[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55708-55712]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19841]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89739; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend IM-5101-1 (Use of Discretionary
Authority) To Deny Listing or Continued Listing or To Apply Additional
and More Stringent Criteria to an Applicant or Listed Company Based on
Considerations Related to the Company's Auditor or When a Company's
Business Is Principally Administered in a Jurisdiction That Is a
Restrictive Market

September 2, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On May 19, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend IM-5101-1 (Use of Discretionary
Authority) to deny listing or continued listing or to apply additional
and more stringent criteria to an applicant or listed company based on
considerations related to the company's auditor or when a company's
business is principally administered in a jurisdiction that has secrecy
laws, blocking statutes, national security laws,

or other laws or regulations restricting access to information by
regulators of U.S.-listed companies in such jurisdiction. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
8, 2020.\3\ On July 20, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this order to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons
and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88987 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 34774. Comments on the proposed rule change can be
found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-028/srnasdaq2020028.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89344, 85 FR 44951
(July 24, 2020). The Commission designated September 6, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange states that its listing rules include requirements to
provide transparent disclosure to investors as well as corporate
governance requirements for listed companies.\7\ In addition to these
requirements, the Exchange further states that Rule 5101 describes the
Exchange's broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued
listing of securities on the Exchange in order to maintain the quality
of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest.
Pursuant to this rule, the Exchange states that it may use such
discretion to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent
criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities,
or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event,
condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or
continued listing of the securities on the Exchange inadvisable or
unwarranted in the opinion of the Exchange, even though the securities
meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35134. See also Rule 5000
Series.
    \8\ See id. See also Rule 5101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further states that, under Exchange rules and federal
securities laws, a company's financial statements included in its
initial registration statement or annual report must be audited by an
independent public accountant that is registered with the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB'').\9\ According to the
Exchange, company management is responsible for preparing the company's
financial statements and for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting.\10\ The Exchange states that the company's auditor, based on
its independent audit of the evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, expresses an opinion on
whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the company's financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows.\11\ The Exchange further states that the auditor, in turn,
is normally subject to inspection by the PCAOB, which assesses
compliance with PCAOB and Commission rules and professional standards
in connection with the auditor's performance of audits.\12\ According
to the Exchange, it relies on the work of auditors to provide
reasonable assurances that the financial statements provided by a
company are free of material misstatements, and further relies on the
PCAOB's role in overseeing the quality of the auditor's work.\13\ The
Exchange believes that accurate financial statement disclosure is
critical for investors to make informed investment decisions and is
concerned that constraints on the PCAOB's ability to inspect auditor
work in countries with national barriers on access to information may
weaken assurances that the disclosures and financial information of
companies with operations in such countries are not misleading.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35134 (citing Rules 5210(b) and
5250(c)(3), which reference Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002)).
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id. (quoting PCAOB Auditing Standard 1101.03--Audit
Risk, available at https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/AS1101.aspx (``To form an appropriate basis for expressing an
opinion on the financial statements, the auditor must plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement due to error
or fraud.'')).
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. at 35135.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, the Exchange now proposes to amend IM-
5101-1 to add a new subparagraph (b) to state that the Exchange may
rely upon Rule 5101 to deny initial or continued listing or to apply
additional and more stringent criteria to an applicant or listed
company based on the following factors related to the qualifications of
the company's auditor:
    (1) Whether the auditor has been subject to a PCAOB inspection,
such as where the auditor is newly formed and has therefore not yet
undergone a PCAOB inspection or where the auditor, or an accounting
firm engaged to assist with the audit, is located in a jurisdiction
that limits the PCAOB's ability to inspect the auditor;
    (2) if the company's auditor has been inspected by the PCAOB,
whether the results of that inspection indicate that the auditor has
failed to respond to any requests by the PCAOB or that the inspection
has uncovered significant deficiencies in the auditor's conduct in
other audits or in its system of quality controls;
    (3) whether the auditor can demonstrate that it has adequate
personnel in the offices participating in the audit with expertise in
applying U.S. GAAP, GAAS, or IFRS, as applicable, in the company's
industry;
    (4) whether the auditor's training program for personnel
participating in the company's audit is adequate;
    (5) for non-U.S. auditors, whether the auditor is part of a global
network or other affiliation of individual auditors where the auditors
draw on globally common technologies, tools, methodologies, training,
and quality assurance monitoring; and
    (6) whether the auditor can demonstrate to the Exchange sufficient
resources, geographic reach, or experience as it relates to the
company's audit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange also proposes to identify certain existing
paragraphs within IM-5101-1 as subparagraphs (a), (d), and (e); add
descriptive headings to the subparagraphs within IM-5101-1; and
relocate existing text describing the Exchange's review process to
subparagraph (e). The Exchange also proposes to revise the term
``listing qualifications panel'' in subparagraph (e) to ``Hearings
Panel (as defined in Rule 5805(d))'' for consistency within the
rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it would consider these factors
holistically and may be satisfied with an auditor's qualifications
notwithstanding the fact that the auditor raises concerns with respect
to some of the factors set forth above.\16\ The proposed rule further

provides examples of additional and more stringent criteria that the
Exchange may apply to an applicant or a listed company to obtain
comfort that the company satisfies the financial listing requirements
and is suitable for listing.\17\ These criteria may include requiring:
(i) Higher equity, assets, earnings, or liquidity measures than
otherwise required under the Rule 5000 Series; (ii) that any offering
be underwritten on a firm commitment basis, which typically involves
more due diligence by the broker-dealer than would be done in
connection with a best-efforts offering; or (iii) companies to impose
lock-up restrictions on officers and directors to allow market
mechanisms to determine an appropriate price for the company before
such insiders can sell shares.\18\ The Exchange states that it may
impose each of these additional requirements separately or in
combination, or may determine that listing is not appropriate and deny
initial or continued listing to a company.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35135. For example, the
Exchange states that it may be satisfied that an auditor that is not
subject to PCAOB inspection has mitigated the risk that it may have
significant undetected deficiencies in its system of quality
controls by being a part of a global network where the auditors draw
on globally common technologies, tools, methodologies, training, and
quality assurance monitoring. See id.
    \17\ The Exchange states that if a company's auditor does not
satisfy the proposed criteria in IM-5101-1(b), the Exchange may
still obtain comfort that the company truly satisfies the financial
listing criteria by imposing a higher standard on such company. See
id. at 35136.
    \18\ See proposed IM-5101-1(b). The Exchange states that it may
also have concerns that a company listing on the Exchange through an
initial public offering, business combination, direct listing, or
issuing securities previously trading over-the-counter may not
develop sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest
to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and
orderly trading, resulting in a security that is illiquid. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 35136. In such cases, the Exchange states
that it may impose additional liquidity measures on the company,
such as requiring a higher public float percentage, market value of
unrestricted publicly held shares, or average over-the-counter
trading volume. See id. The Exchange further states that it may
obtain additional comfort regarding the quality of a company's
financial statements by requiring the offering to be underwritten,
which the Exchange believes would help to ensure that third parties
other than the auditor are conducting significant due diligence on
the company, its registration statement, and its financial
statements. See id. The Exchange also believes that, if material
misstatements are detected by the company's auditors and have not
been disclosed to investors, it may be appropriate to impose lock-up
restrictions on officers and directors to allow market mechanisms to
determine an appropriate price for the company before such insiders
can sell shares. See id.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further states that risks to U.S. investors related to
the accuracy of disclosures, accountability, and access to information
are heightened when a company's business is principally administered in
a jurisdiction that has secrecy laws, blocking statutes, national
security laws, or other laws or regulations restricting access to
information by regulators of U.S.-listed companies in such
jurisdiction.\20\ Accordingly, the Exchange also proposes to amend IM-
5101-1 to add a new subparagraph (c) to state that the Exchange may use
its discretionary authority to impose additional or more stringent
criteria, including the criteria set forth in proposed IM-5101-1(b), in
other circumstances, including when a company's business is principally
administered in a jurisdiction that the Exchange determines to have
secrecy laws, blocking statutes, national security laws, or other laws
or regulations restricting access to information by regulators of U.S.-
listed companies in such jurisdiction (a ``Restrictive Market''). In
determining whether a company's business is principally administered in
a Restrictive Market (``Restrictive Market Company''), proposed IM-
5101-1(c)(4) provides that the Exchange may consider the geographic
locations of the company's: (a) Principal business segments,
operations, or assets; (b) board and shareholders' meetings; (c)
headquarters or principal executive offices; (d) senior management and
employees; and (e) books and records.\21\ The Exchange states that this
definition would capture both foreign private issuers based in
Restrictive Markets and companies based in the U.S. or another
jurisdiction that principally administer their businesses in
Restrictive Markets.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See proposed IM-5101-1(c)(4).
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35136 n.11. The Exchange
further provides the following example: a company's headquarters
could be located in Country A, while the majority of its senior
management, employees, assets, operations, and books and records are
located in Country B, which is a Restrictive Market. In this case,
the Exchange would consider the company's business to be principally
administered in Country B, which is a Restrictive Market, and the
Exchange may use its discretionary authority pursuant to proposed
IM-5101-1(c) to apply additional or more stringent criteria to the
company. See id. at 35136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that, in the event it relies on its
discretionary authority pursuant to the proposed rule changes and
determines to deny the initial or continued listing of a company, it
would issue a denial or delisting letter to the company that will
inform the company of the factual basis for the Exchange's
determination and the company's right for review of the decision
pursuant to the Rule 5800 Series.\23\ The proposed rule changes would
apply to all companies listed and seeking to list on the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. See also Rule 5815, which sets forth the review of
staff determinations by a Hearings Panel, including the procedures
for requesting and preparing for a hearing and the scope of the
Hearing Panel's discretion.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Comment Letters Received

