[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19551-19553]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. OST-2015-0045]
RIN 2105-AE35

Use of Electronic Chain of Custody and Control Form in DOT-
Regulated Drug Testing Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) regulations to incorporate changes to the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) chain of custody and
control form (CCF) recently approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Specifically, this rulemaking expands the DOT's
definition of the CCF to include both paper and electronic forms.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For technical questions about this
action, contact Mark Snider, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and
Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202) 366-3784; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance,
the DOT finds that notice and public comment to this immediately
adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this
rule, is unnecessary, given that the electronic CCF (eCCF) has been
approved for use by OMB and the DOT is bound by statute to follow
SAMHSA's chain of custody and control procedures, to include use of an
OMB-approved CCF.

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143,
105 Stat. 952, (Oct. 28, 1991)).

II. Background

    The Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program was established by
Executive Order 12564 on September 15, 1986, and further mandated by
Congress in section 503 of Public Law 100-71 (July 11, 1987). The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in developing the
program, created a comprehensive set of standards for the Federal
workplace drug testing program, including chain of custody procedures
designed to ensure the integrity and security of specimens from the
time the specimen is collected until the time the testing results are
reported by the laboratory. To satisfy the congressional mandate, HHS
first issued its mandatory guidelines on April 11, 1988, and in doing
so, created the uniform CCF. The CCF is the tool by which agencies and

participants in the testing process are assured that the specimen
collected is actually that of the tested employee. At this time, DOT
developed its controlled substance program, following in large part the
mandatory guidelines set forth by HHS.
    On October 28, 1991, Congress passed OTETA, which codified the
DOT's controlled substance testing program for its regulated entities
and added a requirement to develop an alcohol testing program. In
codifying the DOT program, Congress directed the Department to continue
to ``incorporate the [HHS] scientific and technical guidelines dated
April 11, 1988, and any amendments to those guidelines, including
mandatory guidelines establishing . . . strict procedures governing the
chain of custody of specimens collected for controlled substances
testing.'' See Pub. L. 102-143. As a result of this mandate, the DOT
has required its regulated entities to use the CCF, as developed by HHS
and approved by OMB. Historically, the CCF only has been available for
use in paper form. On May 28, 2014, OMB approved the use of both a
paper form CCF and an eCCF under the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. This
final rule is necessary to expand the DOT's definition of the CCF to
include the OMB-approved eCCF.
    As noted above, the CCF is used to identify a specimen and to
document its handling at the collection site. The paper CCF is a
carbonless form consisting of 5 copies as follows:

Copy 1 Test Facility Copy
Copy 2 Medical Review Officer Copy
Copy 3 Collector Copy
Copy 4 Employer Copy
Copy 5 Donor Copy

The eCCF requires the same collection of information and distribution
of information to the relevant parties as the paper CCF requires. With
the approved eCCF, HHS is not requiring collection of any new or
different information. The only change from the paper CCF to the eCCF
is the mechanism for collecting and transmitting the requisite
information. Before implementing an eCCF, HHS-certified laboratories
must provide a detailed plan and proposed standard operating procedures
(SOPs) for SAMHSA to review and approve through SAMHSA's National
Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP). The review of validation
records, specimen records, SOPs, staff training records, and practices
associated with the eCCF will be part of the NLCP inspection process.
Once the eCCF is approved for use through the NLCP inspection process,
it may be used in the DOT drug testing program, as well as the Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Program. For more information regarding this
approval process, please contact the Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Division of Workplace Programs, National Laboratory Certification
Program at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    It is important to note that electronic signatures are not
otherwise acceptable in Part 40. The use of the eCCF will create an
exception so that electronic signatures will be acceptable on these
forms only and not throughout the rest of Part 40.
    To ensure that the DOT regulations conform to SAMHSA's approved
chain of custody and control procedures, the DOT is issuing this final
rule to expand the current definition of the CCF in 49 CFR 40.3 to
include all versions of the CCF as approved by OMB. We are amending
Sec.  40.45 to explain that the 5-part form can be a paper form or an
approved electronic form, as long as the employer ensures that security
and confidentiality concerns are addressed. The DOT is amending Sec.
40.73 to require entities using an eCCF to follow the eCCF procedures
approved by SAMHSA through the NLCP inspection process.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses.
First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that DOT consider the
impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on
the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain
approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts,
sponsors, or requires through regulations. Finally, section (a)(5) of
division H of the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public
Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-
Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17,
2002) requires DOT to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of a
regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This portion of
the preamble summarizes the DOT's analyses of these impacts with
respect to this final rule.

