[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67246-67248]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1015; Product Identifier 2018-SW-104-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1
helicopters. This proposed AD would require determining the accumulated
hours time-in-service (TIS) of certain part-numbered main gearbox (MGB)
suspension bar attachment fittings (fittings) and bolts, and would
establish new life limits. This proposed AD is prompted by the outcome
of tests and analyses performed by Airbus Helicopters. The actions of
this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 7,
2020.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1015; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0260, dated December 3,
2018 (EASA AD 2018-0260), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale)
Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, and AS 332 L1 helicopters.
    From review of reported Model EC 225 LP data, EASA advises that the
installation of the MGB upper deck fittings of the three MGB suspension
bars could lead to tightening torque loss on the fittings' attachment
screws (bolts). Due to design similarities, Model AS332L2 helicopters
could also be affected by the same installation condition.
Investigations determined that the life limits in the Airworthiness
Limitations Sections for the screws and fittings are valid if an ``add-
on penalty factor'' is applied. Based on these findings, EASA issued
EASA AD No. 2017-0133 dated July 27, 2017, and then superseded that AD
with EASA AD No. 2017-0189, dated September 22, 2017, for Model AS 332
L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters to address this condition.
    Airbus Helicopter subsequently performed testing on Model AS 332 C,
AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, and AS 332 L1 helicopters due to design
similarities, and determined a life limit reduction of the MGB
suspension bar fittings and screws was necessary for these model
helicopters. Accordingly, EASA AD 2018-0260 was issued for these model
helicopters to require determining the accumulated service life of the
affected parts and to introduce new life limits.
    EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to
structural failure of the MGB suspension bar fittings and screws,
possibly resulting in detachment of the MGB suspension bars.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the
same type design.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
AS332-01.00.90, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2018. This service
information specifies determining the accumulated hours TIS of certain
part-numbered rear MGB suspension bar fittings and screws. This service
information further specifies criteria to determine the initial
replacement compliance time of those parts and a new life limit for
those parts thereafter. This service information also establishes a
life limit for the front MGB attachment screws.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours TIS, reviewing the
helicopter records to determine the total hours TIS of the MGB
suspension bar right-hand side (RH) rear fitting part number (P/N)
330A22-2702-07 and of the MGB suspension bar left-hand side (LH) rear
fitting P/N 330A22-2702-06. This proposed AD would initially require
removing from service the RH rear fitting and its bolts P/N 330A22-
0135-20 and the LH rear fitting and its bolts P/N 330A22-0135-20 based
on the accumulated total hours TIS of the fittings and other
conditions. Thereafter, this proposed AD would require removing from
service the RH rear fitting and its bolts at intervals not to exceed
1,470 hours TIS, removing from service the LH rear fitting at intervals
not to exceed 13,600 hours TIS, and removing from service the LH rear
bolts during each Major Inspection ``G.'' This proposed AD would also
require removing from service the front bolts P/N 330A22-0134-20 during
each Major Inspection ``G.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows an option for the first MGB RH rear attachment
fitting replacement to inspect torque and specifies different
replacement compliance times based on the torque inspection results,
whereas this proposed AD does not.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD to be an interim action. The
design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will
address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this
modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might
consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 14 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD.
    Determining the total hours TIS of the rear MGB fittings would take
about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and
$602 for the U.S. fleet.
    Replacing a rear MGB fitting and its set of four bolts would take
about 8 work-hours and parts would cost about $12,937, for an estimated
cost of $13,617 per replacement cycle.
    Replacing a set of four MGB attachment bolts would take about 4
work-hours and parts would cost about $224, for an estimated cost of
$564 per replacement cycle.
    Replacing a LH rear MGB fitting would take about 8 work-hours and
parts would cost about $12,713, for an estimated cost of $13,393 per
replacement cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    The FAA prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2019-1015; Product Identifier
2018-SW-104-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters, certificated in any category, with
a main gearbox (MGB) suspension bar right-hand side (RH) rear
attachment fitting (fitting) part number (P/N) 330A22-2702-07 and
bolt P/N 330A22-0135-20, MGB suspension bar left-hand side (LH) rear
fitting P/N 330A22-2702-06 and bolt P/N 330A22-0135-20, or MGB
suspension bar front bolt P/N 330A22-0134-20 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as MGB suspension bar
fittings and bolts remaining in service beyond their fatigue life.
This condition could result in failure of an MGB attachment
assembly, detachment of an MGB suspension bar, and subsequent loss
of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by February 7, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), review records to
determine the total hours TIS of each MGB suspension bar RH and LH
rear fitting.
    (i) For any RH rear fitting that has accumulated 1,470 or more
total hours TIS, before further flight, remove from service the RH
rear fitting and its bolts.
    (ii) For any RH rear fitting that has accumulated less than
1,470 total hours TIS, remove from service the RH rear fitting and
its bolts before the fitting accumulates 1,470 total hours TIS.
    (iii) For any LH rear fitting that has accumulated 13,600 or
more total hours TIS, before further flight, remove from service the
LH rear fitting and its bolts.
    (iv) For any LH rear fitting that has accumulated less than
13,600 total hours TIS:
    (A) If a Major Inspection ``G'' has not been completed since the
LH rear fitting has been installed, remove from service the LH rear
bolts during the next Major Inspection ``G'' inspection; or
    Note 1 to paragraph (e)(iv)(A) of this AD: Major Inspection
``G'' (7,500 hours TIS between overhauls) is defined in Maintenance
Manual MET 05-29-00-601.
    (B) If a Major Inspection ``G'' has been completed since the LH
rear fitting has been installed, before further flight, remove from
service the LH rear bolts; and
    (C) Remove from service the LH rear fitting before the fitting
accumulates 13,600 total hours TIS.
    (2) Thereafter following paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, remove
from service any RH rear fitting and its bolts at intervals not to
exceed 1,470 hours TIS, remove from service any LH rear fitting at
intervals not to exceed 13,600 hours TIS, and remove from service
any LH rear bolts during each Major Inspection ``G.''
    (3) During the next Major Inspection ``G,'' remove from service
the MGB suspension bar front bolts. Thereafter, remove from service
the front bolts during each Major Inspection ``G.''

