[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19564-19569]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230 and 270

[Release Nos. 33-9570; 34-71861; IC-31004; File No. S7-12-10]
RIN 3235-AK50

Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund Names
and Marketing

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for additional comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
reopening the period for public comment on rule amendments it proposed
in 2010, Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund
Names and Marketing, Securities Act Release No. 9126 (June 16, 2010).
Among other things, the proposed amendments would, if adopted, require
marketing materials for target date retirement funds (``target date
funds'') to include a table, chart, or graph depicting the fund's asset
allocation over time, i.e., an illustration of the fund's so-called
``asset allocation glide path.'' In 2013, the Commission's Investor
Advisory Committee (``Committee'') recommended that the Commission
develop a glide path illustration for target date funds that is based
on a standardized measure of fund risk as a replacement for, or
supplement to, the proposed asset allocation glide path illustration.
The Commission is reopening the comment period to seek public comment
on this recommendation.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 23,
2010 (75 FR 35919), is reopened. Comments should be received on or
before June 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. S7-12-10 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-12-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site 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. All comments received will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Investment Company Rulemaking Office,
Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is reopening the period for
public comment on proposed rule amendments that are intended to provide
enhanced information to investors concerning target date funds and
reduce the potential for investors to be confused or misled regarding
these funds.\1\ In particular, the Commission is requesting comment on
the recommendations of the Committee relating to the development of a
risk-based glide path illustration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund
Names and Marketing, Securities Act Release No. 9126 (June 16, 2010)
[75 FR 35920 (June 23, 2010)] (``Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    A target date fund is designed to make it easier for investors to
hold a diversified portfolio of assets that is rebalanced automatically
among asset classes over time without the need for each investor to
rebalance his or her own portfolio repeatedly, and is typically
intended for investors whose retirement date is at or about the fund's
stated target date. Target date funds generally invest in a diverse mix
of asset classes, including stocks, bonds, and cash and cash
equivalents (such as money market instruments). As the target date
approaches and often continuing for a significant period thereafter, a
target date fund shifts its asset allocation in a manner that generally
is intended to become more conservative--usually by decreasing the
percentage allocated to stocks. Target date funds have become more
prevalent in 401(k) plans as a result of the designation of these funds
as a qualified default investment alternative by the Department of
Labor pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006.\2\ In 2013,
assets of target date funds registered with the Commission exceeded
$500 billion, having grown from about $250 billion at the beginning of
2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Default Investment Alternatives Under Participant
Directed Individual Account Plans, 72 FR 60452, 60452-53 (Oct. 24,
2007).
    \3\ Morningstar Fund Research, Target Date Series Research
Paper: 2013 Survey, available at https://corporate.morningstar.com/us/documents/ResearchPapers/2013TargetDate.pdf (last visited Feb.
27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2010, the Commission proposed rule amendments intended to
provide enhanced information to investors concerning target date funds
and to reduce the potential for investors to be confused or misled
regarding these funds. Among other things, the proposal would, if
adopted, amend rule 482 \4\ under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') \5\ and rule 34b-1 \6\ under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') \7\ to require certain
marketing materials for target date funds to include a table, chart, or
graph depicting the fund's asset allocation over time, i.e., an
illustration of the fund's so-called ``asset allocation glide path.''
\8\ The proposed

table, chart, or graph requirement was intended to ensure that
investors who receive target date fund marketing materials also receive
basic information about the glide path. In April 2012, we reopened the
rulemaking comment period and asked for public comment in light of
empirical research undertaken by a consultant on the Commission's
behalf relating to individual investors' understanding of target date
funds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 230.482.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 77a-z-3.
    \6\ 17 CFR 270.34b-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
    \8\ We also proposed amendments to rule 482 under the Securities
Act and rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act to require that
certain target date fund marketing materials disclose information
about the risks and considerations that are important for an
investor who is deciding whether to invest in a target date fund. We
proposed amendments to these rules to require a target date fund
that includes the target date in its name to disclose its allocation
of assets at the fund's target date immediately adjacent to the
first use of the fund's name in marketing materials. Finally, we
proposed amendments to rule 156 under the Securities Act to provide
more guidance about statements that could be misleading in marketing
materials for target date funds and other investment companies. 17
CFR 230.156.
    \9\ Investment Company Advertising: Target Date Retirement Fund
Names and Marketing, Securities Act Release No. 9309 (Apr. 3, 2012)
[77 FR 20749 (Apr. 6, 2012)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2013, the Investor Advisory Committee \10\ recommended,
among other things, that the Commission develop a glide path
illustration for target date funds that is based on a standardized
measure of fund risk as either a replacement for, or supplement to, the
proposed asset allocation glide path illustration. The Committee also
recommended that the Commission adopt a standard methodology or
methodologies to be used in the risk-based glide path illustration.\11\
The Committee stated that much of the differences in risk among target
date funds can be explained by differences in asset allocation models
and glide paths, but that choices of assets within the various asset
classes and other risk management practices can also have a significant
impact on fund risk levels. The Committee also stated that asset
allocation may mask significant differences in the risk levels of funds
with apparently similar or even identical asset allocation glide paths,
particularly when the asset classes are defined broadly. The Committee
therefore opined that a glide path illustration based on an
appropriate, standardized measure of fund risk would be more accurate
than an illustration based on asset allocation alone. The Committee
suggested that, to promote comparability, risk-based illustrations
should be based on a standardized measure of risk. The Committee did
not recommend a particular risk measure or methodology for a risk-based
glide path for target date funds, but suggested that the Commission
focus on factors such as volatility of returns or maximum exposure to
loss, which the Committee stated are directly relevant to the primary
concerns of those approaching retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act added section 39 to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, which establishes the Investor Advisory Committee. The
Committee advises and consults with the Commission on regulatory
priorities, issues, and initiatives and submits findings and
recommendations to the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78pp(a). The Commission
reviews the findings and recommendations of the Committee and
determines what action, if any, to take. 15 U.S.C. 78pp(g).
    \11\ Recommendation of the Investor Advisory Committee: Target
Date Mutual Funds (Apr. 11, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/investor-advisory-committee-2012/iac-recommendation-target-date-fund.pdf. The Committee also recommended that the
Commission (i) adopt a standard methodology or methodologies to be
used in the asset allocation glide path illustration; (ii) require
target date fund prospectuses to disclose and clearly explain the
policies and assumptions used to design and manage the target date
offerings to attain the target risk level over the life of the fund;
(iii) consider testing various approaches to providing disclosure
that a target date fund is not guaranteed in order to determine the
most effective approach and then mandate that approach; and (iv)
amend the fee disclosure requirements for target date funds to
provide better information about the likely impact of fund fees on
total accumulations over the expected holding period of the
investment. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Comment

    The Commission has decided to reopen the comment period to address
the Committee's recommendation that the Commission develop a risk-based
glide path illustration for target date funds. We also invite
additional comment on any other aspect of the recommendations and
accompanying material submitted by the Committee, on our proposal, and
on any other matters that may have an effect on the proposal.
    In our target date fund proposal, we asked for comment on whether
the proposed disclosure requirements would adequately convey the risks
associated with a target date fund. For example, we asked if the
proposed disclosure of asset allocation would effectively convey the
level of a fund's investment risk to investors, and if the emphasis on
asset allocation might cause investors to prioritize investment risk
over longevity risk, inflation risk, or other risks.\12\ We also asked
whether fund managers might take on more risk than the asset allocation
would reflect.\13\ We also sought comment on whether the rule should
require disclosure of a risk rating based on a scale or index that
could be compared to other target date funds.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Proposing Release, supra note 1, at 35926-27.
    \13\ Id. at 35927 (``Would a fund manager's investment strategy,
portfolio construction, selection of asset categories disclosed, and
marketing change as a result of the proposal's required disclosure
of target date (or current) asset allocation? For example, might
fund managers compose the fund's fixed-income allocation differently
to take on additional investment risk, in order to seek higher
returns, while showing a lower equity allocation at or after the
target date?'').
    \14\ Id. at 35928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments that we received on this issue, however, were limited.
Some commenters suggested alternative approaches to the glide path
illustration that would require a risk-based illustration, rather than
an illustration of the fund's changing investments in asset classes
over time. For example, commenters recommended that we require: (i)
Portfolio risk-related information, data, or graphs along with asset
allocation information; \15\ (ii) the planned risk level in the glide
path disclosure, for example, by presenting the planned standard
deviation of returns over the life of the fund; \16\ (iii) a color- and
number-coded risk spectrum showing a fund's position relative to an
appropriate target date fund index; \17\ or (iv) whether the fund
reflects aggressive, moderate, or conservative risk characteristics,
based on certain benchmarks.\18\ Another commenter expressed skepticism
about the feasibility of establishing a standardized risk rating for
target date funds, and stated that developing such a rating would be
``an enormous undertaking with questionable benefit that is
significantly beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Comment Letter of Chao & Company, Ltd. (July 6, 2012).
    \16\ See Comment Letter of Foliofn Investments Inc. (Mar. 28,
2011); Comment Letter of Foliofn Investments Inc. (May 21, 2012).
    \17\ See Comment Letter of Wells Fargo (May 21, 2012).
    \18\ See Comment Letter of SST Benefits Consulting (Apr. 9,
2012).
    \19\ See Comment Letter of the Investment Company Institute
(Aug. 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the limited nature of the comments received, and in
light of the Committee's recommendation, we believe further comment in
this area would be helpful. As set out further below, we request
comment on whether we should develop a glide path illustration for
target date funds that is based on a standardized measure of risk as
either a replacement for, or supplement to, our proposed asset
allocation glide path. We ask that any comment provide specific
examples and available data in support of the comment.
    Management of Target Date Funds According to Risk. We request
comment on the degree to which managers of target date funds use
measures of risk as part of their investment strategy.
     Are target date fund strategies primarily based on a
changing target risk level or a changing target asset

allocation over time, or some combination of these approaches? If
target risk levels are used, what risk measures are generally employed?
     Do managers instead first set an asset allocation strategy
and then monitor the risks that follow from the asset allocation? If
so, what risk measures do they generally monitor?
     Are there other ways in which target date fund managers
use risk measures? If so, please describe those ways and the particular
risk measures used.
    Usefulness and Understandability of Risk Measures. We request
comment on whether there are quantitative measures of risk that would
be useful to and understandable by investors as the basis for a target
date fund risk-based glide path illustration.\20\ We note that there
are a variety of quantitative measures of risk used in the financial
services industry. Some target date funds already provide quantitative
risk measures in certain materials on a historical basis.\21\ For
example, the risk associated with a portfolio can be captured by the
variability of its returns, measured by the standard deviation \22\ (or
volatility) or semi-variance of those returns.\23\ Both of these risk
measures are ``total risk measures'' that quantify the total
variability of a portfolio's returns around, or below, its average
return. Another risk measure is ``beta,'' which specifically measures
the sensitivity of the portfolio's return to the market's return. The
market's beta is by definition equal to 1. Portfolios with betas
greater than 1 tend to move more than one-for-one with the market's
return, and portfolios with betas less than 1 tend to move less than
one-for-one with the market's return. Determination of a fund's beta
requires the selection of a benchmark market index to which one
compares the portfolio's returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In 1995, the Commission issued a release requesting comment
on how to improve risk disclosure for investment companies,
including ways to increase the comparability of fund risk levels.
Improving Descriptions of Risk by Mutual Funds and Other Investment
Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 20974 (Mar. 29, 1995)
[60 FR 17172 (Apr. 4, 1995)] (``Risk Concept Release''). In
particular, the Risk Concept Release requested comment on whether
quantitative risk measures--such as standard deviation, beta, and
duration--would help investors evaluate and compare fund risks. We
received over 3,700 comment letters, mostly from individual
investors. Commenters confirmed the importance of risk disclosure to
investors when evaluating and comparing funds and highlighted the
need to improve risk disclosures in fund prospectuses. Although more
than half of the individual commenters and some industry members
expressed a desire for some form of quantitative risk information,
commenters did not broadly support any one risk measure, and the
Commission acknowledged that investors have a wide range of ideas of
what ``risk'' means. See Registration Form Used by Open-End
Management Investment Companies, Investment Company Release No.
23064 (Mar. 13, 1998) [63 FR 13916, 13929 (Mar. 23, 1998)]
(``Registration Form Adopting Release''). In 1997, the Commission
proposed a requirement that a fund's prospectus include a bar chart
showing the fund's annual returns for 10 calendar years, noting that
over 75% of individual investors responding to the Risk Concept
Release favored a bar chart presentation of fund risks. See
Registration Form Used by Open-End Management Investment Companies,
Investment Company Act Release No. 22528 (Feb. 27, 1997) [62 FR
10898, 10904 (Mar. 10, 1997)]. The Commission subsequently adopted
the bar chart requirement, which was intended to illustrate
graphically the variability of a fund's returns and thus provide
investors with some idea of the risk of an investment in the fund.
See Registration Form Adopting Release, at 13922.
    \21\ Based on a staff review of target date fund marketing
materials.
    \22\ See, e.g., Morningstar Investing Glossary: Standard
Deviation, Morningstar, http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/standard_deviation.aspx (last visited Jan. 17, 2014) (``Investors
use the standard deviation of historical performance to try to
predict the range of returns that are most likely for a given fund.
When a fund has a high standard deviation, the predicted range of
performance is wide, implying greater volatility.'').
    \23\ Standard deviation measures both ``good'' and ``bad''
outcomes, i.e., the variability of returns both above and below the
average return. Semi-variance, which can be used to measure the
variability of returns below the average return, reflects a view of
risk as synonymous with ``bad'' outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is there a particular quantitative risk measure, or group
of risk measures, that are helpful in evaluating the risks of target
date funds? Would fund investors be likely to understand these risk
measures and be able to effectively use them in making investment
decisions?
     The Committee recommended that the Commission, in
determining an appropriate risk measure, focus on factors such as
maximum exposure to loss or volatility of returns that are directly
relevant to the primary concerns of those approaching retirement. Do
commenters agree with this approach? If so, what are the primary
concerns of those approaching retirement and what specific measures of
risk would be directly relevant to those concerns? Are there other risk
factors that are relevant to target date fund investors, including
longevity risk and inflation risk? In determining an appropriate
measure of risk, how should various aspects of risk be considered? How
should concerns of investors at different points in the cycle of
accumulating and distributing retirement assets be addressed?
     If we require disclosure of a risk measure, should we
require such disclosure at only a single point in time, such as the
target date, or should we require disclosure of the measure at multiple
points over the life of the fund? If the latter, which specific points
over the life of the fund?
     Should a target date fund be required to disclose the same
measure or measures that the fund's manager uses to guide its
management of the fund, or would other measures be more appropriate?
     Should the risk measure reflect the variance, or
volatility, in returns around the fund's average return? Should the
measure, instead, reflect the sensitivity of the portfolio's return to
the market's return? Or should some other type of risk measure be used?
Should these risk measures reflect the characteristics of nominal
returns or real returns, which account for the effect of inflation?
    Illustration of Risk Measures. We request comment on whether the
Commission should develop a glide path illustration for target date
funds that is based on a standardized measure of fund risk as either a
replacement for, or supplement to, its proposed asset allocation glide
path illustration and adopt a standard methodology or methodologies to
be used in the risk-based glide path illustration.
     Should the rules require a glide path illustration for
target date funds that is based on a standardized measure of fund risk
as either a replacement for, or supplement to, the proposed asset
allocation glide path illustration? Would the inclusion of two glide
path illustrations in the same document tend to confuse investors, and,
if so, how could the information be presented in a way that would
minimize any confusion?
     Would the proposed asset allocation glide path
illustration, without a risk-based glide path illustration, adequately
convey risk information to investors? If not, would an asset allocation
glide path illustration alone adequately convey risk information if we
specify the particular asset categories required to be shown? If so,
how narrow should those asset categories be, and what particular asset
categories should we specify? Could risk information be adequately
conveyed to investors using narrative disclosures in lieu of a glide
path illustration?
     What are the advantages and disadvantages of asset
allocation glide paths and risk-based glide paths relative to each
other? If the rules should require a risk-based glide path, what risk
measure(s) should be prescribed and how should the risk measures be
presented? Please provide specific examples.
     Should a risk-based glide path illustration be required
for all target date

funds, regardless of a fund's investment objective or strategies?
Should a risk-based glide path illustration instead be required only
for target date funds with an investment objective or strategy of
managing to a target risk level?
     Should a risk-based glide path illustration be backward-
looking (showing past actual risk measures of a target date fund or
group of target date funds) or forward-looking (showing projected risk
targets for a target date fund or family of target date funds)?
Commenters are asked to address, with specificity, how each of these
approaches could be applied to a single target date fund or group of
target date funds. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each
approach, e.g., ease of construction, understandability, or potential
to confuse or mislead?
     If we require a risk-based glide path illustration, should
we prescribe the format of the risk-based glide path illustration in
order to enhance comparability for investors? For example, would one
form (e.g., graph) be more easily understandable by investors than
another (e.g., table)?
     If we require a risk-based glide path illustration, should
we require it to be prominent within the materials where it is
included? Are there other presentation requirements that would be more
appropriate?
     Should there be differences in requirements for marketing
materials that relate to a single target date fund, as compared with
those that relate to multiple target date funds? Should a risk-based
glide path illustration for a single target date fund be required to
show the fund's actual historical risk levels? Would the use of actual
historical risk levels be helpful or confusing to investors in cases
where a fund has changed its previous glide path? Should the risk-based
glide path illustration for a single target date fund instead be
permitted to show the current glide path that is common to all target
date funds in a fund family? Would it be misleading for marketing
materials for a single target date fund to omit the fund's historical
risk levels?
     Should the risk-based glide path illustration for a single
target date fund be required to clearly depict the current risk level?
Should we require the risk level as of the most recent calendar quarter
ended prior to the submission of the marketing materials for
publication? Are there any circumstances where we should permit the
risk-based glide path illustration for a single target date fund to
exclude risk levels for past periods? If we permit a single target date
fund to exclude past risk levels in any circumstances, should we
nonetheless prohibit a fund from excluding past risk levels if the
marketing materials contain past performance information for the fund?
Are past risk levels helpful to allow an investor to assess the
performance of the target date fund relative to the risk taken? Would
disclosure of past performance information without disclosure of past
risk levels confuse or mislead investors?
     What is the appropriate maximum interval for depicting a
fund's risk level over time? Is the maximum five-year interval that we
proposed for an asset allocation glide path appropriate? Should it be
shorter (e.g., 1 year or 3 years) or longer (e.g., 10, 15, or 20
years)? Are there any periods for which intervals of shorter duration
should be shown? For example, should the risk-based glide path
illustration depict the five years before the target date and/or
landing point (i.e., the date at which the asset allocation becomes
static) using one-year intervals? Is it necessary to require any
particular interval? Is it appropriate to require risk levels at the
fund's inception, target date, and landing point?
     Would a required explanatory statement preceding or
accompanying the risk-based glide path illustration be helpful to
investors? What information would be necessary? Should we prescribe the
particular content of the statement? Should any of the following
information be required in an explanatory statement: (i) The investment
risk level changes over time; (ii) the landing point; (iii) an
explanation that the investment risk level becomes fixed at the landing
point and the projected risk level at the landing point; (iv) whether,
and the extent to which, the intended risk levels may be modified
without a shareholder vote; and (v) an explanation of risks that are
not captured by the illustration? Should the statement be required to
use particular language? Should any particular presentation
requirements, such as font size or style, apply to the statement that
is required to accompany the risk-based glide path illustration?
     Should radio and television advertisements be required to
include information about a target date fund's risk-based glide path?
What information should be required to be included in radio and
television advertisements? For example, is there a means of effectively
communicating information comparable to that contained in a risk-based
glide path illustration in radio or television advertisements?
     Should information about a target date fund's risk-based
glide path be required in marketing materials that are submitted for
use on or after the landing point?
     Are there alternative presentations of risk-based measures
that would be more helpful to target date fund investors than a risk-
based glide path? For example, would it be more helpful to require
disclosure of risk measure targets at particular points in time (e.g.,
target date, landing point) rather than requiring an illustration over
the whole life of a target date fund? If so, which points in time would
be most important to investors? Should the measures, for example, focus
on the target date, landing point, and/or the time period within 5 to
10 years before and after the target date?
    Placement of Risk-Based Glide Path Illustration. We request comment
on the materials, if any, in which a risk-based glide path illustration
for target date funds should be included.
     Are marketing materials for target date funds an
appropriate location for inclusion of a risk-based glide path
illustration or other information about risk measures? Should
illustrations instead be part of the mandated disclosures in a fund's
summary prospectus, statutory prospectus, statement of additional
information, shareholder reports, or other reports to the Commission?
    Calculation of Risk Measures. We request comment on whether
required risk measures, if adopted in final rules, should be based on a
standardized methodology or methodologies developed by the Commission.
     Should we try to enhance comparability among target date
funds by prescribing a standardized methodology for computing a fund's
historical and/or projected risk levels?
     What are the parameters and assumptions that the
Commission would need to specify in order to prescribe a standardized
methodology, e.g., the measures to be used, benchmarks, time periods
over which calculated?
     For risk measures that are calculated using a benchmark
index (e.g., beta), what issues, if any, are associated with the
selection of an appropriate benchmark? Do any quantitative risk
measures rely on assumptions, other than a benchmark, that could lead
to lack of standardization if not specified by the Commission? Can
quantitative risk measures be manipulated, and how do the various
measures differ in their susceptibility to manipulation? How can the
potential for such manipulation be reduced or eliminated?
     Should the risk measures reflect the target date fund's
predictions about

