(2) The award program does not have an award range that could
operate in a particular action to yield an award for a claimant that is
meaningfully lower (when assessed against the maximum and minimum
potential awards that program would allow) than the award range that
the Commission's program could yield (i.e., 10 to 30 percent of
collected monetary sanctions); and
    (3) The award program does not have a cap that could operate in a
particular action to yield an award for a claimant that is meaningfully
lower than the maximum award the Commission could grant for the action
(i.e., 30 percent of collected monetary sanctions in the related
action).
    (4) The authority or entity administering the program may not in
its sole discretion deny an award notwithstanding the fact that a
whistleblower otherwise satisfies the established eligibility
requirements and award criteria.
    (B) The Commission shall make a determination on a case-by-case
basis whether an alternative award program is a comparable award
program for purposes of the particular action on which the claimant is
seeking a related-action award with respect to paragraphs
(b)(3)(iv)(A)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (C) If the Commission determines that an alternative award program
is not comparable, the Commission shall condition its award on the
meritorious whistleblower making within 60 calendar days of receiving
notification of the Commission's final award an irrevocable waiver of
any claim to an award from the other award program.
    (D) A whistleblower whose related-action award application is
subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section
(including a whistleblower whose related-action award application
implicates another award program that does not qualify as a comparable
program as a result of paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(A) of this section) has the
affirmative obligation to demonstrate that the whistleblower has
complied with the terms and conditions of this section regarding an
irrevocable waiver. This shall include taking all steps necessary to
authorize the administrators of the other program to confirm to staff
in the Office of the Whistleblower (or in writing to the claimant or
the Commission) that an irrevocable waiver has been made.
    (v) A claimant seeking a related-action award also has an
affirmative obligation to promptly inform the Office of the
Whistleblower if the claimant applies for an award on the same action
from another award program.
    (vi) The Commission may deem a claimant ineligible for a related-
action award if any of the conditions and requirements of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section in connection with that related action are not
satisfied.

Option 2

0
3. Amend Sec.  240.21F-3 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  240.21F-3   Payment of awards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The following terms and conditions apply whenever an award
claimant's application for an award in connection with a related action
may also involve a potential recovery from another whistleblower award
program for that same action.
    (i) If the Commission determines that the claimant qualifies for an
award for the related action, any payment of that award shall be
conditioned on the claimant making an irrevocable waiver of any award
or potential award from the other award program. In determining whether
a claimant qualifies for an award on a related action (and in setting
the amount of any award), the Commission shall process the application
without regard to the existence of the alternative award program or any
award determination that the alternative program reaches.
    (ii) The Commission shall not make a related-action award to a
claimant (or any payment on an award if the Commission has already made
an award determination) if the claimant has received at any point prior
to the Commission making any payment on a related-action award any
payment from the other program for that action.
    (iii) To receive payment from the Commission for a related-action
award, a claimant must make an irrevocable waiver of any award from the
other program within 60 calendar days of receiving a final notification
from both

award programs regarding the award amounts.
    (iv) A claimant subject to paragraph (b)(3) of this section has the
affirmative obligation to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Commission that the claimant has complied with the terms and conditions
of this section regarding an irrevocable waiver. This may include
taking all steps necessary to authorize the administrators of the other
program to confirm to staff in the Office of the Whistleblower (or in
writing to the claimant or the Commission) that an irrevocable waiver
has been made.
    (v) A claimant seeking a related-action award has an affirmative
obligation to promptly notify the Office of the Whistleblower in
writing if the claimant applies for an award on the same action from
another award program.
    (vi) The Commission may deem a claimant ineligible for a related-
action award if any of the conditions and requirements of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section in connection with that related action are not
satisfied.
0
4. Amend Sec.  240.21F-4 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  240.21F-4   Other definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) You gave the Commission original information about conduct that
was already under examination or investigation by the Commission, the
Congress, any other authority of the Federal Government, a state
attorney general or securities regulatory authority, any self-
regulatory organization, or the PCAOB (except in cases where you were
an original source of this information as defined in paragraph (b)(5)
of this section), and your submission significantly contributed to the
success of the action; or
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  240.21F-6 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  240.21F-6   Criteria for determining amount of award.

* * * * *
    (d) Consideration of the dollar amount of an award. When applying
the award factors specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
the Commission may consider the dollar amount of a potential award for
the limited purpose of increasing the award amount. The Commission
shall not, however, use the dollar amount of a potential award as a
basis to lower a potential award, including but not limited to in
applying the factors specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
0
6. Amend Sec.  240.21F-8 by revising paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  240.21F-8   Eligibility and forms.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If, within 30 calendar days of the Office of the Whistleblower
providing the foregoing notification, you withdraw the relevant award
application(s), the withdrawn award application(s) will not be
considered by the Commission in determining whether to exercise its
authority under paragraph (e) of this section.
0
7. Amend Sec.  240.21F-10 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  240.21F-10   Procedures for making a claim for a whistleblower
award in SEC actions that result in monetary sanctions in excess of
$1,000,000.

* * * * *
    (e) You may contest the Preliminary Determination made by the
Claims Review Staff by submitting a written response to the Office of
the Whistleblower setting forth the grounds for your objection to
either the denial of an award or the proposed amount of an award. The
response must be in the form and manner that the Office of the
Whistleblower shall require. You may also include documentation or
other evidentiary support for the grounds advanced in your response. In
applying the award factors specified in Sec.  240.21F-6, and
determining the award dollar and percentage amounts set forth in the
Preliminary Determination, the award factors may be considered by the
SEC staff and the Commission in dollar terms, percentage terms or some
combination thereof, subject to the limitations imposed by Sec.
240.21F-6(d). Should you choose to contest a Preliminary Determination,
you may set forth the reasons for your objection to the proposed amount
of an award, including the grounds therefore, in dollar terms,
percentage terms or some combination thereof.
    (1) Before determining whether to contest a Preliminary
Determination, you may:
    (i) Within 30 calendar days of the date of the Preliminary
Determination, request that the Office of the Whistleblower make
available for your review the materials from among those set forth in
Sec.  240.21F-12(a) that formed the basis of the Claims Review Staff's
Preliminary Determination.
    (ii) Within 30 calendar days of the date of the Preliminary
Determination, request a meeting with the Office of the Whistleblower;
however, such meetings are not required, and the office may in its sole
discretion decline the request.
    (2) If you decide to contest the Preliminary Determination, you
must submit your written response and supporting materials within 60
calendar days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, or if a
request to review materials is made pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, then within 60 calendar days of the Office of the
Whistleblower making those materials available for your review.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  240.21F-11 by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) to
read as follows:

Sec.  240.21F-11   Procedures for determining awards based upon a
related action.

    (a) If you are eligible to receive an award following a Commission
action that results in monetary sanctions totaling more than
$1,000,000, you also may be eligible to receive an award in connection
with a related action (as defined in Sec.  240.21F-3).
* * * * *
    (c) The Office of the Whistleblower may request additional
information from you in connection with your claim for an award in a
related action to demonstrate that you directly (or through the
Commission) voluntarily provided the governmental/SRO entity (as
specified in Sec.  240.21F-3(b)(1)) the same original information that
led to the Commission's successful covered action, and that this
information led to the successful enforcement of the related action.
Further, the Office of the Whistleblower, in its discretion, may seek
assistance and confirmation from the governmental/SRO entity in making
an award determination. Additionally, if your related-action award
application might implicate a second whistleblower program, the Office
of the Whistleblower is authorized to request information from you or
to contact any authority or entity responsible for administering that
other program, including disclosing the whistleblower's identity if
necessary, to ensure compliance with the terms of Sec.  240.21F-
3(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (e) You may contest the Preliminary Determination made by the
Claims Review Staff by submitting a written response to the Office of
the Whistleblower setting forth the grounds for your objection to
either the denial of an award or the proposed amount of an award. The
response must be in the form and manner that the Office of the
Whistleblower shall require. You may also include documentation or
other evidentiary support for the grounds advanced in your response. In
applying

the award factors specified in Sec.  240.21F-6, and determining the
award dollar and percentage amounts set forth in the Preliminary
Determination, the award factors may be considered by the SEC staff and
the Commission in dollar terms, percentage terms or some combination
thereof, subject to the limitations imposed by Sec.  240.21F-6(d).
Should you choose to contest a Preliminary Determination, you may set
forth the reasons for your objection to the proposed amount of an
award, including the grounds therefore, in dollar terms, percentage
terms or some combination thereof.
    (1) Before determining whether to contest a Preliminary
Determination, you may:
    (i) Within 30 calendar days of the date of the Preliminary
Determination, request that the Office of the Whistleblower make
available for your review the materials from among those set forth in
Sec.  240.21F-12(a) that formed the basis of the Claims Review Staff's
Preliminary Determination.
    (ii) Within 30 calendar days of the date of the Preliminary
Determination, request a meeting with the Office of the Whistleblower;
however, such meetings are not required, and the office may in its sole
discretion decline the request.
    (2) If you decide to contest the Preliminary Determination, you
must submit your written response and supporting materials within 60
calendar days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, or if a
request to review materials is made pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, then within 60 calendar days of the Office of the
Whistleblower making those materials available for your review.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03223 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48822-48823]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0449]

Area Maritime Security Advisory Committee (AMSC), Eastern Great
Lakes and Regional Sub-Committee Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; Solicitation for Membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC), Eastern Great Lakes, and the
four regional sub-committees: Northeast Ohio Region, Northwestern
Pennsylvania Region, Western New York Region, and Eastern New York
Region submit their applications for membership to the Captain of the
Port, Buffalo. The Committee assists the Captain of the Port, Buffalo,
in developing, reviewing, and updating the Area Maritime Security Plan
for their area of responsibility.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Buffalo, before August 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted to the
Captain of the Port at the following address: Captain of the Port,
Buffalo, Attention: LCDR Karen Jones, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY
14203-3189.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application, or about the AMSC in general, contact:
    For the Northeast Ohio Region Sub-Committee Executive Coordinator:
Mr. Peter Killmer at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For the Northwestern Pennsylvania Region Sub-Committee Executive
Coordinator: Mr. Joseph Fetscher at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For the Western New York Region Sub-Committee Executive
Coordinator: Mr. Michael Messina at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For the Eastern New York Region Sub-Committee Executive
Coordinator: Mr. Ralph Kring at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226;
46 U.S.C.; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these
AMSCs from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-
436, 86 Stat. 470 (5 U.S.C. App.2). The AMSCs assist the Captain of the
Port in the development, review, update, and exercising of the Area
Maritime Security Plan for their area of responsibility. Such matters
may include, but are not limited to: Identifying critical port
infrastructure and operations; identifying risks (threats,
vulnerabilities, and consequences); determining mitigation strategies
and implementation methods; developing and describing the process to
continually evaluate overall port security by considering consequences
and vulnerabilities, how they may

change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be
applied; and providing advice to, and assisting the Captain of the Port
in developing and maintaining the Area Maritime Security Plan.

AMSC Membership

    Members of the AMSC should have at least five years of expertise
related to maritime or port security operations. The AMSC Eastern Great
Lakes Committee has 16 members. The Northeast Ohio Region Sub-Committee
has 31 members. The Northwestern Pennsylvania Region Sub-Committee has
23 members. The Western New York Region Sub-Committee has 29 members.
The Eastern New York Region Sub-Committee has 60 members. We are
seeking to fill the following vacancies with this submission:
    (A) Northeast Ohio Region Sub-Committee (2 members): (1) Executive
Board member representing the maritime (on-water) Port Harbormaster
community of Northeast Ohio {e.g., qualified harbormasters operating in
local ports [list not all inclusive] of Vermilion, Lorain, Cleveland,
Fairport Harbor, Ashtabula, Conneaut, etc.{time} ; and (2) Executive
Board member to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Sub-Committee and
concurrently as member of the Eastern Great Lakes AMSC when so convened
by the FMSC.
    (B) Northwestern Pennsylvania Region Sub-Committee (no new
members): No applications are being taken for this Sub-Committee at
this time.
    (C) Western New York Region Sub-Committee (no new members): No
applications are being taken for this Sub-Committee at this time.
    (D) Eastern New York Region Sub-Committee (no new members): No
applications are being taken for this Sub-Committee at this time.
    Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security
background check prior to appointment to the Committee. Applicants must
register with and remain active as Coast Guard HOMEPORT users if
appointed. Members' terms of office will be for five years; however, a
member is eligible to serve additional terms of office. Members will
not receive any salary or other compensation for their service on an
AMSC. In accordance with 33 CFR 103, members may be selected from the
Federal, Territorial, or Tribal governments; the State government and
political subdivisions of the State; local public safety, crisis
management, and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and
security organizations; maritime industry, including labor; other port
stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and port
stakeholders affected by security practices and policies.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in
employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital
status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an
employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to
achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment
actions.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local Captain of the Port, however, because we do
have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission
of resumes highlighting experience in the maritime and security
industries.

    Dated: June 7, 2016.
B. W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard,
    Captain of the Port, Buffalo.

[FR Doc. 2016-17545 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95265-95266]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Medical
Standards and Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew and revise a previously
approved information collection. The information collected is used to
determine if applicants are medically qualified to perform the duties
associated with the class of airman medical certificate sought. The FAA
is announcing its intent to reduce the burden associated with this
information collection in response to its implementation of section
2307 of Public Law 114-190. Section 2307 of Public Law 114-190
established a new voluntary program of physical examination and
education requirements for certain pilots in command in lieu of those
pilots holding a medical certificate.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0034.
    Title: Medical Standards and Certification.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8500-7, 8500-8, 8500-14, 8500-20.

    Type of Review: Revision of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-190) (FESSA) was enacted
on July 15, 2016. Section 2307 of FESSSA, medical certification of
certain small aircraft pilots, directed the FAA to ``issue or revise
regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in
command of a covered aircraft'' if the pilot and aircraft meet certain
prescribed conditions as outlined in FESSA. The FAA notes that the use
of section 2307 by any eligible pilot is voluntary. Persons may elect
to use these alternative pilot physical examination and education
requirements or may continue to operate using any FAA medical
certificate.
    The FAA is publishing a final rule, Alternative Pilot Physical
Examination and Education Requirements, to implement the provisions of
section 2307 (RIN 2120-AK96).
    Respondents: Approximately 198,847 (8500-8) form applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,900 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2016.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-31233 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42772-42773]
[DOCID:fr25au09-2]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 211, 231, and 241

[Release Nos. 33-9062A; 34-60519A; FR-80A]

Commission Guidance Regarding the Financial Accounting Standards
Board's Accounting Standards Codification

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is
publishing interpretive guidance regarding the release by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (``FASB'') of its FASB Accounting Standards
Codification\TM\ (``FASB Codification'').

DATES: Effective Date: August 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about specific filings
should be directed to staff members responsible for reviewing the
documents the registrant files with the Commission. General questions
about this release should be referred to Jenifer Minke-Girard, Senior
Associate Chief Accountant, or Jeffrey S. Cohan, Senior Special
Counsel, Office of the Chief Accountant, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 108 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 \1\ amended Section
19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 \2\ to provide that the Commission
may recognize, as generally accepted for purposes of the securities
laws, any accounting principles established by a standard setting body
that meets specified criteria. On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued
a policy statement concluding that the FASB and its parent
organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation, satisfied the
criteria for an accounting standard setting body under the Act, and
recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting standards as
``generally accepted'' for purposes of the federal securities laws.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 77s(b).
    \3\ See Commission Statement of Policy Reaffirming the Status of
the FASB as a Designated Private-Sector Standard Setter, Release
Nos. 33-8221; 34-47743; IC-26028; FR-70 (April 25, 2003) [68 FR
23333 (May 1, 2003)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2009, the FASB issued FASB Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 168, The FASB Accounting Standards
Codification\TM\ and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles--a replacement of FASB Statement No. 162 (Statement No.
168), to establish the FASB Codification as the source of authoritative
non-Commission accounting principles recognized by the FASB to be
applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of financial
statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles (``U.S. GAAP''). Statement No. 168 is effective for
financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after
September 15, 2009. The FASB Codification reorganizes existing U.S.
accounting and reporting standards issued by the FASB and other related
private-sector standard setters, and all guidance contained in the FASB
Codification carries an equal level of authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FASB Codification is available at http://asc.fasb.org/
home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FASB Codification directly impacts certain of the Commission's
rules, regulations, releases and staff bulletins (collectively referred
to in this release as ``Commission's rules and staff guidance''), which
refer to specific FASB standards or other private sector standard-
setter literature under U.S. GAAP, because such references are now
superseded by the FASB Codification. The Commission is therefore
issuing interpretive guidance to avoid confusion on the part of
issuers, auditors, investors, and other users of financial statements
and Commission rules and staff guidance.

II. Discussion

    Many parts of the Commission's rules and staff guidance include
direct references to specific standards under U.S. GAAP. For example,
Regulation S-X, which, together with the Commission's Financial
Reporting Releases, sets forth the form and content of and requirements
for financial statements required to be filed with the Commission,\5\
includes specific references to specific standards under U.S. GAAP.\6\
In addition, some parts of the Commission's rules and staff guidance
outside of the financial statement context include specific references
to specific standards under U.S. GAAP, such as in Item 402 of
Regulation S-K regarding disclosure of executive compensation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 210.1-01.
    \6\ See, e.g., Rule 1-02(u) of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.1-
02(u)], which defines the term ``related parties'' by reference to
FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 57, Related
Party Disclosures.
    \7\ 17 CFR 229.402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the possible confusion between the Commission's rules and
staff guidance, on the one hand, and the FASB Codification, on the
other hand, the Commission believes it is necessary to publish the
guidance in this release. Concurrent with the effective date of the
FASB Codification, references in the Commission's rules and staff
guidance to specific standards under U.S. GAAP should be understood to
mean the corresponding reference in the FASB Codification. We note that
the FASB Codification includes a cross-reference finding tool that can
assist users in identifying where previous accounting literature
resides in the FASB Codification. The Commission and its staff also
intend to embark on a longer term rulemaking and updating initiative to
revise comprehensively specific

references to specific standards under U.S. GAAP in the Commission's
rules and staff guidance.
    It should be noted that although the FASB has stated that the FASB
Codification supersedes existing references in U.S. GAAP, the FASB
Codification does not supersede Commission rules or regulations. We
understand that the FASB Codification, as a service to users, includes
references to some Commission rules and staff guidance. However, the
FASB Codification is not the authoritative source for such content, nor
does its inclusion in the FASB Codification affect how such content may
be updated in the future.

III. Codification Update

    The ``Codification of Financial Reporting Policies'' announced in
Financial Reporting Release No. 1 (April 15, 1982) [47 FR 21028] is
updated by adding at the end of Section 101, under the Financial
Reporting Number (FR-80A) assigned to this interpretive release, the
text in Sections I and II of this release.
    The Codification is a separate publication of the Commission. It
will not be published in the Federal Register/Code of Federal
Regulations.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 211

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 231 and 241

    Securities.

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission is amending
title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:

PART 211--INTERPRETATIONS RELATING TO FINANCIAL REPORTING MATTERS

0
Part 211, Subpart A, is amended by adding Release No. FR-80A and the
release date of August 18, 2009 to the list of interpretive releases.