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and 13563, as well as the Department's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. Its provisions make conforming amendments to
include forms that have already been approved for use by OMB and that,
by statute, the DOT is required to use. This rule does not propose any
major policy changes or impose significant new costs or burdens.
Rather, this rule is expected to reduce paperwork burdens for those
entities that elect to use the new eCCF, as noted in SAMHSA's
information collection request for the CCF that was approved by OMB.
For more information, you may review SAMHSA's information collection
request (ICR)<PHONE_NUMBER>-003 and supplemental information at
www.reginfo.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354,
``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., establishes ``as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the
objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider
flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and
a regulatory flexibility analysis will not be required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This final rule
does not require entities to use an

eCCF. Rather, it presents another means of compliance for all entities,
as is currently permitted under the HHS mandatory guidelines. It does
not create additional burdens, but may alleviate some paperwork burdens
if entities opt to use the eCCF. Thus, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The PRA requires that the DOT consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Because the
DOT is obligated by statute to use whatever procedures and forms that
SAMHSA adopts with respect to chain of custody and control for drug
testing specimens, SAMHSA has accounted for the DOT burden in its
recently approved information collection request. For more information
regarding these burdens, you may review SAMHSA's ICR<PHONE_NUMBER>-003
and supplemental information at www.reginfo.gov.

Privacy Act

    The DOT conducted a PIA of this rule as required by section
522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of
the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec.
17, 2002). The assessment considers any impacts of the final rule on
the privacy of information in an identifiable form. In addition to the
PIA issued by HHS in conjunction with its ICR for the approved CCF, the
DOT issued a supplemental PIA, further explaining how the eCCF may be
used by DOT-regulated entities and the measures that have been put into
place to ensure not only the integrity and security of the testing
process, but the privacy of individuals subject to testing. Copies of
the DOT's supplemental PIA, as well as SAMHSA's PIA, have been placed
in the docket for this rulemaking.

V. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--1. Search the Federal Document Management System
(FDMS) Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); or
    2. Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page: www.gpo.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug testing, Laboratories,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Department of Transportation
amends part 40 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 40--PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 101, 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and
45101 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  40.3 revise the definition of ``chain of custody'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  40.3  What do the terms of this part mean?

* * * * *
    Chain of custody. The procedure used to document the handling of
the urine specimen from the time the employee gives the specimen to the
collector until the specimen is destroyed. This procedure uses the
Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) as approved by the
Office of Management and Budget.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  40.45 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(c)(5) and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  40.45  What form is used to document a DOT urine collection?

    (a) The Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) must be
used to document every urine collection required by the DOT drug
testing program. You may view this form on the Department's Web site
(http://www.dot.gov/odapc) or the HHS Web site (http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) When using an electronic CCF, you must establish adequate
confidentiality and security measures to ensure that confidential
employee records are not available to unauthorized persons. This
includes protecting the physical security of records, access controls,
and computer security measures to safeguard confidential data in
electronic form.
* * * * *
    (f) An employer who uses an electronic CCF must ensure that the
collection site, the primary and split laboratories, and MRO have
compatible systems, and that the employee and any other program
participants in the testing process will receive a legible copy of the
CCF.

0
4. Amend Sec.  40.73 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding a new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  40.73  How is the collection process completed?

    (a) As the collector, when using the paper CCF, you must do the
following things to complete the collection process. You must complete
the steps called for in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section
in the employee's presence.
* * * * *
    (b) As a collector, when using other forms of the CCF as approved
by the Office of Management and Budget, you must follow the procedures
approved for that form.
    (c) As a collector or collection site, you must ensure that each
specimen you collect is shipped to a laboratory as quickly as possible,
but in any case, within 24 hours or during the next business day.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority provided in Pub. L. 102-143, in
Washington, DC, on April 6, 2015.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2015-08256 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13683-13684]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64053; File No. SR-FICC-2011-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Notify Participants That the Mortgage Backed Securities
Division Intends To Move the Time at Which It Runs Its Daily Morning
Pass

March 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on March 2, 2011, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared
primarily by FICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to notify participants
that the Mortgage Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') intends to move
the time at which it runs its daily morning pass (also referred to as
the ``AM Pass'') from 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EST).