future risk or goals related to future risk? In what manner should
these risk measures incorporate historical data from a particular
target date fund or group of target date funds? To what extent can
historical data predict future risk?
     If a forward-looking risk measure is used, should the risk
measure be calculated using portfolio-based computation, which
calculates a portfolio risk measure at each point in time based on the
historical behavior of the securities or asset classes that the
portfolio is expected to include at that point in time? Should the risk
measure instead be a risk objective or target? Do the merits of each
approach differ among funds or groups of funds with significant
operating histories, new funds, and/or funds that have flexibility to
change their risk-based glide paths?
     If a standard based on historical risk characteristics
were adopted, what requirements should be imposed on funds with a short
operating history?
     Persons submitting comments are also asked to describe as
specifically as possible the computation method they would recommend
for any quantitative risk measure they favor. For example, persons
favoring standard deviation should specify whether monthly returns,
quarterly returns, or returns over some other period should be used. As
another example, persons favoring beta should describe the benchmark or
benchmarks that should be used. Persons submitting comments are also
asked to discuss the benefits and limitations associated with their
recommended method of computation.
    Impact on Investors. We request comment on the impact that
disclosure of risk measures and risk-based glide paths would have on
investors.
     Would investors in target date funds be likely to
understand risk measures, or any related illustrations based on those
measures? What means could be used to present risk measures for target
date funds in a way that would be understandable to investors? Could
investors interpret risk-based illustrations as predicting the future
returns of the fund? Can future risk levels of a target date fund be
projected in a manner that is likely to be accurate? Could the use of
projected or target risk measures be misleading and, if so, under what
circumstances?
     Would investors be confused if a measure of risk is
characterized as ``risk''? Should the disclosure of risk measures use
the term ``risk,'' or some other term such as volatility, variance, or
variability? Should the terminology distinguish investment risk from
other risks, e.g., inflation risk or longevity risk?
     How would investor behavior be affected by disclosure of a
particular risk measure? Could disclosure of risk measures influence
investors to choose investments that better align with their individual
investment objective or could it reduce alignment between investment
objectives and investor behavior? For example, could disclosure of risk
measures influence investors to choose lower or higher risk investments
than would be consistent with their goals for accumulating retirement
assets? Commenters are asked to provide their views and any supporting
data about the impact of risk measures on investor behavior.
     One potential effect of risk disclosures may be to cause
investors or fund managers to place too much importance on the prospect
of investment loss. This effect could potentially be offset by
counterbalancing information on the prospect of investment gains. To
what extent should investors receive information on future expected
returns on investment to accompany information on risk? Would investors
understand what the information would portray? Would such information
cause investors to believe that the expected returns imply some level
of guarantee or projection of future performance? How should this
expected return be computed if it is required? If investors are to
receive this information, how best should it be disclosed or presented?
Should expected return information be provided as a statistic separate
from risk measures or integrated with risk measures as with a
confidence interval for returns?
     Would forward-looking disclosures such as projected future
volatility (or other risk measures) or expected returns give rise to
potential liability concerns? If so, what relief would be necessary to
allow funds to provide such disclosures?
     To what extent might special emphasis on investment risk
level or asset allocation cause investors to prioritize investment risk
at a particular moment in time over longevity risk, inflation risk, or
other risks? Should we require additional disclosure to focus investor
attention on inflation risks and longevity risks? Are there useful
measures of risk that reflect longevity and inflation risk as well as
investment risk?
    Effects on Portfolio Management. We recognize that required
disclosures may affect the management of a fund, such as by causing a
fund to adopt investment strategies that result in disclosure that
could be perceived more favorably by investors.
     Comments are requested regarding whether, and how,
disclosure of a quantitative risk measure or risk-based glide path for
target date funds might influence portfolio management. What would be
the associated benefits and detriments? For example, might disclosure
of a risk measure by target date funds cause those funds to become more
conservative either throughout their glide paths or at certain points
on the glide path? If so, how would this affect investors, including
investors who are accumulating assets for retirement? Commenters are
asked to provide data about the impact of risk measures on portfolio
management decisions.
    Benefits and Costs. We request comment on the benefits and costs of
possible risk disclosure requirements.
     What would be the benefits and costs of requiring a glide
path illustration for target date funds that is based on a standardized
measure of fund risk as either a replacement for, or supplement to, our
proposed asset allocation glide path illustration and adopting a
standard methodology or methodologies to be used in the risk-based
glide path illustration? What effects would such a requirement have on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation? For instance, would
such disclosure increase allocative efficiency by increasing the
transparency of the underlying risks of target date investing? Would it
have an effect on competition among target date funds or between target
date funds and other types of investment options? Commenters are
requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their
views to the extent possible.
     If we were to require disclosure of a risk-based glide
illustration, what changes in behavior by either investors or target
date fund managers may result, and what would be the associated
benefits and costs?
     To what extent do target date fund managers already
undertake risk analysis in the course of prudent risk management? Do
target date funds already calculate the types of risk measures
discussed above? If so, how and in what form? Is there an industry
standard for calculation of risk measures, and, if so, what is it?
     If a target date fund does not already calculate the risk
measures discussed above, what would the costs--such as programming
costs--of calculating such measures be?
     How would the costs and the effects on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation of requiring disclosure of a risk-
based glide path compare with the