PART 231--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
Part 231 is amended by adding Release No. 33-9062A and the release date
of August 18, 2009 to the list of interpretive releases.

PART 241--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 34-60519A and the release
date of August 18, 2009 to the list of interpretive releases.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 19, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20381 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13633-13637]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0847; Product Identifier 2018-SW-087-AD; Amendment
39-21434; AD 2021-04-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
and AS350D helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
and AS355NP helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters.
This AD requires a one-time inspection to verify the presence and
correct installation of the main rotor mast (MRM) upper bearing
retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on the MRM
for damage, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted
by a

report of a missing retaining ring of the inner race of the MRM upper
bearing. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 14, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You
may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0847.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0847; 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 AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any service information that is
incorporated by reference, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Franke, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D
helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and
AS355NP helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2020 (85 FR
59217). The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection to verify
the presence and correct installation of the MRM upper bearing
retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on the MRM
for damage, and corrective actions if necessary. The proposed
requirements were intended to detect, and correct if applicable, a
missing retaining ring of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not
detected and corrected, can lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding
elements, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2018-0206, dated September 20,
2018 (EASA AD 2018-0206), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; Model
AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and
Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters. Model AS355BB helicopters are
not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
helicopters in the applicability. EASA advises that during a scheduled
inspection on an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopter, one of
the two retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing was
found missing. These two retaining rings ensure that the inner race is
correctly positioned with respect to the rollers, and, if one or both
of these retaining rings are missing, it can lead to an unlimited shift
of the inner race and compromise the function of the MRM upper bearing.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, can lead to damage to
the MRM and surrounding elements, possibly resulting in loss of control
of the helicopter.
    Airbus Helicopters developed an inspection to check that the upper
and lower retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing
are present and correctly installed. EASA determined that the same
condition may exist or develop on Airbus Helicopters Model AS350
helicopters, Model AS355 helicopters, and Model EC130 helicopters
because they share a similar design and supply chain. Until the check
of the upper and lower bearing retaining rings is accomplished, EASA
specifies that repetitive inspections of the MRM upper bearing sealant
bead (sealant bead) should be accomplished to ensure the MRM remains
serviceable. EASA considers its AD an interim measure pending further
investigation results, and notes that further AD action may follow.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received 4 comments in support of
the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    Although EASA AD 2018-0206 specifies accomplishing the inspection
of the installation of the MRM upper bearing inner race retaining rings
within 660 hours time in service (TIS) or 24 months, whichever occurs
first, the FAA has determined that interval does not address the
identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of
safety for the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate compliance
time for this AD, the FAA considered the degree of urgency associated
with the subject unsafe condition and the manufacturer's
recommendation. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds that a
compliance time of within 660 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs
first, represents an appropriate interval of time for affected
helicopters to continue to operate without compromising safety.
    Although paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018-0206 specifies that
operators may contact the manufacturer for instructions if there are
signs of degradation on the MRM inner race, paragraph (i)(3) of this AD
requires operators to repair or replace the MRM if there is any
degradation as indicated by damage to the retaining rings (including
but not limited to cracks, scratches, and gouges), deterioration, or
wear.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued the following service information.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
    This service information describes procedures for a one-time
inspection to verify presence and correct installation of the MRM upper
bearing retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on
the MRM for damage, and corrective actions. Damage of the sealant bead
includes flaws, cracks, folds, separation, or absence of the sealant
bead. Corrective actions include repair and replacement. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,212 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 30 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up               $0  Up to $2,550..............  Up to $3,090,600.
 to $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 80 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $33,124.....  Up to $39,924.
 hour = Up to $6,800.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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.

2021-04-13 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21434; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0847; Product Identifier 2018-SW-087-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) becomes effective April 14,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters, certificated in any
category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D
helicopters.
    (2) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters.
    (3) Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 6230, Main Rotor
Mast Inner Race Rings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a missing retaining ring of
the inner race of the main rotor mast (MRM) upper bearing. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not detected
and corrected, can lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding
elements, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the

specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished
prior to that time.

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected part is any MRM
having part number (P/N) 350A37-1290-XX (where XX can be any
numerical combination) and a serial number as listed in Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-
62.00.37, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018, as applicable to your model helicopter, unless
the upper bearing inner race retaining rings are verified to be
installed correctly as specified in the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, a Group 1 helicopter is one on
which an affected part is installed.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, a Group 2 helicopter is one on
which an affected part is not installed.

 (h) MRM Upper Sealant Bead Inspection

    (1) For Group 1 helicopters, within the compliance time
specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, and, thereafter,
at intervals not to exceed 165 hours time-in-service (TIS): Inspect
the MRM upper bearing sealant bead for damage in accordance with
section 3.B.2.a of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-
62.00.37, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018, as applicable to your model helicopter, except
you are not required to discard the plastic clamps (Item vv). For
the purposes of this inspection, damage may be indicated by flaws,
cracks, folds, separation, or absence of the sealant bead.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MR21.000

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1): Unless specified otherwise, the
hours TIS specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD are
those accumulated on the effective date of this AD by the helicopter
since first flight.

    (2) If, during any inspection of the MRM upper bearing sealant
bead as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, there is damage,
before further flight, inspect the installation of the MRM upper
bearing inner race retaining rings for discrepancies in accordance
with paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

 (i) MRM Inner Race Retaining Rings Inspection

    (1) For Group 1 Helicopters: Within 660 hours TIS or 6 months,
whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Inspect
the installation of the MRM upper bearing inner race retaining rings
for discrepancies in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of section 3.B.2.b of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
AS350 62.00.42, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; or Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018, as applicable to
your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard the
plastic clamps (Item vv). For the purposes of this inspection,
discrepancies may be indicated by incorrect positioning or missing
rings.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD there are any discrepancies, before further flight, remove
the affected part, inspect the MRM inner race for degradation, and
replace the retaining rings in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of section 3.B.2.c of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service
Bulletin AS350 62.00.42, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018;
Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37, Revision
0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus Helicopters Alert Service
Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018, as
applicable to you model helicopter, except you are not required to
return parts to Airbus Helicopters. For the purposes of this
inspection, degradation is indicated by damage to the retaining
rings (including but not limited to cracks, scratches, and gouges),
deterioration, or wear.
    (3) If, during the inspection of the MRM inner race, as required
by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, there is any degradation, before
next flight, repair or replace the MRM.

(j) Terminating Action

    Verification on a helicopter of correct installation of the MRM
upper bearing inner race retaining rings, as required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD, or corrective action on a helicopter, as
specified in paragraphs (h)(2), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as
applicable, constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD for that
helicopter.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any helicopter, an affected part as identified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Scott Franke,
Aviation Safety Engineer, International Validation Branch, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2018-
0206, dated September 20, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0847.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
    (iii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 8, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-04806 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14905-14906]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Securities Act of 1933; Release No. 10054/March 14, 2016; Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 77367/March 14, 2016]

Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Budget
and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year 2016

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley
Act''),\1\ established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(``PCAOB'') to oversee the audits of companies that are subject to the
securities laws, and related matters, in order to protect the interests
of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of
informative, accurate and independent audit reports. The Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act \2\ amended the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act to provide the PCAOB with explicit authority to
oversee auditors of broker-dealers registered with the Commission. The
PCAOB is to accomplish these goals through registration of public
accounting firms and standard setting, inspection, and disciplinary
programs. The PCAOB is subject to the comprehensive oversight of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.
    \2\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides that the PCAOB shall
establish a reasonable annual accounting support fee, as may be
necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain the PCAOB. Under
Section 109(f) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the aggregate annual
accounting support fee shall not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate
``recoverable budget expenses,'' which may include operating, capital
and accrued items. The PCAOB's annual budget and accounting support fee
are subject to approval by the Commission. In addition, the PCAOB must
allocate the annual accounting support fee among issuers and among
brokers and dealers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Separately the Commission is responsible for review of an
accounting support fee for the FASB pursuant to Section 109(e) of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that is allocated among issuers. This
separate accounting support fee is not addressed by this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the PCAOB to
establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's
internal procedures, subject to approval by the Commission. Rule 190 of
Regulation P facilitates the Commission's review and approval of PCAOB
budgets and annual accounting support fees.\4\ This budget rule
provides, among other things, a timetable for the preparation and
submission of the PCAOB budget and for Commission actions related to
each budget, a description of the information that should be included
in each budget submission, limits on the PCAOB's ability to incur
expenses and obligations except as provided in the approved budget,
procedures relating to supplemental budget requests, requirements for
the PCAOB to furnish on a quarterly basis certain budget-related
information, and a list of definitions that apply to the rule and to
general discussions of PCAOB budget matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 202.190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the budget rule, in March 2015 the PCAOB
provided the Commission with a narrative description of its program
issues and outlook for the 2016 budget year. In response, the
Commission provided the PCAOB with economic assumptions and budgetary
guidance for the 2016 budget year. The PCAOB subsequently delivered a
preliminary budget and budget justification to the Commission. Staff
from the Commission's Offices of the Chief Accountant and Financial
Management dedicated a substantial amount of time to the review and
analysis of the PCAOB's programs, projects and budget estimates;
reviewed the PCAOB's estimates of 2015 actual spending; and attended
several meetings with management and staff of the PCAOB to further
develop the Commission staff's understanding of the PCAOB's budget and
operations. During the course of this review, Commission staff relied
upon representations and supporting documentation from the PCAOB. Based
on this review, the Commission authorized the staff to issue a ``pass
back'' letter to the PCAOB. On November 24, 2015, the PCAOB approved
its 2016 budget during an open meeting, and subsequently submitted that
budget to the Commission for approval.
    After considering the above, the Commission did not identify any
proposed disbursements in the 2016 budget adopted by the PCAOB that are
not properly recoverable through the annual accounting support fee, and
the Commission believes that the aggregate proposed 2016 annual
accounting support fee does not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate
recoverable budget expenses for 2016. The Commission also acknowledges
the PCAOB's updated strategic plan and encourages the PCAOB to continue
keeping the Commission and its staff apprised of significant new
developments. The Commission looks forward to providing views to the
PCAOB as future updates are made to the plan.
    We understand that the PCAOB has taken significant steps to advance
its assessments of the performance and management of the PCAOB's
standard-setting process, including the engagement of an external
consultant. The Commission directs the PCAOB to continue to provide
timely updates throughout the year on the progress of the Board's
review of the PCAOB's standard setting process, including anticipated
changes to processes or funding.
    The Commission recognizes that in recent years, the PCAOB has taken
significant steps to establish the Center for Economic Analysis
(``Center''). The Commission directs the PCAOB to continue providing
quarterly updates to the Commission on the Center's activities and
progress towards its stated goals.
    The Commission directs the Board to continue to provide in its
quarterly reports to the Commission detailed information about the
state of the PCAOB's IT program, including planned, estimated, and
actual costs for IT projects, and the level of involvement of
consultants. These reports also should continue to include: (a) A
discussion of the Board's assessment of the IT program; and (b) the
quarterly IT