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of this filing is to notify participants that MBSD
intends to move the time at which it runs its daily morning pass from
10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EST).\3\ The proposed change to 2 p.m. for the
morning pass will allow more trades to be included into the TBA Net and
therefore will assist in reducing the amount of fails in the market in
addition to reducing the related operational risk. The above change is
being made at the request of The Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA'') MBS Operations Committee. In addition,
MBSD reviewed the potential change with member firms not represented on
the SIFMA Committee, and no objections were raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MBSD also executes an evening pass (also referred to as the
``PM Pass'') at 8 p.m. (EST) that will remain unchanged. On days
where MBSD executes its TBA Netting cycle, it immediately follows
the completion of the morning pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of this change will be announced to MBSD
participants by Important Notice.
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it should provide for
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions by including a greater proportion of transactions in the
TBA netting cycle. Additionally, the proposed rule change should result
in fewer fails, and reduced operational risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact on or impose any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by FICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \6\
thereunder because the proposed rule effects a change in an existing
service that (i) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of FICC or for which it
is responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective
rights or obligations of FICC or persons using the service. At any time
within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2011-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2011-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FICC and on FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2011-01
and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5773 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40072-40075]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17342]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371; FRL-9966-47-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. The portion of the
revision that EPA is approving relates to the State's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. In particular,
the revision adds a definition of ``replacement unit'' and provides
that a replacement unit is a type of existing emissions unit under the
definition of ``emissions unit.'' This action is being taken pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 23, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 25,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0371 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is the Agency taking?

    On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a SIP revision for EPA's approval
that includes, among other things, changes to Alabama's PSD permitting
regulations as part of the State's New Source Review (NSR) permitting
program.\1\ The NSR program, established in parts C and D of title I of
the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR
51.166, and 40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and permitting
program applicable to new major stationary sources of regulated NSR
pollutants and major modifications at existing major stationary
sources. A major modification is defined as any physical change in or
change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that
would result in a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR
pollutant and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant
from the major stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1),
51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR
permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160--51.166; 52.21,
52.24; and part 51, appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of
three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in
part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification activities that do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs
are referred to as the NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the
portions of this submittal that make changes to ADEM Administrative
Code Rule 335-3-14-.04--``Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean
Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)].''
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD regulations at
Rule 335-3-14-.04 by adding a definition of ``replacement unit'' and by
modifying the definition of ``emissions unit'' to expressly include
replacement units as existing emissions units. As revised in the May 5,
2017, withdrawal letter discussed in Section III, below, these changes
are similar to those made to the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(7) and (33) in the rule titled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR):
Reconsideration'' See 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter
referred to as the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule).
    EPA is not taking action on the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012,
submittal regarding ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-10--
``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' and Chapter
335-3-11--``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.''
In the submittal, Alabama acknowledges that these regulations are not
part of Alabama's SIP and states that the ``revisions to these
[regulations] are not proposed to be incorporated into Alabama's SIP.''

II. Background

A. NSR Reform

    On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule revisions to the
CAA's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. See 67
FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions
included several major changes to the NSR program, including the
addition of an actual-to-projected-actual emissions test for
determining NSR applicability for existing emissions units.
    Following publication, EPA received numerous petitions requesting
reconsideration of several aspects of the final rule. On July 30, 2003
(68 FR 44624), EPA granted reconsideration on six issues, including
whether replacement units should be allowed to use the actual-to-
projected-actual applicability test to determine whether installing a
replacement unit results in a significant emissions increase. On
November 7, 2003, EPA published the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule.
See 68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration

rule, EPA continued to allow the owner or operator of a major
stationary source to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability
test to determine whether installing a replacement unit results in a
significant emissions increase. EPA also modified the rules by: (1)
Adding a definition of ``replacement unit,'' and (2) revising the
definition of ``emissions unit'' to clarify that a replacement unit is
considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the
actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability
determinations. The 2002 NSR Rule and the NSR Reform Reconsideration
Rule are hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform
Rules.''

B. Equipment Replacement Provision

    Under Federal regulations, certain activities are not considered to
be a physical change or a change in the method of operation at a
source, and thus do not trigger NSR review. One category of such
activities is routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). On
October 27, 2003, EPA published a rule titled ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance,
Repair and Replacement Exclusion'' (hereinafter referred to as the ERP
Rule). See 68 FR 61248. The ERP Rule provided criteria for determining
whether an activity falls within the RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule
provided a list of equipment replacement activities that are exempt
from NSR permitting requirements, while ensuring that industries
maintain safe, reliable, and efficient operations that will have little
or no impact on emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a facility undergoing
equipment replacement would not be required to undergo NSR review if
the facility replaced any component of a process unit with an identical
or functionally equivalent component. The rule included several
modifications to the NSR rules to explain what would qualify as an
identical or functionally equivalent component.
    Shortly after the October 27, 2003 rulemaking, several parties
filed petitions for review of the ERP Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit
stayed the effective date of the rule pending resolution of the
petitions. A collection of environmental groups, public interest
groups, and States, subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration
with EPA, requesting that the Agency reconsider certain aspects of the
ERP Rule. EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on July 1, 2004.
See 69 FR 40278.\2\ After the reconsideration, EPA published its final
response on June 10, 2005, which stated that the Agency would not
change any aspects of the ERP. See 70 FR 33838 (June 10, 2005). On
March 17, 2006, the D.C. Circuit acted on the petitions for review and
vacated the ERP Rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a new 60-day
public comment period, and carried out a new public hearing, only on
three issues of the ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis
for determining that the ERP was allowable under the CAA; (2) the
basis for selecting the cost threshold (20 percent of the
replacement cost of the process unit) that was used in the final
rule to determine if a replacement was routine; and (3) a simplified
procedure for incorporating a Federal Implementation Plan into State
Plans to accommodate changes to the NSR rules.
    \3\ New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision makes changes to the State's
PSD permitting regulations by adding a definition of ``replacement
unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying the definition of
``emissions unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) to expressly include
replacement units as existing emissions units. As of the date of the
submittal, these changes were intended to reflect revisions to the
Federal regulations regarding replacement units included in the NSR
Reform Reconsideration Rule and to reflect revisions regarding
functionally equivalent components in the ERP Rule, as described in
Sections II.A and II.B of this action, above.
    The SIP revision initially sought to add a definition of
``replacement unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) that combined the
Federal definition of ``replacement unit'' with language concerning
functionally equivalent units and basic design parameters from the ERP
Rule. However, the ERP Rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit following
the submittal of Alabama's SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5, 2017,
Alabama submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing, among other things,
portions of the definition of ``replacement unit'' form its May 7,
2012, SIP revision that incorporated language from the ERP Rule with
the exception of one sentence in subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an
example of a ``basic design parameter'' as it relates to a replacement
unit. EPA has evaluated this sentence, and the Agency believes that it
is simply an illustrative example and that Alabama's provisions
relating to RMRR remain consistent with Federal provisions and the CAA
regarding RMRR. Pursuant to the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule
335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb)(3) for incorporation into the SIP reads as
follows:

    Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the
criteria listed in subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this
section are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be
generated from shutting down the existing emissions unit that is
replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all permitting
requirements for modifications under this rule.
    1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning
of 40 CFR 60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely takes the
place of an existing emissions unit.
    2. The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent
to the replaced emissions unit.
    3. The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters of
the process unit. Basic design parameters of a replaced unit shall
also include all source specific emission limits and/or monitoring
requirements.
    4. The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the
major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or
permanently barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as
a practical matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back
into operation, it shall constitute a new emissions unit.

    In Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g), Alabama revises the definition of
``Emissions Unit'' by adding a new sentence at subparagraph (g)(2) that
expressly includes replacement units as existing emissions units. This
sentence references the new definition of ``replacement unit'' at Rule
335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is consistent with the
Federal definition of the term ``replacement unit'' at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that adding this change and Rule 335-3-
14-.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ADEM
Administrative Code Rules 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb),
state effective on May 29, 2012. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified
in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for
more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the

State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director
of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via the State's May
5, 2017 withdrawal letter, that modify Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and add
Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This action is limited
to the two rule revisions currently before the Agency and does not
modify any other PSD rules in Alabama's SIP.
    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP
revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
October 23, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by September 25, 2017.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on October 23, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
    Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under ``Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air
Permits'' by