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-
01.00.90, Revision 0, dated November 11, 2018, which is not
incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2018-0260, dated December 3, 2018. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 29, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26428 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                 Attachment H
                        Template for 18 Question Format
               Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review
                       under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Executive Summary
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
      [Title]
      [ICR Numbers]
      [Docket ID No.]
Abstract
Supporting Statement
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
	[Requirements under the Statute]
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
	[Description of how the data will be used]
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
	[Description of implementing regulations and how the information will be collected, i.e. CDX]
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication
	[Collection process and uniqueness to the Agency]
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
	[Describe steps Agency has taken to reduce impact on small business, or if no impact on small businesses]
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
	[Frequency of collection]
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
	[Impacts on PRA]
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or report.
	[Consultations, public review and comment]
[placeholder for consultation for 1[st] FRN:
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) in proposing to renew this ICR, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will provide a 60-day public comment period. The comments received and any additional public comment for this action will be posted in the docket.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), in addition to the public notice EPA staff will contact appropriate stakeholders and ask them for their assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR. A summary of these consultations will be provided in the supporting statement during the second comment period. The full consultation will be reserved in Attachment [X].]
[placeholder for consultation for 2[nd] FRN:
[EPA consulted with the following entities (no PII) and had x comments]
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
	[Not applicable]
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
	[Describe process to handle and protect CBI]
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
      [No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with these information collection activities, and these information collection activities comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.]
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.
	[Description of collection by statute or regulation, NAICS codes, respondent activities, and tables of burden]
13.  Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.
	[Statement of burden and references to previous tables or Appendix]
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
      [Description of collection by statute or regulation, Agency activities, and tables of burden]
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 (or 14) of OMB Form 83-I.
	[Description of any change in burden and tables]
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication.
	[Schedule for collection, i.e. quarterly, once a year, every other year, every four years, or "on occasion"]
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
	[Not applicable]
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.
	[EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.]
List of References, Attachments & Appendices


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50858-50860]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17966]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89534; File No. SR-OCC-2020-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Revise the Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of Fees

August 12, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 31, 2020, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees
effective September 1, 2020, to implement a decrease in clearing fees.
OCC's Schedule of Fees is included in Exhibit 5 to File No. SR-OCC-
2020-009. Material proposed to be added to OCC's Schedule of Fees as
currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted
is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined
herein have the same

meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's
Schedule of Fees effective September 1, 2020, to implement a decrease
in clearing fees. Under OCC's capital management policy, if OCC's
Equity exceeds 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement plus the
amount of approved capital expenditures, OCC's Board may reduce the
cost of clearing by lowering fees, declaring a fee holiday, or issuing
refunds.\6\ As of December 31, 2019, OCC maintained shareholders'
equity of approximately $351.3 million.\7\ OCC has experienced record
volumes in 2020 while maintaining expenses at or around the budgeted
amount. Accordingly, OCC proposes to modify its fee schedule to: (i)
Decrease its per contract clearing fee from $0.055 to $0.045 per
contract; and (ii) adjust the quantity of contracts at which the fixed,
per trade clearing fee begins from trades with more than 999 contracts
per trade to trades with more than 1222 contracts per trade as set
forth in the Schedule of Fees depicted below.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 88029 (Jan. 24, 2020),
85 Fed. Red. 5500, 5502 (Jan. 30, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2019-007)
and Securities Exchange Release No. 87257 (Oct. 8, 2019), 84 FR
55194, 55196 (Oct. 15, 2019) (File No. SR-OCC-2019-805).
    \7\ See OCC Audited Financials 2019 available at https://www.theocc.com/getattachment/b12dec99-78ee-4ac0-b83e-94ec65ca7e94/attachment.aspx.
    \8\ These changes are also reflected in Exhibit 5 to File No.
SR-OCC-2020-009.

                                                  Clearing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current fee schedule                                 Proposed fee schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing fees                                            Clearing fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trades with contracts of 0-999.......  $0.055/contract........  Trades with contracts    $0.045/contract.
                                                                 of 0-1222.
Trades with contracts of more than     $55/trade..............  Trades with contracts    $55/trade.
 999.                                                            of more than 1222.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes to make the fee change effective September 1, 2020,
because OCC believes that this date is the first date that the industry
could be prepared to process the new fee without disruption based on
consultations with market participants.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OCC notes that a mid-month change to clearing fees could
introduce operational disruption to Clearing Members due to the
impact on their billing processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \10\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants. OCC believes that
the proposed fee change is reasonable because it is designed to
decrease the cost of clearing while maintaining sufficient reserves in
the form of liquid net assets to cover OCC's operating expenses and
address potential business or operational losses so that OCC can
continue to meet its obligations as a systemically important financial
market utility to Clearing Members and the general public if such
losses were to materialize (including through a recovery or orderly
wind-down of critical operations and services) and thereby facilitate
compliance with certain requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the appropriate level of the proposed fee decrease,
OCC's Board and Compensation and Performance Committee considered a
variety of factors, including projected average daily volume, operating
income, and margin and a scenario analysis modeling the sensitivity of
operating income and margin, adjusting for different volume levels,
clearing fees and potential year-end refunds against the thresholds set
forth in OCC's Capital Management Policy. The Compensation and
Performance Committee also considered a sensitivity analysis assessing
the minimum average daily volume required to support the proposed
decrease.\12\ OCC believes that the proposed decrease in clearing fees
is reasonable and consistent with its existing By-Laws and Rules. OCC
also believes that the proposed fee change would result in an equitable
allocation of fees among its participants because it would be equally
applicable to all market participants transacting at a given level of
contract volume. As a result, OCC believes that the proposed fee
schedule provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees in
accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A summary of the scenario and sensitivity analyses is
included in confidential Exhibit 3 to File No. SR-OCC-2020-009.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing
rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \14\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a
burden on competition. Although this proposed rule change affects
clearing members, their customers, and the markets that OCC serves, OCC
believes that the proposed rule change would not disadvantage or favor
any particular user of OCC's services in relationship to another user
because the proposed clearing fees apply equally to all users of OCC.
Accordingly, OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change

would have any impact or impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \15\ of the Act, and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\16\ the proposed rule change is filed for immediate
effectiveness as it constitutes a change in fees charged to OCC
Clearing Members. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \17\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Regulation 40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2020-009 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-OCC-2020-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.

    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-009 and
should be submitted on or before September 8, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-17966 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47902-47906]
[DOCID:fr18se09-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. OST-2009-0093]

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: An advocacy group representing users of psychiatric service
dogs has petitioned the Department to eliminate a provision of the
Department of Transportation's Air Carrier Access regulation. The
provision in question permits air carriers to require documentation and
48 hours' advance notice for users of psychiatric service animals. In
this document, the Department is seeking comment on the group's
petition and related questions. This document is not a notice of
proposed rulemaking. The Department has not decided whether to grant
the petition by initiating rulemaking action or to deny the petition
and retain the provisions without change. The Department will publish a
document in

the Federal Register regarding the determination of the petition.

DATES: Comments in response to this request must be received by
December 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and
DOT Docket ID Number OST-2009-0093) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2009-0093) for this notice at
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
including any personal information provided and will be available to
internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit http://www.DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background
documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
Room W94-302,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Current Rule

    On May 13, 2008, the Department of Transportation (the Department;
DOT) issued a revision to its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation
(14 CFR Part 382). The regulation went into effect on May 13, 2009,
replacing the previous version of Part 382 on that date.
    Section 382.117(e) of the revised Part 382, concerning service
animals, states: If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is
used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, the airline
is not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin
unless the passenger provides the airline current documentation (i.e.,
no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled
initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health
professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical
social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the
passenger's mental or emotional disability). The documentation must
state the following: (1) The passenger has a mental or emotional
disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders--Fourth Edition (DSM IV); (2) the passenger needs the
emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for
air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination; (3) the
individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health
professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care;
and (4) the date and type of the mental health professional's license
and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued. In
addition, section 382.27(c)(8) provides that airlines may require a
passenger using a PSA or ESA to give up to 48 hours' advance notice and
check in one hour before the check-in time for the general public, in
order to permit the carrier to review and verify the documentation.
    The entire purpose of the ACAA, and the Department's rules
implementing it, are to ensure nondiscriminatory air travel
opportunities are available to people with disabilities. The service
animal sections of the rule were drafted to carry out that purpose. In
the preamble to the rule, the Department discussed issues concerning
ESAs and PSAs two places. In the general discussion of service animal
issues, the Department made the following statements:

    Another important issue that a number of commenters raised
concerned ``emotional support animals.'' Unlike other service
animals, emotional support animals are often not trained to perform
a specific active function, such as path finding, picking up
objects, carrying things, providing additional stability, responding
to sounds, etc. This has led some service animal advocacy groups to
question their status as service animals and has led to concerns by
carriers that permitting emotional support animals to travel in the
cabin would open the door to abuse by passengers wanting to travel
with their pets. The Department believes that there can be some
circumstances in which a passenger may legitimately travel with an
emotional support animal. However, we have added safeguards to
reduce the likelihood of abuse. The final rule limits use of
emotional support animals to persons with a diagnosed mental or
emotional disorder, and the rule permits carriers to insist on
recent documentation from a licensed mental health professional to
support the passenger's desire to travel with such an animal. In
order to permit the assessment of the passenger's documentation, the
rule permits carriers to require 48 hours' advance notice of a
passenger's wish to travel with an emotional support animal. Of
course, like any service animal that a passenger wishes to bring
into the cabin, an emotional support animal must be trained to
behave properly in a public setting. (73 FR 27614; May 13, 2008)