costs and effects of the proposed requirements? For example, would a
risk-based glide path enhance comparability across different target
date funds?

     Dated: April 3, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07869 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


TO: File
FROM: Mike Gordon
THRU: Marcos Aquino
DATE:
                        TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR:

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 62

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

RELATED ACTIONS: Proposed rule and direct final rule.

I.  Background
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require submittal of plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same source category and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources.  When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant.  Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from designated facilities under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.  Also, Subpart A of 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for
the submission of these plans.

If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, the CAA provides the EPA the authority to prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a federal plan, is often delegated to states with designated facilities but no EPA approved state-specific plan.  If no such designated facilities exist within a state's jurisdiction, a state may submit to the EPA a letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.  A negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to submit a CAA section 111(d)/section 129 plan for that designated pollutant and source category.  40 CFR 60.23(b).

II. Sewage Sludge Incinerators
On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15372), EPA promulgated SSI unit new source performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, and emission guidelines, subpart MMMM.  The designated facilities to which the EG apply are existing SSI units that: 1) commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010; 2) that meet the definition of a SSI unit as defined in §60.5250; and 3) are not exempt under §60.5065.

As discussed above, if there are no designated facilities in the state, the state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan.  If any subsequently identified existing SSI unit is found in a state that had submitted a negative declaration, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines for subpart MMMM would automatically apply to that SSI unit until a state plan is approved.

III.  State Submittals and EPA Analysis
The City of Philadelphia through the Department of Public Health, Air Management Services in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia AMS) has determined that there are no SSI units subject to CAA 111(d)/129 requirements in their respective jurisdictional boundaries.  Accordingly, Philadelphia AMS has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact on March 28, 2012.  This negative declaration letter is in the docket for this action and are available online at www.regulations.gov.

