39874 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

2 DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure 

requirements if the prescribed test procedures 

evaluate the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy or water 

consumption characteristics as to provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

430.27(f)(2). JCI argues that the test procedure 

provisions in question result in materially 

inaccurate comparative data for the basic models 

listed in its amended petition. 

FR 32228. On July 17, 2017, following 

the denial of its request for stay of the 

180-day extension and/or for 

preliminary injunctive relief, Lennox 

voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. 

Grant of JCI’s Application for Interim 

Waiver 

As stated above, JCI submitted initial 

and amended petitions for waiver and 

interim waiver that raise concerns about 

the equity of the challenged test 

procedure provisions. JCI contends that 

the challenged test procedure provisions 

unfairly require central air conditioner 

systems that are approved for use with 

R–407C refrigerant and are offered as 

new, matched systems to be tested as 

outdoor units with no match. Under the 

outdoor unit with no match testing 

provisions, these systems are treated as 

replacement outdoor units, regardless of 

whether they are sold as new, matched 

systems or replacement outdoor units, 

and are rated using default indoor 

parameters that approximate the 

performance of an old, previously 

installed indoor unit. As such, JCI 

argues that the test procedure is not 

representative of the energy 

consumption of such central air 

conditioners when installed in the field 

as new, matched systems. JCI proposes 

to evaluate the 1,178 system 

combinations listed in its amended 

waiver petition and certified in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management 

System in a manner that is 

representative of the true energy 

consumption of these products when 

installed as new, matched systems, 

similar to how central air conditioners 

that use other refrigerants and are sold 

both as new, matched systems and as 

replacement outdoor units are treated 

under DOE’s test procedure. 

While the administrative stay has 

been in place, DOE has continued to 

evaluate JCI’s initial and amended 

petitions for waiver and interim waiver. 

Based on a review of these petitions and 

JCI’s public-facing materials, it is DOE’s 

current understanding that the basic 

models listed in JCI’s amended petition, 

similar to central air conditioners that 

use other refrigerants, are offered as 

both matched, new systems and as 

replacement outdoor units for existing 

systems. As a result, DOE determined 

that JCI’s amended petition for waiver 

would likely be granted and issued a 

decision granting JCI an interim waiver 

subject to certain conditions. 

Lifting of the Administrative Stay 

In issuing the administrative stay, 

DOE determined that it was in the 

interest of justice to do so based on two 

concerns: (1) The potential for 

significant economic impacts for JCI 

resulting from a possibly 

unrepresentative test procedure; and (2) 

the desire to maintain a level playing 

field for all central air conditioner 

manufacturers. The issuance of the 

interim waiver removes the first concern 

and subjects the final determination on 

the waiver request to the administrative 

process, including a notice-andcomment period, in DOE’s waiver 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.27. Further, 

even if DOE ultimately denies JCI’s 

amended waiver petition, an 

administrative stay would still no longer 

be needed as DOE would have 

determined that the results of the test 

procedure issued in the January 2017 

final rule accurately represent the 

energy use of JCI’s products.2 In that 

case, there would be no concern about 

possible significant economic impacts to 

JCI resulting from an unrepresentative 

test procedure. 

The waiver petition process also 

addresses the second concern as any 

manufacturer of a similar product may 

also submit a waiver petition. In fact, if 

DOE ultimately grants JCI’s amended 

waiver petition, a manufacturer of a 

similar product would be required to 

submit a petition for waiver under 

DOE’s regulations. 10 CFR 430.27(j). 

Further, DOE has determined that the 

waiver petition process is a better, more 

tailored approach to ensuring a level 

playing field as manufacturers are 

required to propose alternative test 

procedures to the test procedure from 

which the waiver is sought, which are 

then subject to potential modification 

and approval by DOE. 10 CFR 

430.27(b)(1)(iii). Because DOE explicitly 

approves alternative test procedures, 

there is no possibility of uncertainty 

regarding how a product subject to a 

waiver should be tested. This also 

allows DOE to ensure that 

manufacturers of similar products are 

making energy efficiency 

representations using the same 

alternative test procedure, which is 

essential for maintaining integrity in a 

market. 

Based on the foregoing reasons, DOE 

lifts the administrative stay issued on 

July 3, 2017. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 3, 

2018. 

Stephen C. Skubel, 

Assistant General Counsel for Litigation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17187 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–4007; Product 

Identifier 2015–SW–064–AD; Amendment 

39–19351; AD 2018–16–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Various 

Model 234 and Model CH–47D 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for various 

Model 234 and Model CH–47D 

helicopters. This AD requires 

inspections of the pitch housing and 

revising the pitch housing retirement 

life. This AD was prompted by reports 

of cracking in the pitch housing lugs. 

The actions of this AD are intended to 

detect and prevent an unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

17, 2018. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain documents listed in this AD 

as of September 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Helicopters, The Boeing 

Company, 1 S. Stewart Avenue, Ridley 

Park, PA 19078, telephone 610–591– 

2121, and Columbia Helicopters, Inc. 

(Columbia), 14452 Arndt Road NE, 

Aurora, OR 97002, telephone (503) 678– 

1222, fax (503) 678–5841, or at http://

www.colheli.com. You may review a 

copy of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, 

Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

4007; 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39875 

contains this AD, any incorporated-byreference service information, the 

Special Airworthiness Information 

Bulletin (SAIB), the economic 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations Office (phone: 

800–647–5527) is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations 

Office, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Bonar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Section, Seattle ACO Branch, 

FAA, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, 

WA 98198; telephone (206) 231–3521; 

email Christopher.Bonar@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On March 14, 2017, at 82 FR 13567, 

the Federal Register published our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 by adding an AD that would apply 

to Model 234 and Model CH–47D 

helicopters with a pitch housing part 

number (P/N) 145R2075–11, 145R2075– 

12, 145R2075–13, 145R2075–14, 

145R2075–15, 145R2075–16, 234R2075– 

1, or 234R2075–2 installed. The type 

certificate (TC) holder for Model 234 

helicopters is Columbia (TC previously 

held by Boeing Defense & Space Group), 

and the TC holders for Model CH–47D 

helicopters currently include Columbia, 

Billings Flying Service, Inc., and 

Tandem Rotor, LLC. We did not limit 

the proposed AD to these TC holders 

because we expect additional TC 

holders of helicopters that are subject to 

this same unsafe condition. 

The NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracking in the pitch housing lugs, 

located on the lead side of the lower 

vertical pin lug. The reports initially 

prompted the FAA to issue SAIB SW– 

11–03, dated October 22, 2010, which 

recommends that all owners and 

operators of Columbia Model 234 

helicopters perform repetitive ultrasonic 

inspections of the lugs. At that time, 

there were no civil Model CH–47D 

helicopters in service. On March 20, 

2015, we received a report of lateral 

vibration on a Model 234 helicopter 

caused by a crack in an aft pitch 

housing upper lug. The crack was 

determined to be caused by fatigue and 

attributed to underestimated load 

conditions in the original life limit 

calculations. This cracking differed from 

the cracking described in the SAIB. 

To correct this unsafe condition, we 

proposed to require repetitive eddy 

current and ultrasonic inspections of the 

pitch housing. Boeing, the original 

manufacturer of both model helicopters, 

developed service information for the 

SAIB ultrasonic inspections, which we 

proposed to require in the NPRM. Due 

to the rapid growth rate, an effective 

eddy current inspection must detect an 

inward-growing crack of no more than 

0.10 inch. The NPRM proposed to 

require, for Columbia helicopters, the 

eddy current inspection method 

specified in Columbia’s service 

information. Because the other TC 

holders have not developed service 

instructions, we proposed to require the 

eddy current inspection procedures for 

all other helicopters be submitted to the 

Seattle or Denver Aircraft Certification 

Offices for approval. 

We also proposed to require removing 

the pitch housing from service when it 

accumulates a total of 8,200 hours timein-service (TIS). Forward pitch housings 

on Model CH–47D helicopters had no 

life limit and the aft pitch housing 

already had a life limit of 8,200 hours 

TIS. For Model 234 helicopters, the 

forward pitch housing had a life limit of 

12,547 hours TIS and the aft pitch 

housing had a life limit of 19,077 hours 

TIS. The NPRM proposed to establish or 

reduce these life limits to 8,200 hours 

TIS for both forward and aft pitch 

housings, regardless of the model 

helicopter. 

The actions specified by the NPRM 

were intended to detect and prevent a 

crack in a pitch housing lug. This 

condition could result in loss of a rotor 

blade and consequent loss of helicopter 

control. 

Since the NPRM was issued, the 

FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service has 

changed its organization structure. The 

new structure replaces product 

directorates with functional divisions. 

We have revised some of the office titles 

and nomenclature throughout this final 

rule to reflect the new organizational 

changes. Additional information about 

the new structure can be found in the 

Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 

FR 34564). 

Ex Parte Contact 

On October 25, 2017, after the 

comment period closed, we had a 

teleconference with Columbia about 

Columbia’s service information 

identified in the NPRM. Columbia’s 

comment during this teleconference is 

addressed below. A summary of this 

discussion can be found in the 

rulemaking docket at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FAA–2015–4007. 

Comments 

We gave the public an opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments we 

received and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request 

One commenter supported the actions 

required by this AD. 

Another commenter requested that we 

provide more information regarding our 

determination to include all Model CH– 

47D and Model 234 helicopters in this 

AD, including the number of hours on 

the failed Japanese military CH–47 pitch 

housing. This commenter suggested the 

failures may be unique to the Model 234 

helicopter or may result from factors, 

such as high speed operations, a 

corrosive Japanese operating 

environment, or inaccurate fatigue 

equations. 

We agree to provide additional 

information regarding our 

determination. The Japanese military 

CH–47 pitch housing failure referenced 

in SAIB SW–11–03 failed due to fatigue 

cracking initiated by fretting. The event 

occurred in 2006, and we do not have 

access to the number of hours on the 

failed pitch housing. The reported pitch 

housing lug cracks occurred on both the 

Model 234 and the Model CH–47D. 

These models use identical rotor head 

design and components, including the 

same part-numbered pitch housings. 

Therefore, we determined that the life 

limits for the pitch housings on both 

models should be the same. 

We found no indication that the lug 

failure resulted from the Japanese 

operating environment. Investigation of 

the cracking did not show evidence of 

damage originating at corrosion sites. 

The Japanese operating environment is 

not unique as these aircraft operate 

worldwide in a variety of conditions. 

We also found no indications that the 

failures were due to inaccuracies in the 

Boeing Model 234 cycle count 

equations. Our investigation concluded 

that the original fatigue life evaluation 

excluded certain loading conditions and 

resulted in a life limit that was too high. 

Tandem Rotor requested the AD not 

impose a life limit on the forward pitch 

housing or, alternatively, impose a life 

limit consistent with the life limit of the 

MH–47E/G forward pitch housing of 

24,975 hours TIS. As part of this 

request, Tandem Rotor asks us to 

reconsider the service lives established 

by Boeing. 

We disagree. We reviewed newer 

analyses than those considered by 

Boeing, including fatigue loading that 

was not part of the original design data. 

These newer analyses show a life limit 

is required on both the forward and aft 

pitch housings. This is consistent with 

SAIB SW–11–03, which included the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39876 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

forward pitch housing despite cracks 

having only been found in service on 

the aft pitch housing. The newer 

analyses do not support the 24,975-hour 

life limit requested by Tandem Rotor. 

These helicopters are used in a wide 

variety of operations. The life limits 

required by this AD assume more severe 

usage than the average operator in order 

to fully cover the range of different 

operators and usages. Individual 

operators may request an alternative 

method of compliance if sufficient data 

is submitted to substantiate a different 

life limit because their usage is not as 

damaging to a particular part. 

Tandem Rotor also requested that the 

repetitive ultrasonic inspection interval 

be increased from 200 hours to 250 

hours TIS to align the inspection with 

an existing recurring 500-hour eddy 

current inspection, thus reducing travel 

costs and simplifying maintenance 

planning for the technician. 

We disagree. We have determined that 

the 200-hour interval for the inspection 

represents an appropriate time in which 

the required actions can be performed in 

a timely manner within the affected 

fleet, while still maintaining an 

adequate level of safety. A 250-hour 

interval did not yield a sufficient safety 

margin when considering all usage 

spectrums in the current fleet. 

Columbia requested that we change 

the AD to make the eddy current 

inspection requirement the same for all 

helicopters. In support of its request, 

Columbia states that its service bulletin 

is proprietary and should not be 

incorporated by reference (and thus 

made publicly available) as an 

inspection method in the AD. 

We agree. The inspection methods in 

the Columbia service information is 

specific to Columbia helicopters. 

Because Columbia is the only operator 

of its U.S. fleet, we determined there are 

no other operators that need this 

information to perform the eddy current 

inspections. We have changed the AD 

accordingly. 

FAA’s Determination 

We have reviewed the relevant 

information, considered the comments 

received, and determined that an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of these same 

type designs and that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the change previously described. 

This change will not increase the 

economic burden on any operator or 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

145R2075–62–0001, Revision 1, dated 

September 27, 2011, which specifies 

updated life limits for the forward and 

aft pitch housings and revised overhaul 

and ultrasonic inspection procedures for 

various military Model CH–47 and 

Model 234 helicopters. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Other Related Service Information 

We also reviewed Columbia 

Helicopters, Inc. Alert Service Bulletin 

No. 234–62–A0012, Revision 2, dated 

March 1, 2016, and Alert Service 

Bulletin No. 47D–62–A0002, Revision 0, 

dated March 1, 2016. This service 

information specifies performing 

repetitive eddy current inspections, 

visual inspections, and ultrasonic 

inspections and for reducing the life 

limit of the pitch housing assemblies. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

Service Information 

The service information provides 

different life limits for the forward and 

aft pitch housings, while this AD 

requires a life limit of 8,200 hours TIS 

for all pitch housings. The service 

information requires either an ultrasonic 

inspection or a dye penetrant inspection 

as part of the overhaul procedures. The 

service information specifies different 

compliance times for the inspections 

than what this AD requires. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 15 

helicopters of U.S. Registry and that 

labor costs average $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these estimates, we expect the 

following costs: 

• An eddy current inspection requires 

4 work-hours for a total cost of $340 per 

helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, 

per inspection cycle. 

• An ultrasonic inspection requires 4 

work-hours for a total cost of $340 per 

helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, 

per inspection cycle. 

• Replacing a pitch housing requires 

8 work-hours and parts cost $13,000, for 

a total cost of $13,680 per helicopter. 

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 

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 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this 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. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39877 

2018–16–11 Various Model 234 and Model 

CH–47D Helicopters: Amendment 39– 

19351; Docket No. FAA–2015–4007; 

Product Identifier 2015–SW–064–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model 234 and Model 

CH–47D helicopters, regardless of type 

certificate holder, with a pitch housing 

assembly (pitch housing) part number (P/N) 

145R2075–11, 145R2075–12, 145R2075–13, 

145R2075–14, 145R2075–15, 145R2075–16, 

234R2075–1, or 234R2075–2 installed, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in a pitch housing lug. This condition 

could result in loss of a rotor blade and 

consequent loss of helicopter control. 

(c) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective September 17, 

2018. 

(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) Before further flight, remove from 

service any pitch housing P/N 145R2075–11, 

145R2075–12, 145R2075–13, 145R2075–14, 

145R2075–15, 145R2075–16, 234R2075–1, 

and 234R2075–2 that has accumulated 8,200 

hours total time-in-service (TIS). 

(2) Before the pitch housing accumulates 

200 hours TIS after the effective date of this 

AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

200 hours TIS, ultrasonic inspect the pitch 

housing for a crack in accordance with 

Attachment 1, paragraphs F and H through K, 

of Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075–62– 

0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2011. 

If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing 

before further flight. 

(3) Within 400 hours TIS after the effective 

date of this AD or before the pitch housing 

has accumulated 4,000 hours total TIS, 

whichever occurs later, and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS, eddy 

current inspect the pitch housing for a crack. 

If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing 

before further flight. The eddy current 

inspection must be accomplished using a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO Branch, or by the Manager, Denver ACO 

Branch. For a repair method to be approved 

as required by this AD, the manager’s 

approval letter must specifically refer to this 

AD. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) For operators of helicopters with type 

certificates issued by the Denver Aircraft 

Certificate Office or ACO Branch, the 

manager of the Denver ACO Branch, FAA, 

may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your 

proposal to: Greg Johnson, Senior Aerospace 

Engineer, Denver ACO Branch, Compliance 

and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 

68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303– 

342–1083; fax: 303–342–1088; email: 

Gregory.Johnson@faa.gov. 

(2) All other AMOC requests should be 

sent to the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

FAA. Send your proposal to: Chris Bonar, 

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, 

Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 S 216th 

Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 

(206) 231–3521; email 9-ANM-Seattle-ACOAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(3) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest 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 

Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin 

SW–11–03, dated October 22, 2010 (SAIB); 

Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Alert Service 

Bulletin No. 234–62–A0012, Revision 2, 

dated March 1, 2016; and Columbia 

Helicopters, Inc., Alert Service Bulletin No. 

47D–62–A0002, Revision 0, dated March 1, 

2016, which are not incorporated by 

reference, contain additional information 

about the subject of this AD. You may view 

the SAIB on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket. For 

Columbia service information identified in 

this final rule, contact Columbia Helicopters, 

Inc., 14452 Arndt Road NE, Aurora, OR 

97002, telephone (503) 678–1222, fax (503) 

678–5841, or at http://www.colheli.com. You 

may view a copy of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, 

TX 76177. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head. 

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075–62– 

0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2011. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For Boeing Helicopters service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Boeing Helicopters, The Boeing Company, 1 

S. Stewart Avenue, Ridley Park, PA 19078, 

telephone 610–591–2121. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(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 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 27, 

2018. 

Scott A. Horn, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17112 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 542 

RIN 3141–AA55 

Minimum Internal Control Standards 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of final rulemaking; 

stay. 

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) is suspending its 

minimum internal control standards 

(MICS) for Class III gaming under the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Updated 

guidance for Class III MICS will now be 

maintained at www.nigc.gov. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

27, 2018. Title 25 CFR part 542 is stayed 

effective September 27, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Lawson at 202–632–7003 or 

write to info@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The NIGC Class III MICS were 

promulgated in 1999 and last 

substantively revised in 2005. In 2006, 

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 

Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Nat’l 

Indian Gaming Comm’n, 466 F.3d 134 

(CRIT v. NIGC), held that NIGC lacked 

authority to enforce or promulgate Class 

III MICS. Since that time, the Class III 

MICS have remained untouched. 

Technology has advanced rapidly, 

though, making some standards obsolete 

and introducing new areas of risk not 

contemplated by the outdated 

standards. And yet, many tribal-state 

compacts—even those entered into 

since 2006—continue to adopt NIGC 

Class III MICS by reference. 

II. Development of the Rule 

In light of the ruling in CRIT v. NIGC 

and recognizing the industry’s need for 

updated standards, the NIGC sought 

comment on what to do with the 

outdated standards still remaining in 

the regulations and whether to draft 

updated, non-binding guidance for Class 

III MICS. Between 2015 and 2016, over 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES