[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32826-32829]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 210

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0038]
RIN 2130-AC69

Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to eliminate the requirement that certain
locomotives display a badge or tag to demonstrate the railroad has
certified the locomotives comply with noise emission standards. This
proposed rule would reduce economic burdens on the rail industry by
removing the badge or tag requirement.

DATES:
    (1) Written comments must be received by September 14, 2018.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
practicable.
    (2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to August 15, 2018, one will be scheduled
and FRA will publish a supplemental document in the Federal Register to
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2017-0038 may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Website: Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Supplementary
Information section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Watson, Industrial Hygienist,
Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, W38-224, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-
1388), or Sam Gilbert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W31-228,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771,
which requires, when an agency proposes a new significant regulation,
it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. FRA
reviewed the Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations in 49 CFR
part 210 \1\ (``part 210'') and identified for potential elimination
the requirement that railroads display a permanent badge or tag in the
cabs of their locomotives certifying the locomotives comply with FRA's
noise emission standards. FRA believes eliminating this requirement

would reduce economic burdens on the rail industry without adversely
impacting compliance with part 210. Therefore, in this NPRM, FRA
proposes to eliminate the badge or tag requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to CFR sections
and parts in this document refer to Title 49 of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates there would be no cost burden associated with this
proposed rule. In fact, the elimination of the requirement to install a
badge in locomotives would save most railroads both the labor to
install the badge, and the cost of the badge itself. Over a 20-year
period, FRA estimates $1,858,859 in cost savings would accrue--a
present, discounted value of $1,053,564 (7% discount).

II. Background and Overview of the Proposal

    FRA regulations in part 210 limit the noise emitted by railroad
locomotives, cars, and other equipment. FRA originally developed these
regulations in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency
under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234, Pub. L. 92-574) and
FRA's general enforcement and inspection authority under the railroad
safety statutes. See 41 FR 49183, 49183-84 (Nov. 8, 1976).
    Part 210 requires railroads to certify that locomotives built after
December 31, 1979, comply with FRA's noise emission standards. Under
section 210.27(d), railroads must attach a permanent badge or tag in
the cab of the locomotive displaying the results of the certification
test (including the method, date and location of the test, and the
sound level reading obtained during the test).
    In 2014, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested FRA
eliminate the requirement to display the certification of compliance
with noise emission standards in the locomotive, in its comments on a
separate proposed rule concerning stenciling requirements for window
glazing. AAR Comment, November 25, 2014, Docket No. FRA-2012-0103. AAR
noted that when FRA added section 210.27(d) in 1983, few locomotives
had been tested and certified to comply with FRA's noise emission
standards. AAR contended that instead of testing individual locomotives
for compliance with the noise emission standards, railroads currently
test locomotives by model. Documentation of that testing is maintained
by the railroads as a usual and customary practice, and may be
consulted if FRA has a doubt about whether a locomotive has been tested
for compliance with part 210.
    FRA declined to eliminate the display requirement for noise
certification at that time because it was beyond the scope of the
window-glazing rulemaking. However, FRA said it would consider the
merits of AAR's request and evaluate how to address the issue in the
future. 81 FR 6775, 6778 (Feb. 9, 2016).
    FRA continually reviews and revises its regulations to ensure the
regulatory burden on the rail industry is not excessive, clarify the
application of existing requirements and remove requirements no longer
necessary, and keep pace with emerging technology, changing operational
realities and safety concerns. In addition, on January 30, 2017, the
President issued Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs). Executive Order 13771 requires agencies
to identify at least two existing regulations to repeal when they
propose a new significant regulation. Because the badge or tag
requirement is unnecessary for purposes of FRA enforcement of the noise
testing requirements, FRA determined repealing section 210.27(d) would
reduce the burden on the rail industry without adversely impacting
FRA's ability to ensure compliance with part 210. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to eliminate the requirement for locomotives to display a
permanent badge or tag certifying compliance with noise emission
standards.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.