revising the entry for ``Section 335-3-14-.04'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation              Title/subject      effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 335-3-14-.04............  Air Permits            5/29/2012  8/24/2017 [Insert    As of August 24, 2017
                                   Authorizing                       citation of          Section 335-3-14-.04
                                   Construction in                   publication].        does not include
                                   Clean Air Areas                                        Alabama's revision to
                                   [Prevention of                                         adopt the PM2.5 SILs
                                   Significant                                            threshold and
                                   Deterioration                                          provisions (as
                                   Permitting (PSD)].                                     promulgated in the
                                                                                October 20, 2010 PM2.5
                                                                                PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
                                                                                Rule at 40 CFR
                                                                                1.166(k)(2) and the
                                                                                term ``particulate
                                                                                matter emissions'' (as
                                                                                promulgated in the May
                                                                                16, 2008 NSR PM2.5
                                                                                Rule (at 40 CFR
                                                                                51.166(b)(49)(vi)).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-17342 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2930-2932]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0010; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD
was prompted by the discovery of non-conformities of certain power
turbine (PT) blade fir-tree roots. This proposed AD would require
removing the affected PT blades from service on or before reaching a
new reduced life limit for those certain PT blades. We are proposing
this AD to prevent PT blade rupture, which could result in an
uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or
accident.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Turbomeca,

40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0010;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-03-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0218, dated November 10, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During production of Arriel 2 Power Turbine (PT) wheels,
Turbomeca has detected geometric non-conformities on blade fir-tree
roots. The technical investigations carried out by Turbomeca have
shown that this non-conformity is due to PT blade manufacturing and
that only a limited number of PT blades are potentially affected.
    This situation, if not detected and corrected, may potentially
lead to a reduction in the fatigue resistance of the PT blades,
which can reduce their in service use limit. This reduction of
fatigue resistance can potentially result in blade rupture, which
could cause an uncommanded in-flight shutdown, ultimately leading to
an emergency autorotation landing for a single-engine helicopter.
    To address this unsafe condition, Turbomeca has issued Turbomeca
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 72 2842, Version A, in which
the life limit of those PT blades is reduced to 5,000 Flight Cycles
(FC).

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 72
2842, Version A, dated September 23, 2011. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 150 engines installed on helicopters of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. A prorated replacement M04 module would cost about
$20,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,051,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0010; Directorate Identifier
2012-NE-03-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 20, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft
engines with at least one installed power turbine (PT) blade part
number (P/N) 2 292 81 A01 0, serial numbers (S/Ns) 102782 through
120230 inclusive, or, S/Ns 120293 through 120390 inclusive.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the detection of geometric non-
conformities on PT blade fir-tree roots. We are issuing this AD to
prevent PT blade rupture, which could result in an uncommanded in-
flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or accident.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions within 5,000
flight cycles on the PT blades, or within one month after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (1) Replace the PT blades with PT blades eligible for
installation; or
    (2) Replace the M04 module with an M04 module having PT blades
eligible for installation; or
    (3) Replace the PT wheel assembly with a PT wheel assembly
having PT blades eligible for installation.
    (4) Guidance on the replacements specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(3) can be found in Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. A292 72 2842, Version A, dated September 23, 2011.

(f) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a PT blade eligible for
installation is one not listed in paragraph (c) of this AD or, one
listed in paragraph (c) of this AD with fewer than 5,000 flight
cycles.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    From the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not install a PT blade as listed in paragraph (c) of this
AD, that has 5,000 or more flight cycles, into any engine.
    (2) Do not install any engine with a PT blade as listed in
paragraph (c) of this AD, that has 5,000 or more flight cycles, onto
a helicopter.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0218, dated
November 10, 2011, and Turbomeca S.A. Alert Service Bulletin No.
A292 72 2842, Version A, dated September 23, 2011, for related
information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33
05 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 13, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-1129 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72889-72892]
[DOCID:fr01de08-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58995; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.,
Relating to Automated Openings in Index Options

November 21, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 20, 2008, the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange, pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1017, 1047A, and
Options Floor Procedure Advice (``OFPA'') G-2, to: (i) Provide that
index options will open automatically following the receipt by the
Exchange's system of the opening price in the underlying index, and
(ii) modify the circumstances authorizing the Exchange to halt trading
in index options and to re-open trading of index options following a
trading halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.phlx.com/regulatory/reg_rulefilings.aspx.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of