    In the preamble's discussion of section 382.117, the Department
added the following:

    There are new, more detailed procedures for the carriage of
emotional support and psychiatric service animals. The carrier may
require the passenger to provide current documentation from a mental
health professional (e.g., a medical doctor that is treating the
passenger's mental or emotional disability or a licensed clinical
social worker) caring for the passenger that the passenger has a
specific, recognized mental or emotional disability and that the
passenger needs to be accompanied by the specific emotional support
or psychiatric service animal in question, either on the flight or
at the passenger's destination * * * [C]arriers can properly apply
the same policies to ``psychiatric service animals'' as they do for
emotional support animals. This is because carriers and the
Department have encountered instances of attempted abuse of service
animal transportation policies by persons traveling with animals in
both categories [e.g., in communications among carriers, passengers,
and the Department's aviation consumer protection staff]. Should the
Department encounter a pattern of abuse concerning service animals
in other categories, we can consider additional safeguards with
respect to those categories as well. (Id. at 27655)

    The ACAA final rule also included a guidance document concerning
service animals, which made the following statements concerning
emotional support animals (ESAs) and psychiatric support animals
(PSAs):

    With respect to an animal used for emotional support (which need
not have specific training for that function but must be trained to
behave appropriately in a public setting), airline personnel may
require current documentation (i.e., not more than one year old) on
letterhead from a licensed mental health professional, including a

medical doctor that is treating the passenger's mental or emotional
disability or a licensed clinical social worker, stating (1) that
the passenger has a mental health-related disability listed in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV); (2)
that having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the
passenger's mental health or treatment; (3) that the individual
providing the assessment of the passenger is a licensed mental
health professional and the passenger is under his or her
professional care; and (4) the date and type of the mental health
professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which
it was issued. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a
condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the
cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by
passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support
animal and to ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for
emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service
animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the
documentation to specify the type of mental health disability, e.g.,
panic attacks.
    There is a separate category of service animals generally known
as ``psychiatric service animals.'' These animals may be trained by
their owners, sometimes with the assistance of a professional
trainer, to perform tasks such as fetching medications, reminding
the user to take medications, helping people with balance problems
caused by medications or an underlying condition, bringing a phone
to the user in an emergency or activating a specially equipped
emergency phone, or acting as a buffer against other people crowding
too close). As with emotional support animals, it is possible for
this category of animals to be a source of abuse by persons
attempting to circumvent carrier rules concerning transportation of
pets. Consequently, it is appropriate for airlines to apply the same
advance notice and documentation requirements to psychiatric service
animals as they do to emotional support animals. (Id. at 27659).

The PSDS Petition

    The Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSDS) is an Arlington,
Virginia, based organization that describes itself as a service and
advocacy organization focused exclusively on the use of psychiatric
service dogs by persons living with mental health disabilities. At the
Department's June 3, 2008, consumer forum concerning the revised ACAA
rule, a PSDS representative expressed the organization's objections to
section 382.117(e). DOT staff responded that the organization could
file a petition for rulemaking concerning the section, and the PSDS
representative indicated that the organization would do so.
    Under the Department's regulatory procedures, any person may file a
petition to issue, amend, or repeal a rule (49 CFR 5.11(a)). The PSDS
petition, dated April 13, 2009, has now been received by the
Department. Interested persons can read the entire petition at DOT-OST-
2009-0093. It consists of a three-page letter from PSDS and 32 pages of
letters or e-mails from constituents or supporters of the organization.
In its petition, which meets the procedural requirements of section
5.11, PSDS requests that section 382.117(e) be repealed. While the
petition does not specifically refer to section 382.27(c)(8), we
understand the petition to seek its repeal as well.
    The Department can take one of two actions with respect to the
petition: It can grant the petition by initiating rulemaking action
(e.g., publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal or modify
the provisions in question) or it can deny the petition and retain the
provisions without change. When the Department denies a petition, we
send a denial letter to the petitioner explaining our reasons for the
decision.
    In order to assist the Department in deciding which course to
follow, we are, in this document, seeking comment on the issues PSDS
raises in its petition. We note that taking action at this time to
change the regulatory provisions in question would constitute a
substantive amendment requiring us to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking for public comment. Because PSDS waited as long as it did to
file its petition, the Department did not have time to take action
before the May 13, 2009 effective date for the revised Part 382. Nor
does the Department believe that immediate action to change the final
rule would be prudent prior to an opportunity to review comments on
issues concerning which a wide variety of parties may have an interest
in.
    The main arguments that PSDS and its supporters cite as a basis for
the repeal of section 382.117(e) are the following:
     In terms of applicable procedures, the Department's final
rule does not draw distinctions between the two categories of animal.
The PSDS petition appears to support drawing a sharp distinction
between PSAs and ESAs. The former must be trained for public access and
have basic obedience training as well as handler-specific behaviors to
ameliorate or mitigate the effects of a mental health-related
disability. The latter are rarely more than pets, requiring little or
no training. Therefore, it is improper for the rule to apply the same
procedural provisions to both categories of assistance animal.
     By imposing additional procedural requirements on users of
PSAs, which are not imposed on service animals used by individuals with
other disabilities, the rule discriminates against and stigmatizes
individuals with mental health-related disabilities who use PSAs. If
DOT thinks it appropriate to impose these requirements on PSA users,
then DOT should be amenable to imposing similar requirements on people
with other disabilities who use service animals.
     It would be easy for someone with a PSA to cheat, simply
by claiming that his or her dog was a service animal for another
disability, such as epilepsy, heart disease, diabetes, dementia etc.
     Many people with mental health-related disabilities use
general practitioners rather than specialists in mental health matters,
and the Department's rule appears not to allow for letters from general
practitioners.
     The rule violates the medical privacy of PSA users by
requiring confidential medical information to be provided to airline
personnel. Moreover, the rule makes no provision for the confidential
treatment of this information once it gets into the airline's hands,
and fails to answer questions concerning the security, storage, or use
of the information. PSDS expresses the concern that the Transportation
Security Administration could gain access to the information and
require additional security measures (e.g., secondary screening) for
persons identified as having mental health-related disabilities.
     It may be difficult or impossible for persons who do not
have medical insurance or otherwise lack access to affordable medical
care to obtain the medical documentation the rule allows airlines to
require. In addition, the requirement that the documentation be no more
than a year old could work an additional financial hardship on PSA
users, because they would have to pay annually for the required
documentation. This could result in the denial of air transportation to
people in this situation.
     The 48 hours' advance notice provision would make it very
difficult for PSA users to fly in the case of short-term situation
(e.g., a family or medical emergency) that did not permit them to
provide 48 hours' advance notice.
     DOT does not have adequate evidence that there is a
problem with people trying to sneak pets aboard aircraft, so as to
justify imposing the procedural requirements on PSA users.
     Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other
laws concerning nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, users of
service animals (including PSAs) do not have to comply with
requirements like those in section 382.117(e).

     Some letters from supporters of the PSDS petition
suggested that other provisions of Part 382, such as those concerning
``direct threat,'' ``fundamental alteration,'' and general language
concerning identification of service animals would be sufficient with
respect to PSAs and ESAs, without including language like that of
section 382.117(e).

Information and Questions Concerning the PSDS Petition

    To help highlight issues raised by the petition for commenters, the
Department presents the following information and questions:

Differences Between PSAs and ESAs

    The letters of support for PSDS' petition mention that PSAs are
trained for public access and obedience (which a number of letters
assume or say is not true of ESAs). In fact, are ESAs trained to behave
properly in public settings? Note that, under the ACAA rules, airlines
are never required to carry in the cabin an animal--even one that is
assisting a person with a disability--that is not behaving
appropriately in a public setting.
    The letters of support for PSDS' petition state that PSAs are
trained to provide medically necessary, therapeutic, or other services
for their users. However, the letters do not specify what any of these
services are. What are these services, and how, if at all, are they
relevant to the use of a PSA during the user's air travel or activities
at the user's destination? With respect to travel on an aircraft, how
do these services differ from those that would be provided by an ESA
during a flight or at the passenger's destination? How, if at all,
would any such differences justify treating ESAs and their users
differently from PSAs and their owners in the context of air
transportation? What, if any, distinctions have airlines drawn or
attempted to draw between the two categories of animals, and what is
the basis for any such distinctions?
    It appears from some material in the supporting letters that PSAs
do, in fact, provide services related to emotional support. For
example, one letter from a PSA user related the following about her
dog:

* * * [H]e gives me unconditional love no matter what I look or feel
like that day. He is there right by my side even when I don't ask
him to, lying at my feet because he knows that helps me. He helps me
when no nothing or no one else will. He is very reliable. I never
have to worry if he is going to be ``busy'' that night like I would
friends or family. He is never angry if I talk too much or pet him
too much * * *. He gives me better hugs than my husband * * *.

Another letter, from a therapist, said that an assistance animal
enabled her clients to ``get out of the house and go places without the
fear and panic they had before. It is so helpful for them to have their
dog with them in all environments to reduce dissociation, panic, and
anxiety.'' Do these obviously significant functions that dogs called
PSAs perform for their owners differ from those that would be performed
for their owners by dogs called ESAs in a way that would support
different treatment for the two groups in airline travel? We note that
over the years, many individuals who travel with ESAs have stated that
their service animals, in addition to being trained to behave properly
in public settings and providing needed emotional/mental health support
without which they cannot travel, do in fact perform specific physical
tasks related, for example, helping lessen anxiety in stressful
situations.

Need for Procedural Requirements

    We seek comments from airlines and other interested persons about
their experience with passengers attempting to pass off pets as service
animals, especially as it may relate to ESAs and PSAs. Are there
problems that air carriers have encountered in distinguishing pets from
animals that provide services to passengers with disabilities? What
procedures do airlines use to draw this distinction, and how well do
these procedures work? How pervasive are any such problems? What, if
any, experience do airlines have with people attempting to bring pets
on board on the basis of claims that the animals are service animals
for disabilities that are not readily apparent other than mental
health-related conditions, such as seizure disorders, heart conditions,
diabetes, etc? What, if any, problems are created for airlines when
people have attempted to bring or have succeeded in bringing pets into
the cabin under the guise of being service animals? Do airlines have
any statistics or compilations of experience with people attempting to
pass off their pets as service animals that they could share with the
Department?
    Do the procedural provisions of section 382.117(e)--and the
previous provisions of DOT guidance concerning ESAs--help airlines
distinguish between service animals and pets? If, as the petition
requests, paragraph (e) were deleted, would airlines have sufficient
other, arguably less burdensome, means of making these determinations?
What would be the effect, if any, on the ability of airlines to make
reasonable determinations in these matters if the provisions of
paragraph (e) remained in effect for users of ESAs but not users of
PSAs? Are there problems that airlines have encountered in the past
with passengers initially claiming that their animal is an ESA and
later characterizing that same animal as a PSA? If so, please describe
such problems. The Department's rule is now in effect: Have passengers
or airlines encountered any actual problems concerning the
implementation of the provisions in question in this context?
    The Department, the service animal community (e.g., handlers,
organizations), and the airlines all share the goal of stopping the
abuse of service animal access rights by passengers who fraudulently
assert that their pets are service animals. The Department is
interested in identifying effective alternative methods to prevent such
fraud. We, therefore, invite members of the public, and in particular
members of the service animal community, to propose methods for
preventing/detecting fraud that they believe are feasible alternatives
to the current medical documentation requirements.

Medical Privacy

    With respect to the medical information provided to airlines under
paragraph (e) and other provisions of Part 382 concerning medical
documentation, the Department has issued the following guidance:

    Q. What should carriers do to safeguard the personal medical
information (e.g., physician's statements, medical certificates and
documentation from licensed mental health professionals for
emotional support and psychiatric service animals) that they require
of passengers in order to provide certain accommodations?
    A. When a carrier requires a passenger to provide personal
medical information as a condition for obtaining disability
accommodations, we recommend that the carrier take steps to
safeguard this information, such as maintaining it in a separate
confidential file for the same period of time it retains that
passenger's reservation record for the flights involved.

Does this guidance sufficiently address medical privacy concerns
arising from the operation of paragraph (e)? If not, should the
Department amend its regulations to provide additional protections? If
so, what should such amendments provide? Should there be additional
language concerning such matters as how confidentiality is maintained,
who has access to records and for how long, how are records disposed
of, or whether a particular record retention period should be stated in
the rule or guidance?

Family and Medical Emergencies

    Part 382 provides that, when a passenger does not provide advance
notice for accommodations to which a carrier may apply an advance
notice requirement, the carrier must provide the accommodation if it
can do so by making reasonable efforts, without delaying the flights
(see section 382.27(g)). The Department's rule is now in effect: Have
passengers or airlines encountered any actual problems concerning the
implementation of the provisions in question in this context?
    The Department has issued the following FAQ discussing this
principle in the context of the procedural steps of section 382.117(e):

    Q. When must a carrier accommodate a passenger accompanied by an
emotional support or psychiatric service animal who has not provided
48 hours' advance notice?
    A. Carriers must accommodate a passenger accompanied by an
emotional support or psychiatric service animal who has not provided
48 hours' advance notice if the carrier can do so by making
reasonable efforts, without delaying a flight. The carrier, at its
discretion, may waive its 48 hours' advance notice requirement in
order to expedite the emergency air travel of a passenger
accompanied by an emotional support or psychiatric service animal.

Does this guidance adequately handle the situation of ESA or PSA users
with a family or medical emergency requiring short-notice travel?
Should air carriers be able to require documentation of the emergency
from someone seeking to travel with a PSA or ESA who cannot provide 48
hours' notice? Are there additional regulatory or guidance statements
the Department should make on this matter, such as criteria for when
and on what basis the 48 hours' advance notice period should be waived?

Lack of Medical Insurance or a Mental Health Care Provider

    In the absence of recent documentation from a mental health
professional, how is an air carrier to determine whether a passenger
has a current need for an ESA or PSA? Would anyone using a PSA or ESA
have had a medical recommendation for the use of such an animal at some
time in the past that could be documented? If not, what information
could establish a basis for the individual's claim that he or she needs
a service animal? The Department has issued the following FAQ
discussing this principle in the context of the procedural steps of
section 382.117(e):

    Q. May a carrier accept documentation from a licensed mental
health professional concerning his or her need for a psychiatric or
emotional support animal if the documentation is more than one year
old?
    A. Carriers may, at their discretion, accept from the passenger
documentation from his or her licensed mental health professional
that is more than one year old. We encourage carriers to consider
accepting ``outdated'' documentation in situations where a passenger
with a disability provides a letter or notice of cancellation or
other written communication indicating the cessation of health
insurance coverage, and his/her inability to afford treatment for
his or her mental or emotional disability.

Does this guidance successfully address the situation of persons with
mental health-related disabilities who may currently lack medical
insurance? What is the experience of airlines and passengers with the
existing rule and guidance, which are now in effect? Should the
guidance or underlying regulatory provisions be changed (e.g., to
eliminate the requirement, change the period of one year to something
else, require airlines to include alternate documentation in some
cases)?

Use of General Practitioners

    The Department has clarified in the regulatory text of section
382.117(e), quoted above under ``The Current Regulation,'' that among
the individuals authorized to provide documentation concerning the need
for ESAs or PSAs include medical doctors who are specifically treating
a passenger's mental or emotional disability. Does this clarification
successfully address the concern about the types of doctors who can
provide the documentation that the rule now requires? If not, what
additional provisions would commenters recommend?