report that is prepared by PCAOB staff and submitted to the Board. The
Commission also directs the Board during 2016 to continue to include in
its quarterly reports to the Commission information about the PCAOB's
inspections program. Such information is to include: (a) Statistics
relative to the numbers and types of firms budgeted and expected to be
inspected in 2016, including by location and by year the inspections
are required to be conducted in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
and PCAOB rules; (b) information about the timing of the issuance of
inspections reports for domestic and non-U.S. inspections; and (c)
updates on the PCAOB's efforts to establish cooperative arrangements
with respective non-U.S. authorities for inspections required in those
countries.
    The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') has determined the 2016 budget of the PCAOB to be
sequestrable under the Budget Control Act of 2011.\5\ Consequently, we
expect the PCAOB will have approximately $1 million in excess funds
available from the 2015 sequestration for spending in 2016.
Accordingly, the PCAOB has reduced its accounting support fee for 2016
by approximately $1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee
Reductions for Fiscal Year 2016'', Appendix page 15 of 15 at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/2016_jc_sequestration_report_speaker.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2016 budget and
annual accounting support fee are consistent with Section 109 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that the PCAOB budget and annual accounting support fee for calendar
year 2016 are approved.

By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06095 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38762-38765]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1211; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01598-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model BR700-715A1-30,
BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of malformed scallop edge geometry and surface
conditions at the front flange scallops of affected low-pressure
compressor (LPC) booster rotors. This proposed AD would require
repetitive fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPIs) of the front flange
scallops of the LPC booster rotor for any cracks, replacement or repair
of the LPC booster rotor if necessary and, as an optional terminating
action to the repetitive FPIs, a visual inspection for malformed
scallop edge geometry and malformed surface conditions, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed
for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1211; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA service information that is proposed for IBR in
this NPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1211.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781)
238-7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1211; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01598-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0252, dated December 16, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0252) (referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition

for all RRD Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30
engines. The MCAI states that occurrences have been reported of finding
malformed scallop edge geometry and surface conditions at the front
flange scallops of certain LPC booster rotors. To address this unsafe
condition, the manufacturer published service information that
specifies procedures for inspecting the front flange scallops of the
LPC booster rotors with accept and reject criteria. This condition, if
not addressed, could lead to failure of the LPC booster rotor,
resulting in release of high-energy debris, with consequent engine in-
flight shutdown, and reduced control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1211.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0252, which specifies procedures for
accomplishing repetitive FPIs (on-wing or in-shop) of the front flange
scallops of the affected part and, if any cracks are detected, removing
the engine from service and contacting the manufacturer for approved
corrective actions. EASA AD 2022-0252 also specifies procedures for
performing a visual inspection, taking photographs, and submitting
photograph documentation of the LPC booster rotor front flange scallops
for malformed scallop edge geometry and malformed surface conditions,
including validation of the results from the manufacturer, as
terminating action for the repetitive FPIs.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the MCAI, except as discussed under ``Differences Between this
Proposed AD and the MCAI,'' and under Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0252.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since
coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a
result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference EASA AD 2022-0252
in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require
compliance with EASA AD 2022-0252 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are
the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not
mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example,
where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions within the
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
EASA AD 2022-0252. Service information required by the EASA AD for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1211 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0252 specifies to contact RRD
for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those actions
accordingly, this proposed AD would require replacement or repair of
the LPC booster rotor.
    Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0252 specifies to contact RRD
for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those actions
accordingly, this proposed AD would require replacement or repair of
the LPC booster rotor.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 148 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPI front flange scallops of the LPC  5 work-hours x $85 per               $0             $425          $62,900
 booster rotor.                        hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement, repair, or visual inspection that would be required based
on the results of the proposed inspection. Operators have the option of
performing a visual inspection of the affected LPC booster rotor as an
optional terminating action for the repetitive FPIs. The agency has no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
replacement, repair, or visual inspection:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the LPC booster rotor.................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $461,897        $462,747
                                                 $850.
Repair the LPC booster rotor..................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =           185,000         185,850
                                                 $850.
Visual inspection and photograph documentation  7 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  0             595
 of the LPC booster rotor front flange           $595.
 scallops.

