45366 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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): 

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH 

Helicopters: Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0336; Product Identifier 2017–SW–130– 

AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters 

Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, 

EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, 

EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 

helicopters, certificated in any category, with 

an external mounted hoist (hoist) part 

number (P/N) and hook assembly (hook) 

P/N shown in Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this 

AD: 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

detachment of a hook from a hoist cable 

resulting in in-flight failure of the hoist, 

which could result in injury to persons being 

lifted. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by November 

6, 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 

Within 90 hours time-in-service (TIS) and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 180 hours 

TIS: 

(1) Inspect the hook and determine 

whether the elastometric energy absorber has 

taken a permanent compression set by 

following the Accomplishment Instructions, 

paragraphs 2.A and 2.B, of Goodrich Service 

Bulletin No. 44301–10–17, Revision 4, dated 

July 26, 2017 (SB 44301–10–17). If the 

elastometric energy absorber has taken a 

permanent compression set, replace the 

elastometric energy absorber before the next 

hoist operation. 

(2) Replace the retaining ring by following 

the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

2.D through 2.K, of SB 44301–10–17. 

(f) Special Flight Permits 

Special flight permits may be permitted 

provided the hoist is not used. 

(g) 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: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Safety Management Section, 

Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 9-ASWFTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(h) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 

No. 2017–0199, dated October 11, 2017. You 

may view the EASA AD on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 2500, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 

2018. 

Scott A. Horn, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19430 Filed 9–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

29 CFR Part 2200 

Revisions to Procedural Rules 

Governing Practice Before the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document solicits 

recommendations for amendments to 

the Commission’s rules of procedure. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 9, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP07SE18.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45367 

1Some authorities cited herein refer to § 41102(c) 

while others refer to section 10(d)(1). For ease of 

reading, we will generally refer to § 41102(c) in 

analyzing these authorities. 

2 46 U.S.C. 41102(c). 

3Houben v. World Moving Services, Inc., 31 

S.R.R. 1400 (FMC 2010). 

4Kobel v. Hapag-Lloyd A.G., 32 S.R.R. 1720, 1731 

(2013) (‘‘The allegation that a single failure to 

‘‘observe or enforce’’ just and reasonable regulations 

or practices is not a failure does not comport with 

the language of section 10(d)(1), which mandates 

regulated entities not to ‘fail to . . . observe and 

enforce’ just and reasonable regulations and 

practices.’’). 

• Email: rbailey@oshrc.gov. Include 

‘‘Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, 29 CFR part 2200’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 202–606–5417. 

• Mail: One Lafayette Centre, 1120 

20th Street NW, Ninth Floor, 

Washington, DC 20036–3457. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mailing address. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include your name, return address, and 

email address, if applicable. Please 

clearly label submissions as ‘‘Advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 29 CFR 

part 2200.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Bailey, via telephone at 202–606–5410, 

or via email at rbailey@oshrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 29 U.S.C. 661(g), the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission last implemented a 

comprehensive revision of its rules of 

procedure in 2005. Since that time, 

technological advances, including 

implementation of the E-filing system, 

as well as the evolution of practice 

before the Commission, have called for 

a careful reexamination of the 

Commission’s rules of procedure, as set 

forth in 29 CFR part 2200. To assist in 

determining what revisions should be 

made, the agency is soliciting 

recommendations from the public. It is 

especially interested in hearing from 

those who practice before it on what 

rules their experience suggests would 

benefit from a revision. While 

recommended changes to any rule will 

be considered, the Commission is 

especially interested in whether: Rules 

on the computation of time should be 

simplified; electronic filing and service 

should be mandatory and, if so, what 

exceptions, if any, should be allowed; 

the definition of ‘‘affected employee’’ 

should be broadened; citing to 

Commission decisions as posted on the 

agency’s website should be allowed; the 

rule on the staying of a final order is not 

needed and should be eliminated; the 

requirement for agency approval of 

settlements should be narrowed or 

eliminated; the grounds for obtaining 

Commission review of interlocutory 

orders issued by its administrative law 

judges should be revised; protection of 

sensitive personal information should 

be broadened; and whether the 

threshold amount for cases referred for 

mandatory settlement proceedings 

should be increased. Comments 

suggesting a rule change should include 

a brief discussion of the reasons for the 

change, why the change would facilitate 

improved practice before the 

Commission, and a reference to 

authority where necessary. 

Dated: August 15, 2018. 

Heather L. MacDougall, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18050 Filed 9–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7600–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Part 545 

[Docket No. 18–06] 

RIN 3072–AC71 

Interpretive Rule, Shipping Act of 1984 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission (FMC or Commission) is 

seeking public comment on its 

interpretation of the scope of the 

Shipping Act prohibition against failing 

to establish, observe, and enforce just 

and reasonable regulations and practices 

relating to or connected with receiving, 

handling, storing, or delivering 

property. Specifically, the Commission 

is clarifying that the proper scope of that 

prohibition in the Shipping Act of 1984 

and the conduct covered by it is guided 

by the Commission’s interpretation and 

precedent articulated in several earlier 

Commission cases, which require that a 

regulated entity engage in a practice or 

regulation on a normal, customary, and 

continuous basis and that such practice 

or regulation is unjust or unreasonable 

in order to violate that section of the 

Shipping Act. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before: 

October 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the Docket No. 18–06 by 

the following methods: 

• Email: secretary@fmc.gov. Include 

in the subject line: ‘‘Docket 18–06, 

Interpretive Rule Comments.’’ 

Comments should be attached to the 

email as a Microsoft Word or textsearchable PDF document. Only nonconfidential and public versions of 

confidential comments should be 

submitted by email. 

• Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 

North Capitol Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20573–0001. 

• Instructions: For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments, 

including requesting confidential 

treatment of comments, and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to the Commission’s 

website, unless the commenter has 

requested confidential treatment. 

• Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the 

Commission’s Electronic Reading Room 

at: http://www.fmc.gov/18-06, or to the 

Docket Activity Library at 800 North 

Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 

20573, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Telephone: (202) 523–5725. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary; Phone: 

(202) 523–5725; Email: secretary@

fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

The Federal Maritime Commission is 

issuing this notice to obtain public 

comments on clarification and guidance 

regarding the Commission’s 

interpretation of the scope of 46 U.S.C. 

41102(c) (section 10(d)(1) of the 

Shipping Act of 1984).1 Section 

41102(c) provides that regulated entities 

‘‘may not fail to establish, observe, and 

enforce just and reasonable regulations 

and practices relating to or connected 

with receiving, handling, storing, or 

delivering property.’’ 2

Beginning with the Houben 3 decision 

in 2010 and presented in full in the 

Commission’s 2013 decision in Kobel v. 

Hapag-Lloyd, the Commission has held 

in a line of recent cases that discrete 

conduct with respect to a particular 

shipment, if determined to be unjust or 

unreasonable, represents a violation of 

§ 41102(c), regardless of whether that 

conduct represents a respondent’s 

practice or regulation.4 These decisions 

diverge from consistent Commission 

precedent dating back to 1935 and 

reaffirmed as recently as 2001 which 

required that a regulated entity must 

engage in a practice or regulation on a 

normal, customary, and continuous 

basis in order to be found to have 

violated § 41102(c) of the Shipping Act. 

In simple summary, discrete or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS