR Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

	3(f). Confidentiality

      EPA handles claims of confidentiality pursuant to established confidential business information (CBI) procedures, as found at section 14 of TSCA, 40 CFR 750.16 and 750.36, and the Agency's TSCA CBI Manual. CBI is also protected under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 525). The guidance does not require any information to be submitted to EPA.

	3(g). Sensitive Questions

	No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements.

4. THE RESPONDANTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a). Respondents and NAICS Codes

      The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with the facilities most likely to be affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR.

                                     NAICS
                                 Facility Type
                                      562
Waste Management and Remediation Services. E.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., storage facilities, incinerators), waste treatment and disposal, remediation services, and material recovery facilities.

                                      54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. E.g., testing laboratories, environmental consulting.

	4(b). Information Requested

      This section describes the information collection requirements related to the guidance. As discussed previously, use of this guidance is voluntary and does not require any information to be submitted to EPA.

             Reading the Guidance

            An applicant may read the guidance before and during the process for applying to the EPA for approval to dispose of PCBs through incineration or an alternative method.

             Utilizing the Tables Provided in the Guidance

            An applicant may use the tables listed below for their own benefit to assist them in determining if they have all the appropriate information in their application, test plan, and/or test report. The research, analysis, and development of the information for the tables are not included in this information collection as they are reported within a separate ICR, OMB Control No. 2070-0112. The purpose of these tables is to assist the applicant in confirming they have all the required information and to quickly identify whether certain components are missing.

            The tables depend on the type of technology the applicant is using so not all tables listed below are applicable to every applicant.

 Table B-1. Example Approval Application Checklist for Thermal and Non-Thermal Methods
 Table B-2. Example Checklist for a Test Plan
 Table B-3. Example Monitoring and Sampling Parameter Summary to be included in Test Plans for Incinerators or Alternative Thermal Destruction Processes
 Table B-4. Example Monitoring and Sampling Parameter Supplement for an Alternative Non-Thermal Technology
 The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Template
 Table F-1. Example Checklist for Thermal Alternative Methods (e.g., Thermal Desorber) for Use During the Test
 Table F-2: Example Checklist for Non-Thermal Alternative Methods (i.e., Chemical Dechlorination) for Use During the Test

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a). Agency Activities

      The guidance will likely reduce Agency burden and costs in reviewing PCB applications, which are activities reported in OMB Control No. 2070-0112.

	5(b). Collection Methodology and Management

      EPA does not intend to collect information in the guidance. EPA will provide the guidance to applicants on its website.

	5(c). Small Entity Flexibility

      Small businesses must comply with the PCB regulations under TSCA. This guidance is intended to clarify and streamline the process for obtaining EPA approval, which will benefit all regulated entities, including small entities.

	5(d). Collection Schedule

      EPA does not intend to collect information in the guidance and, thus, here is no required schedule for collection.

6. ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a). Estimating Respondent Burden

      To develop the respondent burden for this ICR, the hourly burdens and the total number of respondents for each requirement were reviewed using a number of data and information sources. The data sources include EPA's Notification of PCB Activity Quarterly Reports, the PCB annual report, and the EPA PCB website, which contain data about entities that dispose PCB wastes.

      Hourly wage rates were included for professional/technical (e.g., engineers) and clerical staff. Wages for these categories were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) supplementary tables data for private manufacturing industry workers (BLS, 2018). The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series. An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses (Rice, 2002). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. Fully loaded costs for managerial, profession/technical, and clerical labor are calculated as shown in Table 6-1.

                       TABLE 6-1: RESPONDENT WAGE RATES

                                Labor Category
                                  BLS Series
                                     Wage
                                      (a)
                                Fringe Benefit
                                      (b)
                               Fringes as % wage
                                  (c)=(b)/(a)
                               Over-head % wage
                                      (d)
                           Fringe + overhead factor*
                                 (e)=(c)+(d)+1
                                 Loaded Wages
                                 (f)=(a)* (e)
Professional/
Technical
Professional and related
$46.08
$24.63
53%
17%
1.70
$78.33
Clerical
Office and administrative support
$22.48
$11.50
51%
17%
1.68
$37.76
      Methodology Source: Rice, 2002; Data Source: BLS, 2018.

      The respondent burden includes time to read the guidance and use the tables in the guidance. According to EPA records there were approximately eight facilities in FY2018 that received an approval to dispose of PCBs using an alternative technology or an incinerator (§§761.60(e) or 761.70). This includes facilities that applied for either a new approval or a renewal of their current approval. Since this is new guidance we will assume all applicants will read the entire guidance but, in the future, it is possible that those renewing their approval will not read the entire guidance document. We are assuming the universe is eight facilities per year.

      The guidance document is approximately 59,000 words and assuming an average person reads about 200 word per minute, it is estimated that an applicant will take about 4.9 hours to read the entire guidance document (Carver, 1990).

      The purpose of the tables in the guidance is for the applicant to use the appropriate information into the tables to quickly determine if they have all the required information or if certain components are missing. In many instances it may only be a check mark indicating that appropriate information is in the corresponding document. The research and development of the information to include in the tables is reported separately under OMB Control No. 2070-0112. Additionally, not all tables in the guidance are applicable to every scenario. After reviewing the tables, it is estimated that an applicant will have to review about 600 different elements and each element is estimated to take 30 seconds. It is estimated that it will take an applicant 5 hours to use the applicable tables in the guidance. EPA notes that use of guidance is entirely voluntary on the part of the respondents.

      When consulting a company that may use this guidance, they estimated that it would take 40 to 50 hours to read the guidance and 20 hours to use the checklists. They estimated a total of 60 to 70 hours. Considering only one company responded, EPA believes it is appropriate to average EPA's estimate with the information provided by the company. It is estimated that the burden will be about 27.5 hours to read the guidance and 12.5 hours to use the tables. A total burden of 40 hours per respondent.

	6(b). Estimating Respondent Costs

      Table 6-2 shows the annual respondent hourly burden and cost estimates for applicants using the guidance document. There are no capital costs to the respondent associated with this information collection.

TABLE 6-2: ANNUAL RESPONDENT HOURLY BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATE IF USING THE GUIDANCE [[a]]

                                   Category
                              Technical @ $78.33

                                     Hour
                               Clerical @ $37.76

                                     Hour
                                Hours/ Resp./
                                 Year[[][b][]]
                              Labor Cost/ Resp./
                                 Year[[][c][]]
                                  Total # of
                                     Resp.
                                 Total Hours/
                                 Year[[][d][]]
                                 Total Cost/
                           Year[[][d][]][,] [[e][]]
Reading Guidance
                                     27.5

                                     27.5
                                    $ 2,154
                                       8
                                      220
                                   $ 17,232
Filling out Tables in Guidance
                                     12.5

                                     12.5
                                     $ 979
                                       8
                                      100
                                    $ 7,833
Total

                                      40
                                    $ 3,133

                                      320
                                   $ 25,065
[a] Totals may not add due to rounding; [b] Sum of staff hours; [[c]] Sum of staff hours x labor rates; [[d]] Hours/respondent/year x total number of respondents; [e] Labor cost/respondent x total number of respondents; [[e]] Numbers in parenthesis represent a negative value.

	6(c). Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      The guidance does not impact Agency hourly burden and cost estimates. However, the guidance will likely reduce Agency burden and costs in reviewing PCB applications, which are activities reported in OMB Control No. 2070-0112.

	6(d). Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs

      See Table 6-2 for this information. The total annual burden on applicants using the guidance will be 320 hours and cost a total of $25,065. However, use of the guidance in streamlining the application process will reduce the burden and cost in OMB Control No. 2070-0112.

	6(e). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

      	6(e)(i). Respondent Tally

            As indicated in Table 6-2, the total respondent annual burden is 320 hours and $25,065.

      	6(e)(ii). Agency Tally

            This guidance does not affect Agency annual burden and cost under this ICR. However, the guidance will likely reduce Agency burden and costs in reviewing PCB applications, which are activities reported in OMB Control No. 2070-0112.

      	6(e)(iii). Variation in the Annual Bottom Line

            There are no anticipated significant variations in the annual burden or cost for either the respondents or the federal government.

	6(f). Reasons for Change in Burden

      This new ICR describes the guidance and estimates the annual hour and cost burden to respondents and EPA who choose to use the new Guidance for Applicants Requesting to Treat/Dispose of PCBs Using Incineration or an Alternative Method.  This guidance combines two existing guidance documents that were developed in 1986 for persons applying to EPA for approval to dispose of PCBs using incineration (761.70) or a method alternative to incineration (761.60(e)) and present and discuss the format, content, and suggested level of detail for approval applications, test plans, and test reports.

	6(g). Burden Statement

      The public burden for using this guidance when applying to treat/dispose of PCB waste using incineration or an alternative method, which is approved under OMB 2070-NEW, is estimated to average 40 hours per applicant. This average is the combination of reading this guidance (estimated to be 27.5 hours per applicant) and filling out the checklists in the appendices of this guidance (estimated to be 12.5 hours per applicant). However, the overall burden on those applying to treat/dispose of PCB waste using incineration or an alternative method is expected to be reduced significantly because this guidance will streamline the approval process. This is captured in a separate ICR, PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements found in docket (OMB Control No. 2070-0112). This document may be useful for those applying to treat/dispose of PCB waste using incineration or an alternative method under 40 CFR 761.70 or 40 CFR 761.60(e).

      An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

      Those treating/disposing of PCB waste using incineration or an alternative method may submit documentation in accordance with this guidance, or as specified in the corresponding regulation. Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. You can also send comments to OMB, addressed to "OMB Desk Officer for EPA" and referencing OMB Control No. 2070-NEW (EPA ICR No. 2596.01) via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0305 and OMB control number 2070-NEW (EPA ICR No. 2596.01) in any correspondence, but do not submit any other information (e.g., forms, reports, etc.) to these addresses.