[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20156-20158]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69249; File No. SR-MSRB-2013-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to MSRB Rules G-37 and G-8 and Form G-37

March 28, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 4, 2013, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') 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 consisting of amendments to MSRB Rules G-37, on
political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities
business, and G-8, on books and records, and Form G-37. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
February 14, 2013.\3\ The Commission received four comment letters on
the proposal.\4\ The MSRB submitted a response on March 26, 2013.\5\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68872 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10656 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Robert W. Doty, President, AGFS and Senior Advisor, Government
Financial Strategies, Inc., dated February 20, 2013 (``AGFS
Letter'') and Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, President, National
Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors, dated March 12,
2013 (``NAIPFA Letter''). See also, Letters to Ronald W. Smith,
Corporate Secretary, MSRB, from Ellen S. Miller, Co-Founder and
Executive Director, The Sunlight Foundation, dated March 5, 2013
(``Sunlight Letter'') and Kamala Harris, Attorney General,
Department of Justice, from Bill Lockyer, Treasurer, State of
California, dated March 18, 2013 (``AG Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Gary L. Goldsholle, General Counsel, MSRB, dated March 26,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    MSRB Rule G-37 requires dealers to disclose on Form G-37 certain
contributions to issuer officials, contributions to bond ballot
campaigns, and payments to political parties of states and political
subdivisions, made by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
(``dealers''), their municipal finance professionals (``MFPs''),
political action committees controlled by the dealer or their MFPs or
non-MFP executive officers (collectively, ``covered parties'').
Further, MSRB Rule G-37 prohibits dealers from engaging in municipal
securities business with an issuer within two years after contributions
are made by certain covered parties (other than certain permitted de
minimis contributions) to an official of such issuer. The rule's
prohibition on engaging in municipal securities business, however, is
currently not triggered by contributions made to bond ballot campaigns
by covered parties. MSRB Rule G-37 also requires dealers to maintain
records of reportable contributions to bond ballot campaigns pursuant
to MSRB Rule G-8.
    The MSRB proposes to revise MSRB Rule G-37(e)(i)(B)(2) to provide
that, in disclosing the contribution amount made to a bond ballot
campaign, the dealer also must include, in the case of in-kind
contributions, the value and nature of the goods or services provided,
including any ancillary services provided to, on behalf of, or in
furtherance of, the bond ballot campaign. The proposed rule change also
requires dealers to disclose the specific date on which such
contributions to bond ballot campaigns were made.
    The MSRB also proposes to revise MSRB Rule G-37(e)(i)(B) to require
dealers to disclose the full issuer name and full issue description of
any primary offering resulting from voter approval of a bond ballot
measure to

which a contribution required to be disclosed has been made. All
information is required to be reported in the calendar quarter in which
the closing date for the issuance that was authorized by the bond
ballot measure occurred. The proposed rule change also contains a look-
back provision for bond ballot campaign contributions that are made by
an MFP or a non-MFP executive officer during the two years prior to an
individual becoming an MFP or a non-MFP executive officer of a dealer.
The look-back provision limits the additional disclosures required
under proposed MSRB Rule G-37(e)(i)(B) to those items that would have
been required to be disclosed if such individual had been an MFP or a
non-MFP executive officer at the time of the contribution. The proposed
revisions to MSRB Rule G-37(e)(i)(B) also require dealers to disclose
the reportable date of selection on which the dealer was selected to
engage in municipal securities business. Furthermore, proposed
revisions to MSRB Rule G-37(e)(i)(B) require dealers to disclose both
the amount and source of any payments or reimbursements related to any
bond ballot contribution received by a dealer or its MFPs from any
third party.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Third parties include issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also proposes to revise MSRB Rule G-37(g) to expand the
definition of ``contribution'' and add a new defined term, the
``reportable date of selection.'' The proposed amendments to the
definition of ``contribution'' would distinguish between contributions
made to an official of an issuer and contributions made to a bond
ballot campaign. The term ``reportable date of selection'' would be
defined to mean to the date of the earliest to occur of: (1) The
execution of an engagement letter; (2) the execution of a bond purchase
agreement; or (3) the receipt of formal notification (provided either
in writing or orally) from or on behalf of the issuer that the dealer
has been selected to engage in municipal securities business.
    Lastly, the MSRB proposes conforming amendments to MSRB Rule G-
8(a)(xvi)(H) and (I) to require dealers to maintain records of the
supplemental information related to bond ballot campaign contributions
that are required to be disclosed on Form G-37 under the proposed rule
change.

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    As previously noted, the Commission received four comment letters
on the proposed rule change and a response from the MSRB.\7\ Two
commenters expressed general support for the proposed rule change.\8\
One commenter found the proposed disclosure requirements to be
inadequate.\9\ One commenter addressed state law matters, which are not
the subject of the proposed rule change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
    \8\ See Sunlight Letter and AGFS Letter.
    \9\ See NAIPFA Letter.
    \10\ See AG Letter. Because the AG Letter relates to subject
matters not directly relevant to the proposed rule change, the
Commission does not address the comment herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Support to the Proposed Rule Change

    One commenter noted that the proposed rule change is necessary in
order to gather information for evaluation of potential further actions
in response to circumstances suggesting corruption and unfair dealing
in gaining employment and participating in municipal securities
issuances approved by voters.\11\ Another commenter stated that
improving ``public disclosure of bond ballot campaign contributions is
fundamental to helping citizens be better informed about possible
conflicts of interest and any ``pay-to-play'' schemes that might be
occurring in the underwriting of bonds.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See AGFS Letter.
    \12\ See Sunlight Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Disclosure Requirements are Inadequate

    One commenter also requested that the MSRB ``further improve
transparency and accountability by making municipal securities
information available in an open, standardized format and by using non-
proprietary unique identifiers.'' \13\ In response, the MSRB stated
that none of these requests were the subject of the proposed rule
change but that the MSRB will keep these requests under advisement as
it considers future enhancements to its political contribution
transparency initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated that the proposed disclosure requirements
are inadequate to curtail actual or perceived quid pro quo practices
with respect to bond ballot campaign contributions.\14\ Moreover, this
commenter noted that the MSRB's First Amendment concerns are
unwarranted in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United
v. FEC.\15\ This commenter suggested that additional steps beyond
disclosure requirements are necessary to address the issue, either by
way of a direct contribution ban, or an indirect expenditure limit.\16\
``Contributions to bond ballot campaign committees are, in fact, direct
in nature and, because of the evidence of actual or perceived quid pro
quo, such contributions should be prohibited in order to prevent quid
pro quo from continuing to occur.'' \17\ If bond ballot campaign
committee contributions are determined to be indirect expenditures,
this commenter urged the Commission to place limits on such
expenditures as a result of past and ongoing quid pro quo. This
commenter also suggested that bond ballot campaign committee
contributions be limited to $200 per election and be combined with a
ban on business in the event such contributions exceed this amount.
Furthermore, the commenter suggested that, if the above-referenced
recommendations are not implemented, the proposed rule change should be
amended to require disclosure of contributions contemporaneously or
within a reasonable amount of time after the contribution is made. The
commenter argued that the current proposed quarterly disclosure
timetable is insufficient to curtail the actual or perceived quid pro
quo, because ``in all likelihood, an election will have concluded long
before the disclosures are ever made, which will diminish whatever
informative value such disclosures may have to the voting public.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NAIPFA Letter.
    \15\ 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the MSRB noted it has previously acknowledged and
responded to similar comments, including those received pursuant to a
request for comment to the public,\18\ which were specifically
addressed in the Notice. In addition, the MSRB reiterated that approval
of the proposed rule change does not foreclose additional rulemaking in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MSRB Notice 2012-43 (August 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
as well as the comment letters received and the MSRB's response, and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
MSRB. \19\ In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which provides that the MSRB's rules
shall 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 municipal
securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of
the Act, because it is intended to protect investors and the public
interest and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by
adding greater specificity to the public disclosures required for
contributions made by covered parties to bond ballot campaigns and any
municipal securities business awarded pursuant to such bond ballot
measure. Market participants will have access to such public
information in a centralized format on the MSRB's Web site through Form
G-37, which will increase market transparency and strengthen market
integrity of the municipal securities market. The information will help
shed light on ongoing market concerns of pay-to-play practices with
respect to bond ballot campaign contributions. The MSRB has also
represented that the revisions to MSRB Rule G-37 will assist the MSRB
in its continuing review of MSRB Rule G-37 and whether any additional
disclosure requirements are desirable to address other practices that
may present challenges to the integrity of the municipal securities
market related to political contributions by dealers and dealer
personnel. Furthermore, the MSRB has noted that approval of the
proposed rule change does not foreclose additional rulemaking in the
future. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB, and in
particular, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The proposal will become
effective no later than the start of the second calendar quarter
following the date of this order.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2013-01) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07711 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 469-472]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1019; Product Identifier 2018-SW-011-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C,

AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. This
proposed AD would require, depending on helicopter configuration,
installing skived polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape or removing
skived PTFE tape and replacing the window seals. This proposed AD is
prompted by a report of excessive friction between the window seal and
the helicopter airframe. The actions of this proposed AD are intended
to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 6,
2020.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1019; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments
relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts
that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if
comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the
comments received.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0039, dated February 9,
2018, and corrected on March 7, 2018, to correct an unsafe condition
for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France,
Aerospatiale) Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332
L2, and EC 225 LP helicopters. EASA advises of an emergency exit window
that required excessive pushing force to jettison. According to EASA,
an investigation revealed the window seal was in good condition with no
indication of paint contamination or of hardening. EASA advises that
the root cause of the incident was excessive friction between the
window seal and the airframe. EASA further advises that helicopters
with VIP jettisonable cabin windows, which corresponds to Modification
(MOD) 332P087140.00, with PTFE skived film (tape) installed, require
greater force to jettison than standard jettisonable cabin windows with
PTFE skived film installed due to the thickness of the VIP jettisonable
cabin windows.
    EASA states if this condition is not corrected, it could prevent
the window from jettisoning, subsequently affecting the evacuation of
passengers during an emergency situation. To address this unsafe
condition, the EASA AD requires installing PTFE skived film on the
window frames of helicopters with standard jettisonable cabin windows,
and removing PTFE skived film and replacing polychloroprene seals with
silicone seals on the window frames of helicopters with VIP
jettisonable cabin windows.

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 of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. AS332-05.01.05 for Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, and
AS332L2 helicopters, and ASB No. EC225-05A046 for Model EC225LP
helicopters, both Revision 1 and dated February 8, 2018. This service
information applies to helicopters without VIP jettisonable cabin
window MOD 332P087140.00 installed. This service information specifies
applying PTFE skived film to the jettisonable cabin window frames.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-56.90.13 for
Model AS332L2 helicopters, and ASB No. EC225-56C012 for Model EC225LP
helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated February 2, 2018. This service
information applies to helicopters with VIP jettisonable cabin window
MOD 332P087140.00 installed. This service information specifies
removing the PTFE skived film, if installed between the VIP cabin
window frame and seal, from the VIP jettisonable cabin windows, and
replacing the VIP jettisonable cabin window polychloroprene seals with
silicone seals.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Information Notice No. 3012-I-
05, Revision 0, dated March 8, 2016, for Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L,
AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. This service information
provides additional information pertaining to the jettisonable cabin
window system and the application of PTFE skived film to the
jettisonable window frames. This service information also advises that
VIP jettisonable cabin windows are thicker and stiffer than standard
design windows and are slightly more difficult to jettison than
standard jettisonable cabin windows.

Proposed AD Requirements

    Within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter each time a
jettisonable cabin window is installed:
     For helicopters without MOD 332P087140.00 installed, this
proposed AD would require installing skived PTFE tape to each
jettisonable cabin window frame.
     For helicopters with MOD 332P087140.00 installed, this
proposed AD would require removing the skived PTFE tape, if installed,
from each jettisonable cabin window, and replacing each VIP
jettisonable cabin window polychloroprene seal with a silicone seal.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows compliance within 250 hours TIS for helicopters
that do not operate over water. This proposed AD would require
compliance within 110 hours TIS for all helicopters, regardless of
where they operate.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 25 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Depending on your model helicopter and configuration:
     Installing skived PTFE tape would take about 8 work-hours
and required materials would cost about $92, for an estimated cost of
$772 per helicopter and $19,300 for the U.S. fleet.
     There are no costs of compliance with removing the skived
PTFE tape and replacing the seals because there are no helicopters with
a serial number identified by Airbus Helicopters with MOD 332P087140.00
installed on the U.S. Registry.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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.
    The FAA prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2019-1019; Product Identifier
2018-SW-011-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, certificated in
any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as excessive friction
between the jettisonable cabin window and the airframe. This
condition could result in the window failing to jettison, preventing
occupants from exiting the helicopter during an emergency.

(c) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by March 6, 2020.

(d) 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.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 110 hours time-in-service:
    (1) For Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters;
and Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters without Modification (MOD)
332P087140.00 installed, install skived polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) tape to each jettisonable cabin window frame by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2., of Airbus Helicopters
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-05.01.05 or ASB No. EC225-
05A046, both Revision 1 and dated February 8, 2018, as applicable to
your model helicopter.
    (2) For Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters with MOD
332P087140.00 installed:

    Note 1 to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD:  Airbus Helicopters has
identified the following helicopters as having MOD 332P087140.00
installed: Model AS332L2 serial numbers (S/Ns) 2388, 2390, 2565,
2573, 2577, 2578, and 2587; and Model EC225LP S/Ns 2600, 2623, 2645,
2650, 2651, 2653, 2659, 2684, 2693, 2711, 2712, 2719, 2753, 2756,
2767, 2796, 2926, 2961, 2973, 2974, 2979, 3002, 3003, and 3012.

    (i) Remove the skived PTFE tape, if installed between the VIP
cabin window frame and seal, from each jettisonable cabin window by
following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2., of
Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-56.90.13 (ASB AS332-56.90.13) or
ASB No. EC225-56C012 (ASB EC225-56C012), both Revision 0 and dated
February 8, 2018, as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (ii) Replace each VIP jettisonable cabin window polychloroprene
seal with a silicone seal by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.B.3., of ASB

AS332-56.90.13 or ASB EC225-56C012, as applicable to your model
helicopter.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a
jettisonable cabin window unless you comply with the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, as applicable to your model
helicopter and configuration.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Information Notice No. 3012-I-05,
Revision 0, dated March 8, 2016, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
972-641-0000 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.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2018-0039, dated February 9, 2018, and
corrected on March 7, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5220, Emergency
Exits.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 27, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-28354 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31258-31260]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD22-5-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725D(1));
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a new information collection,
FERC-725D(1), Mandatory Reliability Standards FAC-001-4 and FAC-002-4.
This notice will be part of an information collection request that will
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review
of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-725D(1) to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
NEW) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No.
RD22-5-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing through
https://www.ferc.gov is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.

    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions:
    OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; Using the
search function under the ``Currently Under Review field,'' select
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit'' and select
``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected] and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725D(1), RD22-5-000, Mandatory Reliability Standards
FAC-001-4 and FAC-002-4.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-NEW.
    Respondents: Transmission owners and generator owners for
Reliability Standard FAC-001-4. Planning coordinators for Reliability
Standard FAC-002-4.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NERC Glossary, at https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Glossary%20of%20Terms/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf, defines these terms. A
transmission owner (TO) is the entity that owns and maintains
transmission facilities. A generator owner (GO) is the entity that
owns and maintains generating units. A planning coordinator,
formerly known as a planning authority (PA/PC), is the responsible
entity that coordinates and integrates transmission facilities,
service plans, resource plans, and protection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Information Collection: Once during years 1 and 2. On
occasion during year 3 and beyond.
    Abstract: The Facilities Design, Connections, and Maintenance
Reliability Standards address topics such as facility interconnection
requirements, facility ratings, system operating limits, and transfer
capabilities. These Reliability Standards are designated with the
prefix ``FAC.''
    On November 23, 2002 the Commission published an order approving
new Reliability Standards FAC-001-4 and FAC-002-4 (87 FR 71602). The
Commission approved those new standards to help ensure appropriate
coordination and communication regarding the interconnection of
facilities.
    At present, the collections of information associated with all
``FAC'' Reliability Standards are authorized under FERC-725D (OMB
Control Number 1902-0247). Ordinarily, the Commission would ask OMB to
approve the collections of information associated with the new
Reliability Standards as revisions of FERC-725D. However, another
information collection request pertaining to FERC-725D is pending at
OMB,\2\ and only one request per information collection is allowed to
be pending at OMB at the same time. FERC-725D(1) is a temporary
placeholder number to avoid conflicting with the pending request
already submitted to OMB regarding FERC-725D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ That pending request would not affect FAC-001-3 or FAC-002-
3, the predecessors to the Reliability Standards approved by the
Commission in its November 23, 2022 order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previous Reliability Standard FAC-001-003 required transmission
owners and generator owners to complete coordinated studies on new or
``materially modified'' existing interconnections. As approved in the
November 23, 2022 order, FAC-001-4 requires coordinated studies of
``qualified changes'' in interconnections instead of ``materially
modified'' interconnections. This revision is intended to prevent
confusion with the Commission-defined term ``Material Modification'' in
pro forma interconnection procedures and agreements.\3\ The term
``qualified changes'' refers to changes in existing interconnected
facilities that can have reliability impacts and helps ensure that they
are properly addressed in interconnection requirements and studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The regulation at 18 CFR 35.28(c)(1) requires every public
utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce to have on
file with the Commission an open access transmission tariff
consisting of the pro forma tariff promulgated by the Commission, or
such other tariff as may be approved by the Commission. The
regulation at 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) requires every public utility that
is required to have on file a non-discriminatory open access
transmission tariff to amend such tariff by adding the standard
interconnection procedures and agreement and the standard small
generator interconnection procedures and agreement required by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 23 order, the Commission also revised Requirement
R6 of existing Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 by authorizing the
planning coordinator to define the term ``qualified change'' and
requiring public posting of the definition.
    Necessity of Information: Mandatory.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the collections of
information associated with the rulemaking in Docket No. RD22-5-000,
and has determined that the described information collection activities
are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for
efficient information collection, communication, and management within
the energy industry.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The responsibilities of applicable
entities for FAC-001-4 (i.e., transmission owners and generator owners)
are the same as those approved for Reliability Standard FAC-001-3 in
FERC-725D. Table 1, below, accordingly shows the same burdens as
approved in FERC-725D, with updated costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly
cost for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $91.00
FY 2022 average hourly cost for wages and benefits.

                                                        Table 1--Estimated Burdens for FAC-001-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Number of
                                  Types and numbers      annual                                    Average number of burden     Total burden hours and
       Types of responses          of respondents     responses per   Total number of responses       hours and cost per                 cost
                                                       respondent                                        response \4\
A                                B.................               C  D (Column B x Column C)....  E.........................  F (Column D x Column E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation & Updates........  498 GOs/TOs.......               1  498........................  34 hrs.; $3,094...........  16,932 hrs. $1,491,672.
Evidence Retention.............  498 GOs/TOs.......               1  498........................  1 hr.; $91.00.............  498 hrs.; $45,318.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under, FAC-002-4, the new collection FERC-725D(1) represents a
minor additional burden to planning coordinators, due to the
requirement that they develop the definition of ``qualified change''
for new and existing interconnections of generation, transmission or
electricity end user facilities. This burden is expected to be greater
in years one and two than in year three and beyond for FAC-002-4. The
burden and cost estimates for FAC-002-4 are based on the increase in
the reporting and recordkeeping burden imposed by the revised
Reliability Standards. Our estimates are based on the NERC Compliance
Registry as of September 16, 2022, which indicates 63 planning
coordinators.

                                                        Table 2--Estimated Burdens for FAC-002-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of
                                          annual                                         Average number of burden hours
   Type and numbers of respondents     responses per      Total number of responses          and cost per response         Total burden hours and cost
                                        respondent
A                                                  B  C (Column A x Column B).........  D..............................  E (Column C x Column D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63 PA/PCs Years 1 and 2.............               1  63..............................  120 hrs.; $7,200...............  7,560 hrs.; $453,600.
63 PA/PCs Ongoing, beginning in Year               1  63..............................  40 hrs.; $2,520................  2,520 hrs.; $158,760.
 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 9, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10351 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P