Send Accomplishment Form (Part C) and           1 hour x $85 per hour = $85.....               0              85
 photographs to RRD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory if operators elect to perform the optional
terminating action. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2023-1211;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01598-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 31, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
Model BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 engines.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of malformed scallop edge
geometry and surface conditions at the front flange scallops of
affected low-pressure compressor (LPC) booster rotors. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPC booster rotor. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in release of high-
energy debris, with consequent engine in-flight shutdown, and
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2022-0252, dated December 16, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0252).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0252

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0252 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0252 specifies to
contact RRD for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those
actions accordingly, this AD requires replacement of the LPC booster
rotor. In lieu of replacement of the affected LPC booster rotor,
operators may repair the affected LPC booster rotor using a method
approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or RRD's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0252 specifies to
contact RRD for approved corrective action(s) and accomplish those
actions accordingly, this AD requires replacement of the LPC booster
rotor. In lieu of replacement of the affected LPC booster rotor,
operators may repair the affected LPC booster rotor using a method
approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or RRD's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0252.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0252 specifies to reject the engine if a crack is found, this AD
requires replacement or repair of the LPC booster rotor.

(i) Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0252
specifies to submit the Accomplishment Forms, Parts A and B, to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. If
operators elect to perform the optional terminating action specified
in Part C of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0252, this AD requires submission of the Part C Accomplishment Form
and photographic information to the manufacturer.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of
this AD and email 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.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0252, dated
December 16, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0252, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]. You may find EASA AD 2022-0252 on the EASA
website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 8, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-12697 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4269]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0706; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-26]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewisport, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes
Class E Airspace at Hancock Co.--Ron Lewis Field, Lewisport, KY.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46896),
Docket No. FAA-2009-0706; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-26. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 15, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1365 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30676]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13037]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9021-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 05/18/2015 Through 05/22/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.
EIS No. 20150137, Final, USACE, CA, Southport Sacramento River Early
Implementation Project, Review Period Ends: 07/06/2015, Contact: Tanis
Toland<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150138, Final, BLM, MT, HiLine District Proposed Resource
Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Brian Hockett
406-262-2837.
EIS No. 20150139, Final, BLM, WY, Buffalo Proposed Resource Management
Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Thomas Bills 307-684-
1133.
EIS No. 20150140, Final, BLM, MT, Miles City Field Office Proposed
Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Mary
Bloom<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150141, Final, BLM, SD, South Dakota Field Office Proposed
Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact:
Mitch Iverson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150142, Final, BLM, MT, Billings and Pompeys Pillar National
Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/
2015, Contact: Carolyn Sherve-Bybee<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150143, Final, BLM, ND, North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015,
Contact: Ruth Miller<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150144, Final, BLM, MT, Lewistown Greater Sage-Grouse
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015,
Contact: Adam Carr<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150145, Final, BLM, ID, Idaho and Southwestern Montana
Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period
Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Jonathan Beck<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150146, Final, BLM, CO, Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-
Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 06/29/
2015, Contact: Erin Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150147, Final, BLM, WY, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed
Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact:
William West<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150148, Final, BLM, NV, Nevada and Northeastern California
Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period
Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Lauren Mermejo<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150149, Final, BLM, UT, Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed
Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact:
Quincy Bahr<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150150, Final, BLM, WY, Bighorn Basin Proposed Resource
Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Holly Elliott
307-347-5193.
EIS No. 20150151, Draft, USFS, CO, Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen
Decline Management Response, Comment Period Ends: 07/14/2015, Contact:
Scott Williams<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150152, Final, BLM, OR, Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed
Land Use Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 06/29/2015, Contact: Joan
Suther<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150153, Final, STB, UT, Six County Association of Governments
Construction and Operation between Levan and Salina, Review Period
Ends: 06/28/2015, Contact: Philllis Johnson-Ball<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150154, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA, Delta Wetlands Project,
Comment Period Ends: 07/13/2015, Contact: Marc A. Fugler<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150155, Draft, FEMA, OR, Southern Flow Corridor Project,
Comment Period Ends: 07/13/2015, Contact: Mark Eberlein<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150059, Draft, NMFS, WA, The Makah Tribe Request to Hunt Gray
Whales, Comment Period Ends: 07/31/2015, Contact: Steve Stone 503-231-
2317. Revision to the FR Notice Published 03/13/2015; Extending Comment
Period from 06/11/2015 to 07/31/2015.

    Dated: May 26, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-13037 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P