the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate the
requirement that a specified minimum percentage of the underlying value
of an index be open for trading in order for index options overlying
such index to open for trading, and re-open following trading halts, in
the Exchange's automated opening system \5\ on its electronic trading
platform for options, Phlx XL.\6\ A further purpose of the proposed
rule change is to amend Rule 1047A and OFPA G-2 to provide that it will
no longer require a minimum percentage of the underlying value of an
index to be halted in order for the Exchange to halt trading in options
overlying the index, and that trading in a halted index option may be
resumed upon a determination by an Options Exchange Official that the
conditions which led to the halt are no longer present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For a complete description of the Exchange's automated
opening system, see Exchange Rule 1017. See also, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52667 (October 25, 2005), 70 FR 65953
(November 1, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-25).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 44612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Rule 1017 and the relevant sections of OFPA G-2 were initially
adopted when the Exchange listed options overlying proprietary indices
only. At the time, the Exchange's rules envisioned systemic
calculations of the open for trading percentage of the underlying value
of a particular proprietary index in order to determine whether options
overlying such an index could open automatically under Exchange rules,
and whether the specialist in such index options could elect to engage
the system.
    Values of non-proprietary indices underlying many of the options
traded on the Exchange, such as options based on the KBW Bank Index,
are currently calculated outside the NASDAQ OMX Group,\7\ and the
Exchange receives electronic price feeds from outside market data
vendors (``vendors''). For such indices, the percentage of the
underlying value that is open is generally not disseminated by the
outside vendors. Moreover, while the information respecting index
values and percentage of underlying value of proprietary indices may be
accessible to Phlx XL participants,\8\ it is not easily accessible to
the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NASDAQ OMX Group has integrated internally the
calculations of the legacy proprietary NASDAQ and legacy proprietary
Phlx indices. All NASDAQ OMX Group indices are calculated using the
same index ``engine''.
    \8\ The term ``Phlx XL participant'' means SQTs, RSQTs, non-SQT
ROTS, specialists and non-Phlx market makers on another exchange;
non-broker-dealer customers and non-market-maker off-floor broker-
dealers; and Floor Brokers using the Options Floor Broker Management
System. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58361 (August 14,
2008), 73 FR 49529 (August 21, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed elimination of the ``percentage open'' calculation
from the Exchange's rules is intended to make rules governing the
opening of index options on the Exchange consistent and transparent
across both proprietary and non-proprietary indices. Specifically, the
rules would provide that options overlying both types of indices would
open automatically upon receipt of the opening price in the underlying
index, regardless of what percentage of the index value is open for
trading.
Pre-Opening Orders and Quotes
    Exchange Rule 1017(a) currently states that, respecting index
options, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes for a period of
time before the scheduled opening in the underlying securities
constituting 100% of the index value. The proposed rule change would
amend Rule 1017(a) to eliminate the 100% benchmark, and instead state
that in the case of index options, before the Exchange receives the
opening price in the underlying index (and not less than one hour as
determined by the Options Committee with notice to the membership via
Exchange circular), Phlx XL will accept orders and quotes in index
options during the ``Pre-Opening Phase.''
    Current Rule 1017(b) requires the specialist assigned in the
particular option to enter opening quotes not later than one minute
following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the
underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the
dissemination of a quote or trade by the markets for underlying
securities constituting 100% of the index value. The proposed rule
change would provide that the specialist must enter such opening quotes
following the receipt of the opening price of the underlying index.
    Once the specialist submits such opening quotes, respecting index
options the Phlx XL system will calculate an Anticipated Opening Price
(``AOP'') and an Anticipated Opening Size (``AOS''), provided, under
current rules, that (i) the Exchange has received market orders, or the
book is crossed (highest bid is higher than the lowest offer) or locked
(highest bid equals the lowest offer); and (ii) either (A) the
specialist's quote has been submitted; (B) the quotes of at least two
Phlx XL participants have been submitted within two minutes opening
trades or quotes on the markets for underlying securities constituting
100% of the index value, or (C) if neither the specialist's quote nor
the quotes of two Phlx XL participants have been submitted within two
minutes of the opening trades or quotes on the markets for underlying
securities constituting 100% of the index value, one Phlx XL
participant has submitted their quote.
    The proposed rule change would amend all of the above parameters in
the rules for the calculation of an AOP and AOS respecting index
options to base the time period on the receipt of the opening price in
the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Options
Committee and disseminated to membership via Exchange Circular).
Opening
    Current Exchange Rule 1017(b)(iii) provides that, respecting index
options, when the conditions described are satisfied, the system will
open the series for trading within a time period not to exceed 5
seconds (as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership
via Exchange circular) following the dissemination of a quote or trade
by the markets for underlying securities constituting 100% of the index
value. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to remove the
``percentage open'' calculation requirement and provide that the
overlying index option would open when the Exchange has received the
opening price in the underlying index.
    Under the proposal, if there is an imbalance on the opening for an
index option, the Phlx XL system will send an Imbalance Notice to Phlx
XL participants provided that the Exchange has received the opening
price in the underlying index.
    Current Rule 1017(g) states that the specialist may engage the
automated opening system to open index options when underlying
securities representing 50% of the current index value of all the
securities underlying the index have opened for trading on the markets
and that the system will automatically open such options when
underlying securities representing 100% of all the securities
underlying the index have opened for trading on the markets. The
proposal would amend the rule to provide that index options will open

