Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH)

November 13, 2008 Meeting Minutes

Room N-3437 A/B/C

U.S. Department of Labor, Francis Perkins Building

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20210

Representatives Attending

Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Chair

Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health

Department of Labor

William “Chico” McGill, Vice Chair – Labor representative

Director, Government Employees Department

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Curtis M. Bowling – Federal agency representative

Director of Environmental Readiness and Safety

Department of Defense

Donald G. Bathurst – Federal agency representative

Chief of Administrative Services

Department of Homeland Security

Ralph E. Dudley – Federal agency representative

General Manager – Safety and Health

Tennessee Valley Authority

Gilbert ‘Gil’ L. Smith, Jr. – Federal agency representative

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Kathleen J. H. Wheeler – Federal agency representative

Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer

U.S. Department of the Interior

Dennis J. Bushta – Federal agency representative

Director, Safety, Health and Environmental Management Division

Environmental Protection Agency

Matthew Biggs – Alternate labor representative

Legislative and Political Director

International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers

Ruth Ann “Randi” Ciszewski – Alternate labor representative

Government Fleet Representative

National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO

Alan Kadrofske – Alternate labor representative

Legislative Representative

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

Deborah Kleinberg, Esq. - Alternate labor representative

Counsel

Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO

Also Participating

Patrick Kapust, Acting Deputy Director

Directorate of Enforcement Programs

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Department of Labor

Francis Yebesi, Director

Office of Federal Agency Programs

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Department of Labor

Shelby Hallmark, Director

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)

Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

Department of Labor

Tom Galassi, Director

Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Department of Labor

John Ferris, Director

Office of Emergency Management

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Department of Labor

Mikki Holmes

OSHA – Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Greg Barber

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Lewis Ligon

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Michelle Walker

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Joe Plick

Office of the Solicitor of Labor

Department of Labor

Nalini Close

Office of the Executive Secretariat

Department of Labor

Call to Order and Introductions

Acting Chair, Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, called the meeting of the Federal
Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH or Council)
to order at 1:08 p.m. on November 13, 2008.  Mr. Stohler requested that
Francis Yebesi, Department of Labor (DOL), Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Federal Agency Programs (OFAP)
provide a review of the emergency and shelter-in-place procedures.
FACOSH members and alternates, and other attendees were then asked to
introduce themselves.

Council Organization and Procedures

Mr. Stohler explained the January 2008 FACOSH member nomination process
and welcomed the newly appointed Council members.  He also explained the
meeting’s procedures and Council’s purpose, organization, and
function.  Mr. Stohler noted that the members would need to elect a new
vice chair from among the labor representatives and stated that this
election would occur later in the proceedings.

FACA Requirements

Joe Plick, Office of the Solicitor of Labor (SOL), DOL, briefed the
Council on the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and its
requirements for FACOSH members and the Department.  Mr. Plick explained
that Congress enacted FACA in 1972 to provide structure to the operation
and termination of advisory committees, and to allow them to give advice
and recommendations to the Executive Branch.  He noted that the General
Services Administration (GSA) has government-wide oversight of FACA
committees.

According to Mr. Plick, FACA outlines how committees may be established,
requires that they be chartered, stipulates a “balanced” membership
in terms of points of view and committee functions, requires public
meetings and recorded minutes, calls for bi-annual rechartering, and
provides guidelines for meeting discussions and media contact.  Mr.
Plick further explained how FACA imposes responsibilities on the
agencies, including creating roles such as the Committee Management
Officer, and the Designated Federal Office (DFO).  He informed the
members that Francis Yebesi, OSHA, is the DFO for FACOSH. He also noted
that FACA required various periodic reports to specific entities.

Mr. Plick described the circumstances that could result in a closed
meeting and clarified that FACA required reports of closed meetings.  As
additional information on FACA, Mr. Plick reported that subcommittees
were not generally subject to FACA requirements, that certain
Council-related activities such as preparatory work did not need to
occur in an open forum, and that most committee-related material needs
to be made available to the public.

Nalini Close, Office of the Executive Secretariat, DOL, Committee
Management Officer, drew members’ attention to the provided FACA
brochure.  She provided further information on the public nature of
advisory committees such as FACOSH and cautioned members on discussing
committee business outside of the public forum.  Ms. Close also
discussed the use of electronic communication and noted that if
electronic conversations became substantive discussions they could be
considered meetings and require notice.  Finally, Ms. Close provided
information on the process for providing the required annual report to
Congress.

Election of Vice Chair

Mr. Stohler thanked Curtis Bowling, Director of Environmental Readiness
and Safety, Department of Defense, for his service as Vice-Chair during
calendar year 2008 and reported that Mr. William “Chico” McGill, the
Director of the Government Employees Department, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, had been nominated and was
willing to serve as Vice Chair for 2009.  Mr. Stohler entertained the
motion and it was seconded; no additional nominations were received.
Mr. McGill was elected on a voice vote with no opposition.

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Stohler certified the accuracy of the April 10, 2008 meeting minutes
and entertained the motion to accept the minutes.  The motion was
seconded and approved without opposition.

Old Business

Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative

SHARE FY 2008 Progress

Mr. Yebesi and Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (OWCP), Employment Standards Administration (ESA),
DOL, conducted a joint presentation on the Presidential Safety, Health,
and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative to improve safety and health
among federal employees.  Mr. Yebesi recalled that the previous FACOSH
meeting had included information on the performance results from the
first quarter of FY 2008.  He reiterated the four goals of the SHARE
initiative as reducing total and lost time injury and illness case
rates, increasing the timely submission of workers’ compensation claim
forms, and reducing the lost production day rates (LPDRs).  Mr. Yebesi
noted that the FY 2007 SHARE summary was part of the FY 2007
President’s Report that was forwarded to the President.

According to Mr. Yebesi, the federal government (less the U.S. Postal
Service – USPS) and 10 of 18 departments achieved the first goal by
reducing their total case rates (TCRs).  He reported similar success for
the second goal of reducing lost time case rates (LTCRs) in that the
federal government (less the USPS) and 9 of 18 departments achieved the
goal.  Mr. Yebesi specifically praised the accomplishments of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Mr. Hallmark extolled the benefits of the SHARE Initiative and explained
the rationale for including timely filing of workers’ compensation
forms in an initiative to improve federal occupational safety and
health.  According to Mr. Hallmark, there had been tremendous
accomplishments in improving the timely filing of claims forms over the
course of the Initiative and that nearly all departments were above
their goals.  With respect to the goal of reducing LPDRs, Mr. Hallmark
reported dramatic improvements and cited the benefits of such
improvements.  He also echoed Mr. Yebesi’s praise of DHS’s efforts
and successes in achieving the goals of the SHARE Initiative.

Mr. Hallmark closed his presentation by noting the cooperation of OSHA
and OWCP in providing the resources to help federal agencies improve
their working environments and cited his belief in the ability to
continue such improvements.

Mr. Stohler thanked all the agencies on behalf of the Secretary of Labor
for their efforts and noted that FY 2009 was the Initiative’s final
year and the Department was exploring options for a replacement program.

FY 2007 President’s Report

Michelle Walker, OSHA, provided “major highlights” from the Fiscal
Year 2007 President’s Report, which she stated had been delivered to
the White House on October 6, 2008.  Ms. Walker explained that the
President’s Report on the status of occupational safety and health
(OSH) in the federal sector was a requirement under Section 19 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Ms. Walker noted that the report contained several sections:

The Overview covered the reporting requirements for federal agencies and
the Report itself.  The Overview also included a discussion of federal
agency OSH program requirements.

The Executive Summary synopsized the various topics and sections of the
Report.

Part I contained detailed information on the federal government’s FY
2007 performance towards achieving the goals of the SHARE Initiative.

Part II contained individual summary reports from each of the
departments and independent agencies.

Part III included summary statistical tables and charts depicting trends
for specific data sets over extended time periods.

After describing the Report’s format, Ms. Walker discussed highlights
of the report, including several categories of OSH statistics.
According to Ms. Walker, the federal government experienced decreases in
injury and illness cases and rates, and fatalities.  She noted that many
of the fatalities were the results of motor vehicle accidents.  Ms.
Walker reported that workers’ compensation costs had increased
slightly.

Ms. Walker also highlighted:

The majority of agencies have implemented the revised recordkeeping
requirements and several have established electronic information
systems.  Some of the systems include “near misses” in their records
and tracking.

All agencies reported having some type of motor vehicle safety program
and most included seat belt requirements in keeping with Executive Order
13043.

Agencies reported a wide variety of experience with respect to workplace
violence and several agencies provided information on their policies and
prevention programs.

Part II of the Report provided summaries for the individual departments
and independent agencies, and each summary included sections on
department/agency statistics, SHARE achievements, motor vehicle safety,
recordkeeping, employee support (including training and involvement in
the DOL-chartered Field Federal Safety and Health Councils),
accomplishments, and goals.

Part III included 17 statistical charts.

Ms. Walker stated that the memorandum asking for FY 2008 agency reports
had been forwarded to the agencies on October 16, 2008 and that it
included a request for information on injuries and illnesses related to
emergency response situations.  She also noted that the memo asked for
detailed information on agencies’ self-evaluation programs to assess
the effectiveness of their OSH management systems.

According to Ms. Walker, there were two different report templates for
agency annual reports: the detailed report, and one allowing an
abbreviated format for smaller agencies.  She also mentioned that the
reports were due to OSHA by January 1, 2009.

Ms. Randi Cizewski, National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association
(NMEBA), questioned whether OSHA was the source of the Navy’s recently
implemented motorcycle driving and reporting requirement.  Ms. Walker
stated that such reporting was not an OSHA requirement.  There were no
more questions on the topic.

FEDTARG08 Inspection Program

Greg Barber, OSHA, noted that the FEDTARG08 program was first
implemented in January 2008 and had been designed based on the private
sector’s site-specific targeting (SST) program.  He clarified that
FEDTARG used OWCP claims data instead of the OSHA 300 data used for the
SST program.

Mr. Barber explained that FEDTARG08 inspections were comprehensive
safety inspections, but could also include a health inspection and
address ergonomic issues.  He noted that site selection for FEDTARG08
was based on FY 2006 OWCP lost time case data and that FEDTARG09 would
use FY 2007 data.  He stated that each OSHA Region could contact the
National Office to request a list of secondary sites and would be
encouraged to do so.

Mr. Barber enumerated the circumstances that would entail deleting a
specific site from the inspection list, either automatically or once
selected.  According to Mr. Barber, these circumstances included:

Fewer than 20 lost time cases,

Has received a comprehensive safety inspection within the previous 24
months;

Is a participant in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP); or

Is an OSHA Strategic Partnership site that satisfies specific program
requirements.

With respect to the results of the FEDTARG program, Mr. Barber reported:

490 federal agency inspections discovered over 1,000 violations;

Of those numbers, 109 were FEDTARG inspections and discovered 189
violations; and

There were four significant cases in the federal sector, all of which
were associated with FEDTARG; Mr. Barber explained that significant
cases were those that would have resulted in at least $100,000 in
penalties in the private sector.

Following Mr. Barber’s presentation Dennis J. Bushta, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) asked what organization actually performed the
inspections.  Mr. Barber responded that OSHA area office personnel
performed the inspections.  Ralph Dudley, Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) asked about the program’s measurement of “success” and
whether it was qualitative.  Mr. Barber explained that the program’s
success would be measured over time based on the numbers and types of
violations discovered during inspections and acknowledged it is a
qualitative assessment.

As there were no further questions, Mr. Stohler moved on to the next
agenda item.

FACOSH Recordkeeping Subcommittee

Mikki Holmes, OSHA, explained that the Recordkeeping Subcommittee was
established during the March 1, 2007 FACOSH meeting to explore
strategies for collecting the site-specific injury and illness data that
federal agencies are now required to keep under OSHA recordkeeping
requirements found at 29 CFR Part 1904.  She clarified that the
subcommittee was focused on how OSHA could collect the injury and
illness data from federal agencies, and how agencies could identify
volunteers on the required logs.  She also discussed the
subcommittee’s recommendations for how OSHA could accomplish these
goals and the benefits they predicted would accrue from the data
collection.

Ms. Holmes continued her presentation by discussing the SOL-recommended
rule changes that were necessary to establish the data collection
process.  According to Ms. Holmes the rule changes would include:

Establishing OSHA’s authority to collect the injury and illness
recordkeeping data on a recurring annual basis,

Changing the due date for the agencies’ annual reports to OSHA and the
Department of Labor’s required annual report to the President,

Re-establishing that OSHA has the right to access medical records,

Clarifying the reporting requirements for volunteers and federal
employees employed by one agency and supervised by another, and

Require that federal agencies use the Office of Personnel Management job
series number to fill out the job title information on the OSHA 301
form.

Ms. Holmes noted that the current status of the project was that the
rule change language was being finalized and would then need DOL and
Office of Management and Budget approvals.  She also reported that SOL
was drafting a necessary related interagency agreement between OSHA and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to Ms. Holmes, the related current accomplishments included:

Collection of major departments’ and largest independent agencies’
establishment lists and lists from 59 other federal entities,

Continuing list consolidation and review,

Piloting the data survey and addressing the subsequent difficulties with
compiling establishment-level data,

Determining where OSHA will store and code the data,

Identifying training options, and

Projecting support costs.

Gilbert Smith, Jr., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked a
question related to record access that was not completely recorded and
Ms. Holmes responded that the original one did not address the issue.

Since there were no other questions on the subject, Mr. Stohler
proceeded to the next update.

Federal Agency Training

Lewis Ligon, OSHA, reported that the federal agency training week would
be held the following week (November 17-21) and was intended to provide
an opportunity for non-OSHA OSH and collateral duty personnel to enhance
their OSH knowledge.  According to Mr. Ligon, the training was free to
federal personnel and would consist of half-day sessions of concurrent
seminars held over three days.

Mr. Ligon stated that approximately 120 students had registered for the
training sessions during the October pre-registration period.  Mr. Ligon
listed the available classes and clarified that the last two sessions
would be a joint session and would include a discussion of 29 CFR 1960
requirements and allow questions to a panel of experts.

As to future training plans, Mr. Ligon noted that in FY 2010 the
training week would occur during the summer months at the OSHA Training
Institute (OTI).  Mr. Smith’s (USDA) question was not recorded; Mr.
Ligon’s response was that he did not have the list of attendees but
that it included a big cross-section of federal agencies.

Mr. McGill (IBEW) asked about the types of attendees and who was allowed
to attend.  Mr. Ligon clarified that it was OSH personnel and those with
safety and health collateral duties.  Mr. McGill expressed interest in a
list of attendees and Mr. Ligon stated that OSHA would provide that
information at the next FACOSH meeting.  Mr. Smith clarified that his
question related to the calendar change because summer was during the
fire season and a higher injury area.

There were no other questions so Mr. Stohler moved on to the New
Business portion of the meeting.

New Business

Emergency Preparedness

Tom Galassi, Director, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency
Management (OSHA) explained that his Directorate had previously been
named the Directorate of Science, Technology, and Medicine, but had been
reorganized to consolidate and institutionalize the emergency management
function.  He also noted that he had been the Director for less than
three months.  Mr. Galassi then introduced John Ferris, Director, Office
of Emergency Management.

Mr. Ferris began by providing an overview of his presentation, noting
that he would include information on:

OSHA’s role in emergency preparedness and response,

Current projects and requested necessary assistance, and

Questions for FACOSH.

Mr. Ferris first discussed the emergency response hierarchy by
describing the federal government’s role in supporting local emergency
response.  He also clarified that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in the Department of Homeland Security is the designated
lead agency for coordinating most federal emergency assistance.  Mr.
Ferris described the National Response Framework and the various federal
entities involved in providing emergency response assistance and their
roles in providing that assistance.

According to Mr. Ferris, OSHA’s role within the National Response
Framework is to coordinate the Worker Safety and Health Support Annex.
Mr. Ferris stated that the Annex outlines the resources available under
the Framework and specifies actions necessary during an emergency
response.

Mr. Ferris noted that the Annex was responsible for collecting
response-related injury and illness data and providing it to FEMA.  He
explained that the difficulty in collecting injury and illness data
varied with the size and complexity of the response effort and that the
collection effort itself was relatively recent.

Mr. Ferris stated that the Annex had piloted that data collection
process during the responses to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.  Mr. Ferris
clarified that the Annex was asking for data that agencies were already
required to report on OSHA recordkeeping forms.  He noted that the pilot
project collected data on a weekly basis during the hurricane responses,
but that the collection would occur during any sort of emergency
response, not just hurricane responses.  Mr. Ferris also mentioned
issues related to separating work-related fatalities from the overall
number of fatalities associated with the disaster, and ascertaining the
accuracy of the information collected.  According to Mr. Ferris, the
project was working with the Office of Workers’ Compensation to
correlate claims data with the data reported during the disaster.  He
also mentioned using the agency annual report data to assist with the
tracking effort.

With respect to assistance with the data collection effort, Mr. Ferris
asked for information related to:

Whether individual agencies could provide “real time” information
and any challenges involved with providing timely information.

Contract language addressing safety and health and collecting related
data.

Agencies’ systems for safety and health data collection and analysis

Options and considerations for broadening the scope of the data
collection beyond those agencies involved in the hurricane responses

The value of and recommendations for collecting the data from the
various state and local response agencies.

Mr. Ferris concluded his presentation by asking for comments or
suggestions from FACOSH members.

Ralph Dudley, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) noted that TVA typically
sent 40-100 electrical workers to aid with emergency response efforts.
He opined that simply adding language related to the data collection to
TVA’s mutual aid and emergency response plans would clarify the issue
and that, since TVA always sent a safety professional with its emergency
response crews, the safety professional could transmit the information
electronically.

Responding to Mr. Dudley’s comments, Mr. Ferris noted that the concept
of mutual aid and coordination and communication between agencies and
employers were matters that needed resolution within the data collection
effort.  Mr. Dudley clarified that he saw no issues with federal
reporting but that adding state, local, and private sector employers
would increase the complexity of the effort.  He also noted that
providing education and information on the collection effort would
likely increase the willingness of employers outside the federal sector
to provide the information.

Ms. Cizewski (NMEBA) noted that communicating the reporting requirements
to the line supervisors was imperative to the success of the collection
effort.  Mr. Ferris replied that including the necessary language would
probably need to originate from the tasking agency.  Ms. Cizewski
continued and asked for clarification on distinguishing the reported
data and whether the effort wanted injury data only for disaster-related
events or for everything that occurred during the response.  Mr. Ferris
stated that the effort wanted all the data.

Mr. McGill (IBEW) asked whether the data collection was including the
private sector.  Mr. Ferris replied that the current project was only
collecting data from “federal assets or the federally-deployed
assets.”

Mr. Bushta (EPA) asked about the composition of membership on the Annex
Coordination Committee.  Mr. Ferris responded that he thought the
Committee had over 40 members and provided some names.  He also noted
that the Committee wanted to assure that it was communicating with the
proper personnel in order to collect all the relevant data and that he
was asking for FACOSH input for that reason.

Mr. Ferris then thanked the members for their assistance and concluded
his presentation.  Mr. Stohler proceeded to next item of new business.

2009 FACOSH Nominations

Mr. Stohler noted that five members’ terms would expire in June 2009:
three management members and two labor members.  He stated that a
request for member nominations would likely published prior to the next
meeting to allow time for member selection.  According to Mr, Stohler
everyone who submitted a timely nomination and met the membership
requirements would receive consideration.  He added that the Secretary
(of Labor) might consider other qualified individuals and could refer to
other relevant sources of information in making appointments.  He
assured the members that they would receive notification of Notice
publication.

When there were no questions regarding FACOSH nominations, Mr. Stohler
opened the floor for any other new business.

Other New Business

Kathleen Wheeler, Department of the Interior (DOI), asked about the
existence of government-wide or White House awards for health and
safety.  Ms. Cizewski mentioned the Navy’s award for Seafarers, and
Mr. Yebesi confirmed the existence of agency-level awards, but no one
knew of any national or government-wide awards.  Ms. Wheeler expressed
interest in exploring the subject and Mr. Stohler noted that it was a
good idea.

Since there was no other new business, Mr. Stohler began discussion of
setting the date for the next meeting.

Next Meeting and Adjournment

Mr. Stohler suggested that the next FACOSH meeting be scheduled for
April 16, 2009 and there was no objection.  Mr. Yebesi (OSHA) then
entered the various meeting documents into the record.  Mr. Stohler
adjourned the meeting at 3:08 pm.

*	Exhibit documents (listed below) from this meeting are available for
copying and inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2008-00047, Room N-3437, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Exhibits
can also be accessed at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , the federal eRulemaking Portal.

Document	Document Description

0002	News Release:  FACOSH Meeting Announcement

0003	April 10, 2008 Approved FACOSH Meeting Minutes and combined program
updates and PowerPoints on SHARE and the FY 2007 Secretary of Labor’s
Report to the President

0004	Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program, Federal Agency
Recordkeeping Data Collection Effort, Federal Agency Training, and
Injury and Illness Data Collection During Disasters

0005	FY 2008 SHARE Report

0006	FY 2007 President’s Report

0007	OSHA’s FY 2008 Annual Report Request

0008	FEDTARG08 Directive

0009	Federal Agency Training Week Registration and Course Description
Information

 PAGE

 PAGE   13


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6167]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2353]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63792; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, in
Connection With the Proposal of NYSE Euronext To Eliminate the
Requirement of an 80% Supermajority Vote To Amend or Repeal Section 3.1
of its Bylaws

January 28, 2011.
    On November 30, 2010, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Bylaws of its parent corporation,
NYSE Euronext (``Corporation''). On December 3, 2010, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
17, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63532 (December 13,
2010), 75 FR 79060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On behalf of the Corporation, NYSE proposed to amend the
Corporation's Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that the affirmative
vote of the holders of not less than 80% of the votes entitled to be
cast by the holders of the outstanding capital stock of the Corporation
entitled to vote generally in the election of directors is necessary
for the stockholders to amend or repeal Article III, Section 3.1 of the
Bylaws relating to the general powers of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation (``Board''). Section 3.1 provides that the number of
directors on the Board shall be fixed and changed from time to time
exclusively by the Board pursuant to a resolution adopted by two-thirds
of the directors then in office. The Exchange stated that the
elimination of this 80% ``supermajority'' voting provision as it
relates to Article III, Section 3.1 would have the effect that only a
majority of the same number of votes entitled to be cast will be
required to amend or repeal this section of the Corporation's Bylaws.
The Exchange noted that it believes that the proposed rule change will
permit the Corporation to respond to a stockholder proposal requesting
that the Corporation implement a simple majority voting standard to
amend its Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws.
    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\5\ which requires an
exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to comply and to enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members with the Act. The
Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires that the rules of the
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change to amend the
Corporation's Bylaws to eliminate the 80% supermajority requirement to
amend or repeal Article III, Section 3.1 of the Bylaws in favor of a
simple majority vote standard is consistent with the Act. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to allow
changes to Article III, Section 3.1 of the Corporation's Bylaws to be
made in a manner that reflects the desires of the Corporation's
shareholders.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2010-77), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-2353 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 101-102]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00026]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2019 /
Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-26-000]

Notice of Application: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Take notice that on December 18, 2018, Dominion Energy
Transmission, Inc. (Dominion), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA, filed
in Docket No. CP19-26-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations
for authorization to construct, own and operate its West Loop Project
(Project). The Project consist of approximately 5.1 miles of 36-inch
diameter pipeline looping parallel to the existing TL-400 line, from
Koppel Junction Site heading west to a new gate site in Beaver County,
Pennsylvania. The project also comprises minor changes to existing
facilities at the Beaver Compressor Station in Beaver County,
Pennsylvania and the Old Petersburg Regulation Facility in Lawrence
County, Pennsylvania, and re-wheeling two centrifugal compressors at
the existing Carroll Compressor Station in Carroll County, Ohio.
    Dominion states that the proposed facilities will enable it to
provide 150,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service from
Pennsylvania to Ohio for delivery to a proposed natural gas-fired
combined cycle electric power generation facility to be located in
Columbiana County, Ohio. Dominion estimates the cost of the West Loop
Project to be $94,203,462, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Margaret H. Peters, Managing Counsel, Dominion Energy Services, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219, by telephone at (804) 819-
2277, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made with the Commission and must provide a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act
section 3 or section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a
party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner.
If seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to ``show
good cause why the time limitation should be waived,'' and should
provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ] 61,167 at
] 50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests

and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2019.

    Dated: December 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00026 Filed 1-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64955-64958]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0347; Product Identifier 2020-NM-042-AD; Amendment
39-21277; AD 2020-21-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of damaged main deck cargo crossbeams on the
right-hand side, between certain frame locations. This AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections of the affected main deck cargo
crossbeams for any damage, and depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 18, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 18,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0347.

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-
0347; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0050, dated March 9, 2020;
corrected March 11, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0050'') (also referred to as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-
600R series airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25356). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of damaged main deck cargo crossbeams on the right-hand side,
between certain frame locations. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive detailed inspections of the affected main deck cargo
crossbeams for any damage, and depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective actions, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) requested that the FAA withdraw the
NPRM. UPS pointed out that the NPRM duplicates multiple tasks and the
associated task intervals specified in the Airbus A300-600 Maintenance
Planning Document (MPD) that inspect the same area and structure. UPS
also stated that those specific tasks are part of its approved
Maintenance Specification Manual (MSM). UPS mentioned that the unsafe
condition was discovered as a direct result of the tasks specified in
the Airbus A300-600 MPD. UPS insisted that the existing tasks in the
A300-600 MPD and UPS's MSM meet or exceed the requirements of the NPRM.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Although the tasks
and the associated task intervals specified in the A300-600 MPD may be
duplicated in the requirements of this AD, those tasks and intervals
specified in the A300-600 MPD are not necessarily mandatory for all
affected U.S. registered airplanes. However, this FAA AD mitigates the
identified unsafe condition with mandatory tasks and intervals for all
affected airplanes. Because this unsafe condition could exist or
develop on Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes, mandatory repetitive
inspections of the affected area are necessary to ensure the safety of
the fleet. Issuance of an AD is the appropriate method to correct an
unsafe condition. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

Request To Remove the Reporting Requirement

    UPS requested that the FAA remove the reporting requirement in the
NPRM. UPS mentioned that the reporting requirement does not add value
or help in resolving the unsafe condition. UPS pointed out that Airbus
has a ten year history of service evaluation for this item, including
multiple parts removed from service and returned to Airbus for
evaluation. UPS stated that repetitive reporting of which crossbeams
are identified as discrepant would not provide any further technical
information that would result in a different resolution to the unsafe
condition.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Reporting allows
the manufacturer to collect airworthiness information from all
operators in order to fully understand the extent of the unsafe
condition,

especially in cases where that data might not be available through
other means. This information will be used to determine that the unsafe
condition is adequately addressed. Based on the results of these
reports, we might determine that further corrective action is
warranted. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0050 describes procedures for repetitive detailed
inspections of the affected main deck cargo crossbeams from frame (FR)
48 to FR54 for any damage (including bent, curved, and cracked
crossbeams), corrective actions, and terminating actions. Corrective
actions include detailed inspections of the right-hand and left-hand
crossbeams and lugs for damage (including buckling and cracking) and
correct diameter of the lug/crossbeam holes, repair, and replacement of
damaged crossbeams. Optional terminating actions include replacement of
crossbeams with reinforced machined crossbeams. 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
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510...........................              $0             $510          $26,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$4,420, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition repairs 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 Repairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510....         $10,000          $10,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA
to provide cost estimates for the on-condition inspections and
replacements specified in this AD.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do the optional
terminating actions specified in this AD.

            Estimated Costs for Optional Terminating Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,530.         $10,000          $11,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed 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

    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 (AD):

2020-21-04 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21277; Docket No. FAA-2020-0347;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-042-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 18, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0050, dated March 9,
2020; corrected March 11, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0050'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams on the right-hand side, between certain frame locations.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0050.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0050

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0050 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0050 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0050 specifies to report
inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, 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 Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0050 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (i)(2) of this
AD, RC procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: 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 be 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 as
required by this AD. 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0050,
dated March 9, 2020; corrected March 11, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0050, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call

206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0347.
    (5) You may view this material 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 October 1, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22622 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P