Section 210.27 New Locomotive Certification

    Section 210.27 requires railroads certify their locomotives comply
with FRA's noise emission standards. Paragraph (a) requires railroads
certify that locomotives built after December 31, 1979, comply with the
noise emission standards. Paragraph (b) provides railroads must
determine certification for each locomotive model by load cell testing
or passby testing. Paragraph (c) states if railroads use passby
testing, they should conduct the test with the locomotive operating at
maximum rated horsepower output. Under paragraph (d), railroads must
attach a permanent badge or tag in the cab of the locomotive to display
the results of the certification test.
    FRA determined this badge or tag is no longer necessary, and the
proposed rule would remove paragraph (d) in its entirety. Although
railroads would no longer need to display a badge or tag in the
locomotive cab, they would still need to test their locomotives and
certify they comply with the noise emission standards, as required
under section 210.27(a) through (c).

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    FRA evaluated this proposed rule consistent with existing policies
and procedures, and determined it to be non-significant under both
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 as well as DOT policies and procedures
(44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)). The proposed rule is also consistent
with Executive Order 13563, which emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility. Finally, this proposed rule is expected to
be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost
savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic
analysis.
    FRA proposes to eliminate the requirement that locomotives display
a permanent badge or tag to demonstrate they have been certified to
comply with noise emission standards. (The permanent badge or tag will
hereafter be referred to as a ``badge'' in this analysis.) A badge is
typically a metal plate installed inside the cab of the locomotive.
Most railroads would benefit from this proposed rule because a badge is
currently required in all locomotives. Any railroad purchasing new
locomotives would not be required to display a badge, therefore saving
it money. Also, badges would no longer need to be replaced when
locomotives are overhauled.
    FRA estimates there would be no cost burden associated with this
proposed rule. The elimination of the requirement to install a badge in
locomotives would save most railroads both the labor to install the
badge, and the cost of the badge itself. Over a 20-year period, this
analysis finds $1,858,859 in cost savings would accrue through the
elimination of this requirement. The present, discounted value of these
cost savings is $1,053,564 (7% discount). FRA has prepared and placed
in the docket a regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of
this proposed rule. FRA requests comments on all aspects of the
regulatory evaluation and its conclusions.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (94 Stat. 1164, Pub. L. 96-
354), as amended, and codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and
Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking), require agency review of proposed and final rules to
assess their impact on ``small

entities'' for purposes of the RFA. An agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies a rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. FRA expects this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small
entities, in consultation with the Small Business Administration and in
conjunction with public comment. FRA published a final statement of
agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' or ``small
businesses'' as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials
shippers with the revenue of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49
CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual
revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions
that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9,
2003), codified at 49 CFR part 209, Appendix C. FRA is using this
definition for this rulemaking.
    FRA estimates there are 704 Class III railroads, most of which
would be affected by this proposed rule. Most Class III railroads do
not purchase new locomotives; rather, they purchase used locomotives
from Class I and Class II railroads. Therefore, any badges required
would have already been installed by the larger railroad. If a small
railroad did indeed purchase a new locomotive, however, they would save
money because the badge would no longer be required. Small railroads
would at all events benefit since they would not need to replace badges
as they age or when locomotives are overhauled. Therefore, any impact
on small railroads by this proposed regulation would likely be small
and entirely beneficial.
    FRA invites comments from all interested parties concerning the
potential economic impact on small entities resulting from this
proposed rule. FRA will consider the comments and data it receives in
determining the small entity impact for the final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that
contain the current information collection requirements and the
estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Respondent         Total annual      Average time per      Total annual
           CFR section                 universe            responses           response          burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210.27(a)--New Locomotive         4 Manufacturers...  4 requests........  30 minutes........  2 hours.
 Certification--Request to
 Manufacturer for Certification.
210.27(d)--New Locomotive         4 Manufacturers...  790 badges........  30 minutes........  minus 395 hours
 Certification--Identification                                                                 (Previously
 of Certified Locomotive by                                                                    Approved Burden
 Badge Plate (Proposed                                                                         by OMB).
 Rescission of Provision).
210.31--Recorded Measurements of  4 Manufacturers...  745 forms/records.  3 hours...........  2,235 hours.
 Locomotive Noise Emission Test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed
data, and reviewing the information.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments
concerning: Whether these information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FRA, including
whether the information has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection requirements; the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
whether the burden of collection of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information technology, may be minimized.
    For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to
OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, at
202-493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Office of Railroad Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be
submitted via email to Mr. Brogan at [email protected], or to Ms.
Toone at [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The current OMB control number for this information collection is OMB
No. 2130-0527.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), agencies may not issue a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State
and local

governments, or the agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    This proposed rule has been analyzed consistent with the principles
and criteria in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would not
have a substantial effect on the States or their political
subdivisions; it would not impose any substantial direct compliance
costs; and it would not affect the relationships between the Federal
government and the States or their political subdivisions, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    However, this proposed rule could have preemptive effect under
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes,
specifically the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (former
FRSA), repealed and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20106, and the former
Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22-34, repealed and
re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701-03. The former FRSA provides that States
may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order
related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter
of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies
under the ``local safety or security hazard'' exception to section
20106. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the former LIA
preempts the field concerning locomotive safety. See Napier v. Atl.
Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) and Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods.
Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012). Therefore, if this proposed rule were
adopted, it is possible States would be preempted from requiring that
locomotives display a permanent badge or tag certifying the locomotive
complies with FRA's noise emission standards.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed regulation consistent with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's
Procedures), 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999), as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental
statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA
has determined this proposed regulation is not a major FRA action
(requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's
Procedures. 64 FR 28547-48.
    Under section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has
further concluded no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to
this regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed
environmental review. Consequently, FRA finds this proposed regulation
is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2
U.S.C. 1531, each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited
by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to
the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1532, further
requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for
which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency
shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rule would
not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or
more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 210

    Noise control.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
part 210 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for part 210 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 17, Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234 (42 U.S.C.
4916); 49 CFR 1.89.

Sec.  210.27   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  210.27 by removing paragraph (d).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Ronald Louis Batory,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-14961 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 147)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38381-38383]
[DOCID:fr03au09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0663; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS 332 C, L,
L1, and L2; AS 350 B3; AS 355 F, F1, F2, and N; SA 365 N and N1; AS 365
N2 and N3; SA 366 G1; EC 130 B4; and EC 155B and B1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified model helicopters. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Community. The MCAI states that the AD is
issued following a manufacturing nonconformity found on one batch of
the servo-control caps. With a defective servo-control, rotation of the
distributor might not be stopped mechanically since only friction of
inner seals holds the distributor sleeve in its position. The proposed
AD actions are intended to address the unsafe condition created by a
manufacturing nonconformity found on one batch of servo-control caps.
If not corrected this condition could cause untimely movements of
servo-controls, which are used on main and anti-torque rotors, and lead
to the loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
http://www.eurocopter.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0663;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-25-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the technical agent for Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2007-0099, dated April 11,
2007 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Eurocopter France Model AS 332 C, L, L1, and L2; AS 350
B3; AS 355 F, F1, F2, and N; SA 365 N and N1; AS 365 N2 and N3; SA 366
G1; EC 130 B4; and EC 155 B and B1 helicopters. The MCAI states that
the AD is issued following a manufacturing nonconformity found on one
batch of the servo-control cap, part number 800137. With a defective
servo-control, rotation of the distributor might not be stopped
mechanically since only friction of inner seals holds the distributor
sleeve in its position. If not corrected this condition could cause
untimely movements of servo-controls, which are used on main and anti-
torque rotors, and lead to the loss of control of the helicopter. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service
information in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 67.00.37 for
Model AS 332 helicopters, ASB No. 67.00.40 for Model AS 350
helicopters, ASB No. 67.00.28 for Model AS 355 helicopters, ASB No.
67.00.13 for Model AS 365 and SA 365 helicopters, ASB No. 67.08 for
Model SA 366 helicopters, ASB No. 67A010 for Model EC 130 helicopters,
and ASB No. 67A010 for Model EC 155 helicopters, all Revision 0 and all
dated February 19, 2007. Two of the ASBs have identical numbers and
dates. There is a separate ASB No. 67A010 with the same date for the
Model EC130 helicopter and the Model EC 155 helicopter. The actions
described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition
as that identified in the service information.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country, and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. However, our AD differs from the
MCAI in that it:
     Is not applicable to the Model AS 332 C1 helicopters
because they are not type certificated in the United States;
     Does not require returning the servo-controls to the
manufacturer;
     Does not address servo-control ``spares'' (parts not
installed on a helicopter);
     Uses the term ``inspect'' rather than ``check''; and
     Includes information explaining that there are 2 ASBs with
the same number and date--ASB No. 67A010 for the Model EC130 B4
helicopters and ASB No. 67A010 for the Model EC 155 B and B1
helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 318
helicopters with 33 non-conforming control cap assemblies of U.S.
registry. Also, we estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour to
inspect each helicopter in the fleet and 4 work-hours per helicopter to
remove and replace an unairworthy servo-control. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. A replacement cap assembly would cost $15,605.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $550,965, or $1,733 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.
    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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