automatically when the Exchange's system has received the opening price
of the underlying index. The specialist would thus have no need to
determine the percentage of underlying value that is open, since the
index option would open automatically upon receipt by the system of the
opening price in the underlying index.
    The corresponding sections of Exchange Rule 1047A, and OFPA G-2
concerning the opening of index options will include the same language
reflecting the manner in which index options would open under the
proposal as stated above.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that Rule 1047A and OFPA G-2 refer to
``Industry Index'' and ``Market Index'' options. The Exchange
represents that, respecting opening and reopening of Industry and
Market Index options, the Phlx XL system does not make a distinction
between the two in terms of the current percentages of index value
necessary for automatic openings. Therefore, such openings would
take place on the Exchange uniformly among all index options traded
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Halts and Re-Openings Following a Trading Halt
    The Exchange is proposing additional amendments to Rule 1047A and
OFPA G-2 to reflect the conditions under which the Exchange would halt
trading in index options, and re-opening trading in index options
following a trading halt. The purpose of this proposal is to reflect
the deletion from the rule of the calculation of the percentage of an
underlying index as discussed above, because current rules concerning
trading halts in index options include a ``percentage halted''
requirement. In the same way that the rules concerning automated
openings in index options system would no longer include the
``percentage open'' calculation requirement, Rule 1047A and OFPA G-2
would not include a ``percentage halted'' calculation requirement.
    Specifically, Rule 1047A(c) and OFPA G-2(c) each state that
whenever trading on the market in underlying securities representing
more than 10% of the current index value is halted or suspended on the
primary market, trading on the Exchange in any option may be halted
with the approval of an Options Exchange Official. For consistency, and
because the proposal would eliminate the calculation of ``percentage
open'' from the rules, the proposed rule change would eliminate the
current ``10% halted'' requirement from Rule 1047A and OFPA G-2, and
provide that trading on the Exchange in any index option may be halted
with the approval of an Options Exchange Official, whenever trading on
the primary market in any underlying security is halted or
suspended.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that it has deleted references to
``primary market'' regarding openings in options in a separate
filing. See SR-Phlx-2008-75. Then Exchange does not intend to delete
such references from its rules governing trading halts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Rule 1047A(c)(iv) and OFPA G-2(c)(iv) currently state
that in the event that trading is halted on the primary market in
underlying securities representing more than 10% of the current index
value, the specialist may halt trading in the option overlying such
index, subject to the approval of an Options Exchange Official within
five minutes of the halt in trading in the option. The proposed rule
change would account for the deletion of such a calculation requirement
from the rule and provide that the specialist may take such action
whenever trading on the primary market in any underlying security is
halted.
    Finally, respecting re-openings following a trading halt, Rule
1047A(d) and OFPA G-2(d) state that trading in any class or series of
stock index options that has been the subject of a halt by the Exchange
may be resumed upon a determination by an Options Exchange Official
that the conditions which led to the halt are no longer present, or
that underlying securities representing 50% or more of the current
index value are not subject to halt or suspension in the market for the
trading of such underlying securities. The proposed rule change would
delete the ``50%'' provision because of the proposed elimination of all
such calculations from the Exchange's rules. Under the proposal, such
trading would resume upon a determination by an Options Exchange
Official that the conditions which led to the halt are no longer
present.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is necessary to
promote consistency and transparency concerning the automated opening
of proprietary and non-proprietary index options on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
title matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the
administration of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change should
promote consistency and transparency respecting the opening of trading
in all index options traded on the Exchange, and also respecting
trading halts and re-openings following trading halts, which would
benefit customers and Phlx XL participants trading index options on the
Exchange.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing rule does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public

interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2008-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-74. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2008-74 and should be
submitted on or before December 22, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28420 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P