    One commenter stated that it supports the proposed rule change
inasmuch as it seems reasonably tailored to help ensure full, complete,
and transparent financial and other disclosure from Restrictive Market
Companies.\25\ Another commenter expressed its support for the proposed
rule change and agreed with many of the concerns raised by the Exchange
related to Restrictive Market Companies.\26\ However, this commenter
also suggested that the Exchange consider modifications to the proposed
rule change, including narrowing the degree of discretion provided by
the proposed rule change for situations where the applicant or listed
company has an auditor or an accounting firm engaged to assist with the
audit that is located in a jurisdiction that limits the PCAOB's ability
to inspect the auditor, and where the applicant or listed company is a
Restrictive Market Company.\27\ Specifically, this commenter
recommended that the Exchange modify the proposed rule change to
replace proposed IM-5101-1(b)(1) and (c) with new rules that would
require that applicants and listed companies from a Restrictive Market
be prohibited from having an auditor or accounting firm engaged to
assist with their company audit that is located in a jurisdiction that
limits the PCAOB's ability to inspect the auditor.\28\ This commenter
further recommended that the Exchange also amend Rule 5810 to provide a
Nasdaq Hearings Panel the discretion to grant a listed company an
exception from such new rules for a period not to exceed 540 days from
the date of the delisting letter issued by the Exchange.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Letter from Annemarie Tierney, Founder and Principal,
Liquid Advisors, Inc. (July 2, 2020), at 5.
    \26\ See Letter from Jeffrey P. Mahoney, General Counsel,
Council of Institutional Investors (June 18, 2020), at 5.
    \27\ See id. at 6.
    \28\ See id. at 6-7.
    \29\ See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NASDAQ-2020-028 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \30\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\31\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new rule text to specifically
permit it to utilize its broad discretionary authority to deny initial
or continued listing or to apply additional and more stringent criteria
to an applicant or listed company based on certain factors, as
described in more detail above, related to the qualifications of the
company's auditor. However, the Exchange does not state how these broad
factors would be considered in its determination of whether an
applicant or listed company will be denied initial or continued
listing, or subject to additional and more stringent criteria, other
than to note that the factors will be considered ``holistically.'' In
addition, the Exchange states that it may also find a particular
auditor's qualifications sufficient despite the fact that the auditor
raises concerns with respect to some of the specified factors. Further,
the Exchange does not state what specific additional or more stringent
criteria it would impose, if it decided to impose additional or more
stringent criteria. Whether an applicant or listed company is denied
listing or subject to additional criteria and what that additional
criteria is, however determined, appears to be subject to wide
discretion under the proposed rule.
    Similarly, under the proposed rule, the Exchange may also use its
broad discretionary authority to impose similar additional or more
stringent criteria on a Restrictive Market Company. The Exchange does
not provide any information in its filing regarding when it generally
will or will not use its authority to subject a Restrictive Market
Company to such additional criteria, but rather just provides that a
Restrictive Market Company ``may'' be subject to additional or more
stringent criteria. In addition, the Exchange does not state what
specific additional or more stringent criteria it would impose, if it
decided to impose additional or more stringent criteria. These
provisions appear to be subject to wide discretion by the Exchange.
    The Exchange stated that its proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers
because the Exchange has identified additional concerns around
companies with auditors that do not have sufficient PCAOB inspection
history, quality controls, resources, geographic reach, and experience
to adequately perform the company's audit and Restrictive Market
Companies, and because applying additional and more stringent criteria
may not be appropriate in all circumstances.\33\ As discussed above,
however, the Exchange's proposal provides it wide discretion to
determine: (1) Whether to deny initial or continued listing or to apply
additional and more stringent criteria to an applicant or listed
company based on factors related to the qualifications of the company's
auditor, and what specific additional or more stringent criteria it
would impose, if it decided to impose additional or more stringent
criteria; and (2) whether to apply additional or more stringent
criteria to a Restrictive Market Company, and what specific additional
or more stringent criteria it would impose, if it decided to impose
additional or more stringent criteria. Accordingly, the Commission
believes there are questions as to whether the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and its requirement, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35137-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-
regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.'' \34\ The
description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its
effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable
requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support
an affirmative Commission finding,\35\ and any failure of a self-
regulatory organization to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with the Act.