    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]

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

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2009-0663; Directorate Identifier
2007-SW-25-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 2, 2009.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS
332 C, L, L1, and L2; AS 350 B3; AS 355 F, F1, F2, and N; SA 365 N
and N1; AS 365 N2 and N3; SA 366 G1; EC 130 B4; and EC 155 B and B1
helicopters, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states that the AD is issued following a manufacturing nonconformity
found on one batch of the servo-control cap, part number (P/N)
800137. With a defective servo-control, rotation of the distributor
might not be stopped mechanically since only friction of inner seals
holds the distributor sleeve in its position. If not corrected this
condition could cause untimely movements of servo-controls, which
are used on main and anti-torque rotors, and lead to the loss of
control of the helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For each servo-control with a P/N and a serial number (S/N)
listed in paragraph 1.A.1. of the applicable Eurocopter Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) stated in Table 1 of this AD, determine
whether there is a letter ``R'' marked in the inspection box of the
servo-control identification plate.
    (2) If there is no letter ``R'' marked in the inspection box of
a servo-control identification plate, on the next removal of the
servo-control, or not later than 2 years after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the servo-control with an
airworthy servo-control that has an ``R'' marked in the inspection
box of the servo-control identification plate or one with a serial
number not listed in paragraph 1.A.1 of the ASB applicable to your
model helicopter.

    Note 1: The letter ``R'' marked in the inspection box of the
servo-control identification plate indicates that the servo-control
cap assembly has been brought into conformity with design data and
has been installed properly.

    (3) There are 2 identically numbered and dated ASBs. There is an
ASB No. 67A010, dated February 19, 2007, that applies to the Model
EC130B4 helicopters and an ASB No. 67A010, dated February 19, 2007,
that applies to the Model EC 155B and B1 helicopters. You must use
the ASB that applies to your model helicopter.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            For helicopter model                               Refer to paragraph 1.A.1 of ASB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS 332 C, L, L1, and L2....................  No. 67.00.37, dated February 19, 2007.
AS 350 B3..................................  No. 67.00.40, dated February 19, 2007.
AS 355 F, F1, F2, and N....................  No. 67.00.28, dated February 19, 2007.
AS 365 N and N1............................  No. 67.00.13, dated February 19, 2007.
SA 366 G1..................................  No. 67.08, dated February 19, 2007.
EC 130 B4..................................  No. 67A010, dated February 19, 2007.
EC 155B and B1.............................  No. 67A010, dated February 19, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences between the FAA AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI AD in that it:
    (1) Is not applicable to the Model AS 332 C1 helicopters because
they are not type certificated in the United States;
    (2) Does not require returning the servo-controls to the
manufacturer;
    (3) Does not address servo-control ``spares'' (parts not
installed on a helicopter);
    (4) Uses the term ``inspect'' rather than ``check''; and
    (5) Includes information explaining that there are 2 ASBs with
the same number and date.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, 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: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Related Information

    (h) MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0099, dated April 11,
2007, contains related information.

Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code

    (i) JASC Code 6700: Rotorcraft Flight Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 14, 2009.
Judy I. Carl,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-18429 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55890-55891]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25359]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32899; 812-14804]

Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC, et al.; Notice of Application

November 17, 2017
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under
section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-
based series of certain open-end management investment companies
(``Funds'') to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only
(``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares
to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value
(``NAV''); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain
circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for
redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit
securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection
with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain
registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts
outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (``Funds
of Funds'') to acquire shares of the Funds.

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

APPLICANTS: Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC (the ``Initial
Adviser''), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; The RBB
Fund, Inc. (the ``Company''), a Maryland corporation registered under
the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple
series; and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the ``Distributor''), a Delaware
limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'').

DATES: The application was filed on July 21, 2017, and amended on
October 20, 2017, and November 14, 2017.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on December 12, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Initial Adviser, 2000
Duke Street, Suite 175, Alexandria, Virginia 22134; the Company, 615
East Michigan Street, 4th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; the
Distributor, 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Cordell, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-5496; or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-
6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as
index exchange traded funds (``ETFs'').\1\ Fund shares will be
purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units only. All orders
to purchase Creation Units and all redemption requests will be placed
by or through an ``Authorized Participant'', which will have signed a
participant agreement with the Distributor. Shares will be listed and
traded individually on a national securities exchange, where share
prices will be based on the current bid/offer market. Any order
granting the requested relief would be subject to the terms and
conditions stated in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the existing
series of the Company that are index ETFs and any additional series
of the Company, and any other open-end management investment company
or series thereof, that may be created in the future (each, included
in the term ``Fund''), each of which will operate as an ETF and will
track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/
or fixed income securities (each, an ``Underlying Index''). Any Fund
will (a) be advised by the Initial Adviser or an entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Adviser
(each, an ``Adviser'') and (b) comply with the terms and conditions
of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond
closely to the performance of an underlying index. In the case of self-
indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of
the Act (``Affiliated Person''), or an affiliated person of an
Affiliated Person (``Second-Tier Affiliate''), of the Company or a
Fund, of an Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of
the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor, or maintain the
underlying index.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site the
identities and quantities of the investment positions that will form
the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the
day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to
maintain full portfolio transparency will help address, together
with other protections, conflicts of interest with respect to such
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and
generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption
will include cash under the limited

circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required
to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments
(``Deposit Instruments''), and shareholders redeeming their shares will
receive specified instruments (``Redemption Instruments''). The Deposit
Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro
rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash
positions) except as specified in the application.
    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants
request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the
Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management
investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation
Units only.
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the
Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares
will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price
described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV.
Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not
involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an
investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist
during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as
a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand.
Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in
shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among
purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will
be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares
from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
    6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of
Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes
that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the
requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to
pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the
tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the
requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent
of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen
delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to
acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the
Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or
any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares
to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other
things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund
through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or
Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain
ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind.
The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the
redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be
the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and
Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those
investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek
relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section
17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from
a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions
with the Fund of Funds.\3\ The purchase of Creation Units by a Fund of
Funds directly from a Fund will be accomplished in accordance with the
policies of the Fund of Funds and will be based on the NAVs of the
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares
in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of Funds and redemptions of
those shares. Applicants, moreover, are not seeking relief from
section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will not apply to,
transactions where a Fund could be deemed an Affiliated Person, or a
Second-Tier Affiliate, of a Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an
entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an
Adviser provides investment advisory services to that Fund of Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25359 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51842-51843]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0067]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on August 3, 2020, Steam into
History (SIHX) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2020-0067.
    Specifically, SIHX requests special approval pursuant to 49 CFR
215.203, Restricted cars, for coach SIHX 820, which will be operated
and maintained by Steam into History on the Northern Central Railway
between New Freedom, Pennsylvania, and Hyde, Pennsylvania. SIHX 820 is
a flat car converted for use in passenger service and will hold a
maximum of 62 persons, not exceeding a maximum of 10 tons.
    SIHX also requests relief from 49 CFR 215.303, Stenciling of
restricted cars, as the car will be used exclusively in captive
passenger service and will not be interchanged. SIHX also attempts to
keep its equipment historically accurate.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 5, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-18314 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P