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Analogy

    The Department notes that the ACAA is a separate statute from the
ADA. The ACAA is a specialized statute dealing only with transportation
by air, in an environment in which a large number of people are
confined within a limited space for what may be a prolonged period of
time. The Department has long taken the position that accommodations
for persons with disabilities, and DOT requirements for them, may
justifiably differ between the air travel context and other contexts,
such as places of public accommodation regulated by the Department of
Justice under its ADA regulations. We seek comment on the application
of this principle in the matter of PSAs and ESAs.

Alternatives for Consideration

    After reviewing comments on this notice, the Department could make
a number of different decisions with respect to the issues involved.
The following are examples of actions the Department could take:
    1. Leave the rule unchanged.
    2. Leave the basic provisions of the rule (i.e., concerning
documentation and advance notice) unchanged, but add provisions
relating to specific concerns about the implementation of these
provisions (e.g., with respect to medical privacy or other matters now
addressed by FAQs).
    3. Eliminate documentation and advance notice provisions for all
types of animals assisting passengers with disabilities.
    4. Eliminate the documentation and advance notice provisions for
PSAs, but leave the provisions in effect for ESAs.
    5. Leave the existing documentation and advance notice provisions
for passengers with disabilities who wish to bring service animals on
board an aircraft but whose types of disabilities are not readily
apparent.
    6. Leave the existing documentation and advance notice provisions
in effect for ESAs and PSAs, but add parallel provisions for all
passengers with disabilities who wish to bring service animals on board
an aircraft.
    7. Substitute an alternative method of preventing ``cheating'' that
would allow airlines to distinguish service animals from pets but that
did not involve the current documentation and/or advance notice
provisions.
    The fact that an idea is on this list does not mean that the
Department necessarily supports it or believes that it would be good
policy; the list merely sets out a range of possible approaches to the
issues raised by the PSDS petition. Nor is the list exhaustive; the
Department solicits other ideas for addressing these issues as well.

    Issued this 27th day of August 2009, at Washington, DC.
Christa Fornarotto,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-21351 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41280-41282]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1039; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-275-AD;
Amendment 39-17491; AD 2013-13-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A319-112, -113, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212,
-214, -231, and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111 and -131 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of two fatigue cracks on the left-hand
and right-hand sides of the continuity fittings at the front windshield
lower framing on a Model A319 series airplane. This AD requires a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking on the left-
hand and right-hand sides of the windshield central lower node
continuity fittings, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the windshield central lower node
continuity fittings, which could reduce the structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 14, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 14,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That

NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2012 (77 FR
60658). The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0231, dated December 9, 2011
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    One operator reported finding two fatigue cracks on continuity
fittings at left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides at the front
windshield lower framing on an A319 aeroplane on which Airbus
modification (mod.) 22058 had been embodied in production. Airbus
mod. 22058 (which is included in Airbus mod. 21999) was introduced
to improve the fatigue strength of the windshield front framing by
increasing the thickness of framing flanges adjacent to the
concerned fittings.
    Further analyses have demonstrated that the damage tolerance and
fatigue requirements of JAR 25.571 (b) are not met on aeroplanes in
post-mod. 22058 configuration.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the affected aeroplanes.

Required actions include an HFEC inspection for any cracking on the
left-hand and right-hand sides of the windshield central lower node
continuity fittings, and repair if necessary. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise HFEC Inspection Requirement

    Airbus requested that the one-time HFEC inspection in paragraph (g)
of the NPRM (77 FR 60658, October 4, 2012) be revised in anticipation
of further rulemaking by the EASA, which would mandate the
airworthiness limitation inspection task and would correspond with the
one-time HFEC inspection.
    We disagree with Airbus's request. We have determined that
publishing this final rule without any further delay is in the interest
of safety of the flying public. However, we will consider additional AD
rulemaking, if appropriate, in the future. We have not revised this
final rule in this regard.

Request for Approval of Repair

    Airbus requested consideration that each Airbus Repair Approval
Sheet (RAS) be approved under ``AIRBUS DOA EASA.21J.031,'' provided
that this is done after cracking is reported. Airbus stated that this
would be an approved method for repair as required by paragraph (g) of
the NPRM (77 FR 60658, October 4, 2012).
    We agree. Airbus is an EASA-delegated agent; therefore, a RAS
approved under Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) EASA.21J.031
would be a method of compliance for a repair required by this AD. We
have not changed the final rule in this regard.

Request To Update Address for the Manufacturer

    Airbus requested that the address for the manufacturer be updated.
Airbus stated that in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 60658,
October 4, 2012), ``EAS'' should be replaced with ``EIAS.''
    We agree with Airbus's request to update the manufacturer's
address. Paragraphs (k)(2) and (l)(3) of this final rule have been
updated accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 60658, October 4, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 60658, October 4, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 105 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 20 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $178,500, or $1,700 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM (77 FR 60658, October 4,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 AD:

2013-13-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-17491. Docket No. FAA-2012-1039;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-275-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 14,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-112, -113, and -132
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, and -232 airplanes; and
Model A321-111 and -131 airplanes; certificated in any category;
manufacturer serial numbers 0259, 0260, 0264, 0266 through 0270
inclusive, 0275, 0276, 0278, 0287, 0296, 0300, 0303, 0312, 0320,
0321, 0323, 0325, 0328, 0332, 0334, 0335, 0337, 0346, 0352, 0353,
0356, 0365, 0369, 0375, 0377, 0382, 0383, 0396, 0398, 0401, 0412,
0413, 0416, 0419, 0421, 0431, 0432, 0438, 0440, 0441, 0445, 0453,
0458, 0459, 0466, 0468, 0473, 0474, 0482, 0484, 0491, 0493, 0497,
0498, 0501, 0502, 0505, 0507, 0509, 0518, 0520, 0521, 0529, 0531,
0534, 0537, 0538, 0544, 0549, 0554, 0555, 0560, 0563, 0577, 0578,
0585, 0598, 0600, 0608, 0612, 0618, 0621, 0625, 0637, 0660, 0685,
0976, 1010, 1092, 1096, 1103, 1139, 1143, 1158, 1251, 1356, and
1511.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of two fatigue cracks on the
left-hand and right-hand sides of the continuity fittings at the
front windshield lower framing on a Model A319 series airplane. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the windshield
central lower node continuity fittings, which could reduce the
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Before the accumulation of 34,000 total flight cycles since the
airplane's first flight, or within 4,500 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking on the
left-hand and right-hand sides of the windshield central lower node
continuity fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1245, Revision 01,
including Appendix 1, dated May 17, 2011. If any cracking is found,
before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).

(h) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus,
Customer Service Directorate, Attn: SDC32 Technical Data and
Documentation Services, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 28 06; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of
this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) 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) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1245, including Appendix 1, dated March 2, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: 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 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0231, dated
December 9, 2011, for related information. The MCAI may be viewed on
the Internet at http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0231.pdf.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the
addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

 (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1245, Revision 01, including
Appendix 1, dated May 17, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-15153 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62112-62113]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0030; OMB No. 1660-0070]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Fire Department Registry

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the use of a form to collect data for the development and continuation
of the National Fire Department Registry.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0030. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Kelch, Statistician, FEMA,
United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center at (301)
447-1154 or email [email protected]. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act
of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-498), as enacted in 15 U.S.C. chapter 49, provides
for the gathering and analyzing of data as deemed useful and applicable
for fire departments. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many
requests from fire service organizations and the general public for
information related to fire departments, including total number of
departments, number of stations per department, population protected,
and number of firefighters. The USFA also has a need for this
information to guide programmatic decisions and produce mailing lists
for USFA publications.
    Recommendations for the creation of the fire department census
database came out of a Blue Ribbon Panel's review of the USFA. The
report included a review of the structure, mission, and funding of the
USFA, future policies, programmatic needs, course development and
delivery, and the role of the USFA to reflect changes in the fire
service. As a result of those recommendations, the USFA is working to
identify all fire departments in the United States to develop a
database that will include information related to demographics,
capabilities, and activities of fire departments Nationwide. In the
fall of 2016, the USFA renamed the census to the National Fire
Department Registry. In the fall of 2001, information was collected
from 16,000 fire departments. Since the first year of the collection,
an additional 11,182 departments have registered for a total of 27,182
fire departments. This leaves an estimated 2,818 departments still to
respond. Additionally, about 5,436 current registered departments are
contacted by USFA each year and are asked to provide updates to any
previously submitted information.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Fire Department Registry.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0070.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-21-100--Paper Version (formerly
070-0-0-1); FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-21-110--Online Version (formerly the
screenshots of FEMA Form 070-0-0-1).
    Abstract: This collection seeks to identify fire departments in the
United States to compile a database related to their demographics,
capabilities, and activities. The database is used to guide
programmatic decisions and provide information to the public and the
fire service.
    Affected Public: State, local or tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,375.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 6,375.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,219.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $9,371.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $100,058.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-22260 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-76-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4195-4196]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-50-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Application for Federal Power Act Section 203 Approval
and Request for Expedited Consideration of South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-32-000.
    Applicants: Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180123-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-426-003.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Missouri River Energy Services
Member Formula Rate (Denison) Compliance Filing to be effective 2/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-360-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: EAI-AECI LBA Agreement Errata to be
effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-692-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-01-22_SA 3084 St.
Joseph Phase II-NIPSCO GIA (J351) to be effective 1/5/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-693-000,
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation; SA 804,
Fast Process Agreement with MDT (Fox Farm Road) to be effective 1/23/
2018.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-694-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: La Paloma Generating Company
GSFA and GIA Amendment (SA 18) to be effective 1/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-695-000.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, PECO Energy
Company.
    Description: Request for Abandonment Costs Recovery Pre-Approval
for PJM RTEP Project 9A of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180122-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-696-000.
    Applicants: Summer Energy Northeast, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: REP Energy LLC Name Change
to Summer

Energy Northeast, LLC to be effective 1/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180123-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-697-000.
    Applicants: Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 3/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180123-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-699-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WPPI Metering
Agreement (FERC Rate Schedule No. 115) to be effective 1/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180123-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 23, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01697 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 94357]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2514-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Schedules 4 & 9 Compliance to
be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20161215-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-318-000.
    Applicants: Three Peaks Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 8, 2016 Three Peaks Power, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-360-001.
    Applicants: Rio Bravo Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to MBR Application to be
effective 11/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-361-001.
    Applicants: Pumpjack Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to MBR Application to be
effective 11/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-362-001.
    Applicants: Rio Bravo Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to MBR Application to be
effective 11/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-550-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: EMI-SMEPA Revised Restated
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5262.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30969 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P