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \37\ of the Act or any other provision
of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do
not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that
would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\38\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \39\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).

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

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by September 30, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 14, 2020. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal,
which are set forth in the Notice,\40\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-028 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-NASDAQ-2020-028. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-028 and should be submitted
by September 30, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October
14, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19841 Filed 9-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78656]
[DOCID:fr23de08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 219

[Docket No. 2001-11213, Notice No. 12]
RIN 2130-AA81

Alcohol and Drug Testing: Determination of Minimum Random Testing
Rates for 2009

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Determination.

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

SUMMARY: Using data from Management Information System annual reports,
FRA has determined that the 2007 rail industry random testing positive
rates were 0.56 percent for drugs and 0.18 percent for alcohol. Because
the industry-wide random drug testing positive rate has remained below
1.0 percent for the last two years, the Federal Railroad Administrator
(Administrator) has determined that the minimum annual random drug
testing rate for the period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009,
will remain at 25 percent of covered railroad employees. In addition,
because the industry-wide random alcohol testing violation rate has
remained below 0.5 percent for the last two years, the Administrator
has determined that the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain
at 10 percent of covered railroad employees for the period January 1,
2009, through December 31, 2009.

DATES: This notice is effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lamar Allen, Alcohol and Drug Program
Manager, Office of Safety Enforcement, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Kathy Schnakenberg, FRA Alcohol/Drug
Program Specialist, (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Administrator's Determination of 2008 Minimum Random Drug and Alcohol
Testing Rates

    In a final rule published on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62218), FRA
announced that it will set future minimum random drug and alcohol
testing rates according to the rail industry's overall positive rate,
which is determined using annual railroad drug and alcohol program data
taken from FRA's Management Information System. Based on this data, the
Administrator publishes a Federal Register notice each year, announcing
the minimum random drug and alcohol testing rates for the following
year. See 49 CFR 219.602, 608.
    Under this performance-based system, FRA may lower the minimum
random drug testing rate to 25 percent of covered railroad employees
whenever the industry-wide random drug positive rate is less than 1.0
percent for two calendar years while testing at a 50 percent minimum
rate. For both drugs and alcohol, FRA reserves the right to consider
other factors, such as the number of positives in its post-accident
testing program, before deciding whether to lower annual minimum random
testing rates. If the industry-wide random drug positive rate is 1.0
percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year, FRA will return the
minimum random drug testing rate to 50 percent of covered railroad
employees.
    If the industry-wide random alcohol violation rate is less than 1.0
percent but greater than 0.5 percent, the minimum random alcohol
testing rate will be 25 percent of covered railroad employees. FRA will
raise the minimum random rate to 50 percent of covered railroad
employees if the industry-wide random alcohol violation rate is 1.0
percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year. FRA may lower the
minimum random alcohol testing rate to 10 percent of covered railroad
employees whenever the industry-wide violation rate is less than 0.5
percent for two calendar years while testing at a higher rate.
    In this notice, FRA announces that the minimum random drug testing
rate will remain at 25 percent of covered railroad employees for the
period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009, because the industry
random drug testing positive rate was below 1.0 percent for the last
two years (.056 in 2007 and .060 in 2006). The minimum random alcohol
testing rate will remain at 10 percent of covered railroad employees
for the period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009, because the
industry-wide violation rate for alcohol has remained below 0.5 percent
for the last two years (.018 in 2007 and .013 in 2006). Railroads
remain free, as always, to conduct random testing at higher rates.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 18, 2008.
Clifford C. Eby,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-30541 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22014-22015]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Proposed Change of
Airport Property Land Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use at
Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the City of Shawnee,
Oklahoma to change approximately 72 acres, located on the west side of
the airport bordered by North Leo Street and West Independence Avenue,
from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the
conversion of the airport property.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2022

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Glenn Boles, Federal
Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports District Office
Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Email:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Wilson, Airport Manager,
Shawnee Regional Airport, 2202 Airport Drive, Shawnee, OK 74115,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]; or Mr.
Glenn Boles, Federal Aviation Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma
Airports District Office Manager, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth,
TX 76177, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected].
    Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal consists of 72 acres comprised
of portions of seven tracts of land, which were originally purchased by
the City of Shawnee. No federal funds were used to purchase these
properties. The Airport was leased to the United States between the
years of 1943 and 1947. Under the provisions of the Surplus Property
Act of 1944, the leased property was transferred back to the City in
January 1946. No improvements were made by the United States to these
tracts during the lease.
    The land comprising these parcels is outside the forecasted need
for aviation development and is not needed for indirect or direct
aeronautical use. The Airport wishes to develop this land for
compatible non-aeronautical use. The Airport will retain ownership of
this land and ensure the protection of Part 77 surfaces and compatible
land use. The income from the conversion of these parcels will benefit
the aviation community by reinvestment in the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United
States Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal
Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires
the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX.
Ignacio Flores,
Director, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-07902 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48180-48182]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0491]

Consolidation of Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection For Outer
Continental Shelf Activities; Eighth Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is considering establishing a single Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) to oversee marine inspections for
all Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and Floating Outer Continental Shelf
Facilities (as defined in Coast Guard regulations) engaged directly in,
capable of engaging directly in, or being constructed to engage
directly in oil and gas exploration or production in the offshore
waters of the Eighth Coast Guard District (referred to hereafter
collectively as ``units''). Currently, these units are inspected by six
separate OCMI offices across the Eighth Coast District. The Coast Guard
believes that the consolidation of the six existing OCMI offices into
one will promote efficiency and consistency for both the Coast Guard
and the regulated industry.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before
September 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0491 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Commander
Michael Zamperini, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material in
response to this notice. All comments received will be posted, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2013-0491) and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and follow the instructions on that Web site. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
instructions on that Web site. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The Eighth Coast Guard District in New Orleans, Louisiana has six
OCMI field offices located along the Gulf Coast in Mobile, Alabama; New
Orleans, Louisiana; Morgan City, Louisiana; Port Arthur, Texas;
Houston, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. Currently, each of these
offices has full OCMI authority to conduct inspections of all vessels
required to undergo Coast Guard inspection within their respective
zones as defined in 33 CFR part 3. The functions of an OCMI are found
in 33 CFR 1.01-20 and include inspection of vessels in order to
determine that they comply with the applicable laws, rules, and
regulations relating to safe construction, equipment, manning, and
operation and that they are in a seaworthy condition for the services
in which they are operated.
    At the six field offices listed above, the OCMI also serves as the
commanding officer of the unit. The title ``commanding officer'' refers
to the highest ranking military official at a Coast Guard field office.
In addition to being geographically separated from the Eighth Coast
Guard District office, commanding officers exercise independent
military justice and disciplinary authority over their entire staff.
Commanding officers in the Eighth Coast Guard District report directly
to the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander in New Orleans. Commanding
officers also serve other statutory functions within their geographic
area such as Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for oil and hazardous
material spills, Captain of the Port (COTP), and Federal Maritime
Security Coordinator (FMSC). As OCMIs, they have authority to
independently render decisions effecting the approval or disapproval of
certain vessels to operate on the OCS. Any appeal of a decision made by
an OCMI is made to the District Commander in accordance with 33 CFR
1.03-20.
    In order to understand the various options discussed later in this
notice, it is important to note that the Eighth Coast Guard District
Commander also has various division chiefs on staff. Unlike commanding
officers, division chiefs do not exercise military justice authority
over their staffs and are co-located with the District Commander.
Division chiefs report directly to the District Commander and
historically have not served as OCMI, FOSC, COTP, or FMSC. Should the
role of OCMI be assigned to a division chief, appeals from the OCMI
level would also be made to the District Commander.
    Vessels requiring Coast Guard inspection include Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units (MODUs), Floating Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Facilities (as defined in 33 CFR 140.10), and other similar vessels
that engage in oil and gas exploration and production on the OCS. Coast
Guard OCMIs are required to inspect these units when they are operating
on the OCS.
    The offshore oil and gas industry is currently experiencing
substantial growth in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, unit
construction and operation in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to
increase by 60% in the next five years. In order to keep pace with this
growth, the Coast Guard is considering ways to increase efficiency and
streamline inspection of offshore units. We are considering creating
one office to serve as OCMI for MODUs and Floating OCS facilities,
creating a single point of contact for scheduling inspections and
promoting consistency of regulatory interpretation and enforcement
across the Gulf for units operating on the OCS. At this time, we are
not suggesting the inclusion of support vessels such as offshore supply
vessels, crew boats, accommodation vessels, and similar vessels that
routinely call on ports as falling under the authority of the OCS OCMI.
Those vessels would continue to be inspected by the six existing OCMIs.
    We are seeking public comment on the following questions to assist
us in determining whether consolidating the OCMI function as described
above is advisable and, if so, the manner in which it should be
implemented:
    (1) Do you support the consolidation of the OCMI function into a
single office for the oversight and inspection of units operating on
the OCS in the Eighth Coast Guard District? Why or why not?
    (2) If a consolidated OCMI for the OCS were created, which of the
following options is the most appropriate organizational placement of
the consolidated OCMI within the Eighth Coast Guard District? (In each
of the scenarios below, appeals to decisions made by the consolidated
OCMI would be made to the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.) Are
there other options we should consider?
    (a) Consolidate the OCMI function into one of the six existing
OCMIs. This OCMI would retain the title of commanding officer they
already have at their current unit, but their OCMI authority to inspect
units would be expanded to include all of the Eighth Coast Guard
District.
    (b) Make the consolidated OCMI a member of the staff of one of the
six existing OCMIs. This OCMI would not hold the title of commanding
officer.
    (c) Make the consolidated OCMI a division chief on the Eighth Coast
Guard District staff. This OCMI would not hold the title of commanding
officer.
    (d) Create a new command separate from the existing six OCMI
commands with the consolidated OCMI as the commanding officer.
    (3) If the consolidated OCMI for the OCS were created, where in the
Eighth Coast Guard District should the offices of the consolidated OCMI
be physically located?
    We ask that all comments submitted in response to this request
include the reasoning behind the comment to better inform our decision
making. This request for comments should not be construed as suggesting
that the Eighth Coast Guard District will create a consolidated OCMI
for the OCS. Whether, and in what format, this position would be
created will depend on a number of factors including public responses
to this request, staffing requirements, legal constraints, and budget
impacts.
    Specific questions regarding this request should be addressed to

Commander Michael Zamperini whose contact information is located above
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C 552(a), 14
U.S.C. 92, and DHS Delegation 0170.1 II (23).

    Dated: August 1, 2013.
J. C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-19098 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 41211-41213]
[DOCID:fr20jy06-36]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0051; FRL-8200-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2029.03, OMB
Control Number 2060-0520

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0051, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), or by e-mail to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mar[iacute]a Malav[eacute], Compliance
Assessment and Media Programs Division (Mail Code 2223A), Office of
Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0051, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1927.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2029.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0520.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing were proposed on January 10, 1989, and
promulgated on November 20, 1990 (55 FR 48414). These standards apply
to new and existing facilities that manufacture asphalt roofing
products or oxidized asphalt that are major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), or are collocated at major sources. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLLLL.
    Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise in the
regulation. This rule requires sources to submit initial notifications,
conduct performance tests if the source is using an add-on control
device, and submit periodic compliance reports. In addition, sources
are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation if using an add-on
control device; any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and
calibration; and work practices to demonstrate initial and ongoing
compliance with the regulation. Records of such measurements and
actions are to be retained two years on-site of the required total five
years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.
In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 223
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of facilities
that manufacture asphalt roofing products or oxidized asphalt.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 24.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, semiannually, and initially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,017.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $25,407, includes O&M costs only.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase from 1,962 hours to 12,017
hours in the annual labor burden to industry from the most recently
approved ICR is due to adjustments. The increase in burden from the
most recently approved ICR is due to an increase from 19 to 22 in the
number of existing sources and the assumption that all existing sources
are in full compliance with the rule's initial and on-going
requirements since the compliance date has passed, May 1, 2006. All
respondents are currently recording operating parameters and submitting
semiannual compliance reports to comply with rule requirement compared
to only new respondents in the active ICR.
    The decrease from $277,684 to $25,407 in the total annualized
capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs is due to no startup
capital costs being attributed to this rule since monitors are an
integral part of the control equipment necessary to

determine if it is operating properly, and a decrease in the
contractor's costs associated with performance tests based on the
assumption that all existing respondents are in full compliance with
the rule requirements.

    Dated: July 11, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-11525 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67918-67920]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23584]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0197; FRL-9953-13-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants, State of Wyoming; Control of Emissions From
Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units, Plan
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Wyoming hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) Section 111(d)/129 plan (the
``plan''). The plan was submitted to the EPA to fulfill requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to implement and enforce the emissions
guidelines (EG) for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerators (HMIWI). The plan establishes emission limits; operator
training and qualification requirements; performance testing,
monitoring, and inspection requirements; and requirements for a waste
management plan and reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator units as
specified in the October 6, 2009, amendments to the federal EG and New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ce and
Ec, respectively.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 2, 2016 without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse written comments by
November 2, 2016. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0197 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kendra Morrison, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the revision if adverse comments are
received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on
this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final will not take effect. We would address all public comments
in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    A. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and,

III. Background

    The EPA's statutory authority for the regulation of new and
existing solid waste incineration units is outlined in the CAA sections
111 and 129. Section 129 of the CAA is specific to solid waste
combustion, and requires the EPA to establish performance standards for
each category of solid waste incineration units. Section 111 of the Act
gives EPA the statutory authority to promulgate NSPS, applicable to new
units, and/or EG for existing units. EG are implemented and enforced
through either an EPA-approved state plan or a promulgated federal
plan. Section 129(b)(2) requires states to submit to the EPA for
approval state plans that implement and enforce the promulgated EG.
Section 129(b)(3) requires the EPA to promulgate a federal plan (FP)
within two years from the date on which the EG, or amendment, was
promulgated. The FP is applicable to any affected facility if the state
has failed to receive the EPA approval of the state plan, or revision.
The FP acts as an enforcement place holder until the state submits and
receives the EPA approval of its plan. State plan submittals must be
consistent with the relevant emissions guidelines, in this instance 40
CFR part 60, subpart Ce, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B and part 62, subpart A. Section 129 of the CAA regulates the
following substances or mixtures: Organics (dioxins/furans), carbon
monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), acid gases (hydrogen
chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) and

particulate matter (which includes opacity). The initial Wyoming plan
for HMIWI units was approved by the EPA on August 21, 2000 (65 FR
38732). The plan approval is codified in 40 CFR part 62, subpart ZZ. On
May 13, 2015, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
submitted to the EPA a revised Section 111(d)/129 plan for HMIWI units.
The DEQ made minor edits to the plan at the request of the EPA and the
DEQ revised and resubmitted its submission to the EPA on November 24,
2015. The submitted plan revision was in response to the October 6,
2009 amendments to federal EG and NSPS requirements for HMIWI units, 40
CFR part 60, subparts Ce and Ec, respectively (74 FR 51367). This
rulemaking action will supersede the EPA's August 21, 2000 (65 FR
38732) approval of Wyoming's initial plan.

IV. Summary of Wyoming's HMIWI Plan Revision

    The EPA has reviewed the Wyoming HMIWI plan revision submittal in
the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Ce,
as amended, and part 62, subpart A. The plan contained (1) a
demonstration of Wyoming's legal authority to implement the plan; (2)
identification and a copy of the state's adoption of Subpart Ce into
rule Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 4,
Section 5, and Chapter 5 as the mechanism to enforce the emissions
guidelines; (3) an inventory of one known designated facility and an
inventory of its air emissions; (4) emission limits that are as
protective as the emissions guidelines; (5) a final compliance date no
later than October 6, 2014; (6) testing, monitoring, inspection,
operator training and qualification, waste management plan, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the designated facilities;
(7) documentation of public hearing(s) on the plan; (8) provisions to
submit annual state progress reports to the EPA; and (9) a commitment
to the EPA that all Title V operating permits, modifications, and
renewals for designated facilities will specify all applicable state
requirements and 40 CFR part 62, subpart ZZ. The submitted plan
revision meets all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Ce,
as amended, and part 62, subpart A.

V. What action is the EPA taking today?

    The EPA is approving the Wyoming HMIWI Section 111(d)/129 plan
revision that reflects amendments made to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ce
and Ec. Therefore, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart ZZ to
reflect this action. This approval is based on the EPA's review of the
plan, discussed above. This plan revision approval does not negate or
void any of the initial August 21, 2000 plan approval requirements,
including compliance dates for any affected facility. The scope of this
plan revision approval is limited to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 60
and 62 for existing HMIWI units, as referenced in the EG, subpart Ce,
and the related NSPS, subpart Ec, as amended.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective December 2, 2016 without further
notice unless we receive adverse comments by November 2, 2016. If we
receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
Section 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of
the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing Section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, the
EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this direct final action
merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045(62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note)because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The state plan is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Solid waste
incineration, Hospital/medical/infectious waste incineration.

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

    Dated: May 17, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 62, subpart ZZ, is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. Section 62.12610 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  62.12610  Identification of plan.

    Section 111(d)/129 Plan for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators and the associated State regulation, Chapter 4, Section 5,
and Chapter 5 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations,
submitted by the State on September 7, 1999 and November 9, 1999, and
as amended on May 13, 2015 and November 24, 2015.

0
3. Section 62.12611 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  62.12611  Identification of sources.

    The plan applies to each individual hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerator:
    (a) For which construction was commenced on or before June 20,
1996, or for which modification was commenced on or before March 16,
1998.
    (b) For which construction was commenced after June 20, 1996 but no
later than December 1, 2008, or for which modification is commenced
after March 16, 1998 but no later than April 6, 2010.

0
4. Section 62.12612 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  62.12612  Effective date.

    The effective date of the plan for hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerators is December 2, 2016.

    Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on September 26, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2016-23584 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15731-15733]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07541]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0184; Product Identifier 2018-NE-07-AD; Amendment
39-19248; AD 2018-07-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A.,
Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2B1, 2B1A, 2B2, and 2K1
turboshaft engines. This AD requires inspecting the power turbine wheel
(PTW) assembly and replacing the PTW if the turbine blade dampers are
found missing. This AD was prompted by the manufacturer reporting a
number of PTW assemblies may have been assembled without the blade
dampers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 27, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 27,
2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
     Hand Delivery: 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.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05
59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0184.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0184; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7754; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2018-0044, dated February 14, 2018 (referred to after this as the
MCAI), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During an ARRIUS 2B2 engine ground run check, the ``Degrade''
indicator illuminated and unusual vibration occurred. At the same
time, bluish smoke and debris came out of the exhaust pipe. Both
engines were shut down without further occurrences.
    Investigations at Safran Helicopter Engines revealed that
missing dampers on the PTW assembly caused rupture of PTW blades.
Further investigations identified a batch of potentially affected
PTW.
    The dampers on the PTW blades reduce the mechanical stress
exerted on the blades. With no dampers, mechanical stress on the
blades can exceed the vibratory fatigue limit, eventually leading to
rupture of the blades.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to In Flight Shut
Down and release of low energy debris through exhaust pipe,
potentially resulting in forced landing, damage to the helicopter
and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Safran Helicopter
Engines issued the SB to provide instructions for inspection and PTW
replacement.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of potentially affected PTWs with serviceable parts.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0184.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service
Bulletin (MSB) No. A319 72 2854, Version A, dated February 9, 2018. The
MSB describes procedures for replacing the PTW. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by France and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires inspecting the PTW assembly and replacing the PTW
if the turbine blade dampers are found missing.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the compliance time for the action is less than the time
required for public comment. EASA made a determination of an unsafe
condition warranting regulatory action and compliance within 20 flight
hours or 30 days. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition,
for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-
0184 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-07-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
final rule because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 46 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records Search........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $3,910
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the mandated inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTW replacement...............................  16 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $16,500         $17,860
                                                 $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-07-17 Safran Helicopter Engines (Type Certificate previously
held by Turbomeca, S.A.): Amendment 39-19248; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0184; Product Identifier 2018-NE-07-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 27, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arrius 2B1,
2B1A, 2B2, and 2K1 turboshaft engines with a power turbine wheel
(PTW) assembly having a serial number listed in Appendix 2.1 of
Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A319
72 2854, Version A, dated February 9, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an engine failure caused by missing
turbine blade dampers. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
a power turbine blade. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in loss of engine power in flight and reduced control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 20 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first:
    (1) Inspect the PTW in accordance with paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of
Safran Helicopter Engines MSB No. A319 72 2854, Version A, dated
February 9, 2018; and
    (2) If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, any dampers are found missing, replace the PTW
with a part eligible for installation before further flight.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    Do not install an engine with a PTW with a serial number listed
in Appendix 2.1 of Safran Helicopter Engines MSB A319 72 2854,
Version A, dated February 9, 2018, unless all thirty-one blade
dampers are installed.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-
0044, dated February 14, 2018, for more information. You may examine
the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2018-0184.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Safran Helicopter Engines Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. A319 72 2854, Version A, dated February 9, 2018.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Safran Helicopter Engines service information identified
in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos,
France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 6, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07541 Filed 4-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P