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the receipt of the negative declaration letter from the Philadelphia AMS.  EPA accepts this negative declaration as meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 60.23(b).  Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subpart NN (Pennsylvania).  With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency's jurisdiction; it does not include the remaining geographical areas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14801-14802]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1046]

Veterinary Oversight of Antimicrobial Use in Livestock: Impact on
Stakeholders; Public Meetings; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing plans for
five meetings to provide an opportunity for public dialogue and
feedback on challenges faced by the animal agriculture industry and
practicing veterinarians as FDA implements its initiative for the
judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in medicated feed
or drinking water of food-producing animals. Particular emphasis will
be placed on challenges faced by animal producers in areas that may
lack access to adequate veterinary services. The meetings are jointly
sponsored by FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

DATES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Arnwine, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855;<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Dates, Times, and Locations

     April 9, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Western
Kentucky University-Carroll Knicely Conference Center (Auditorium rm.
138), 2355 Nashville Rd., Bowling Green, KY 42101;<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:
270-745-1911; http://www.wku.edu/.
     April 23, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Evergreen
State College (Library 4300), 2700 Evergreen Pkwy. NW., Olympia WA
98505;<PHONE_NUMBER> or 6000; http://www.evergreen.edu/home.htm.
     May 8, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., The Natural
Resource Research Center, USDA Animal and Plant Health & Inspection
Service, Veterinary Services, Centers for Epidemiology & Animal Health,
2150 Centre Ave. (Building B, Gray's Peak Conference Rooms A & B), Fort
Collins, CO 80526-8117;<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/about_aphis/programs_offices/veterinary_services/ceah.shtml.
     May 21, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Best Western
Ramkota Hotel & Conference Center (Amphitheater II), 920 West Sioux
Ave., Pierre, SD 57501;<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>; http://pierre.bwramkota.com/.
     June 4, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Texas A&M
University (Memorial Student Center, rm. 2406A), Joe Routt Boulevard
and Houston Street, College Station, TX 77840;<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX: 979-
845-2519; http://www.tamu.edu/.
    Oral Presentations: Interested persons may make oral presentations
on the topic of the discussion of the meeting. Oral presentations from
the public during the open public comment period will be scheduled
approximately:
     April 9, 2013, from 9:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the day of the
meeting in Bowling Green, KY;
     April 23, 2013, from 9:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the day of
the meeting in Olympia, WA;
     May 8, 2013, from 9:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the day of the
meeting in Fort Collins, CO;
     May 21, 2013, from 9:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the day of the
meeting in Pierre, SD; and
     June 4, 2013, from 9:45 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the day of the
meeting in College Station, TX.
    Although prior notification is not required, it is recommended that
those desiring to make oral presentations notify the contact person
before the meeting. In an effort to accommodate all who desire to
speak, time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
    Registration is not required for these meetings; however, early
arrival is recommended because seating may be limited. If you need
special accommodations due to a disability, please contact FDA (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance.
    Comments: Regardless of attendance at the public meetings,
interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments
regarding the topics to be discussed at these meetings. Submit
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written
comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is
only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The docket will
remain open for written or electronic comments for 60 days following
the last of these five meetings.
    FDA is concerned about the risk that antimicrobial resistance poses
to public health from the use of medically important antimicrobial
drugs in food-producing animals. Over the past several years, FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine has developed a policy framework for
decreasing this public health risk through the application of concepts
of judicious use. Among these concepts, FDA believes that it is
important to include veterinary oversight in the use of medically
important antimicrobial drugs in the feed or water of food-producing
animals to assure the drugs' appropriate and judicious use.
    Until the early 1990s, most antimicrobial drugs were approved for
over-the-counter (OTC) use in food-producing animals. However, since
that time increasing concerns about antimicrobial resistance and
evolving understanding of the science related to the issue have
resulted in greater scrutiny of the conditions under which these drugs
are approved. As a result, since the early 1990s all new approvals for
antimicrobial drug products for use in food-producing animals have been

labeled with veterinary prescription (Rx) or veterinary feed directive
(VFD) marketing status, with the exception of approvals of generic
copies of existing OTC products and approvals of combination medicated
feeds using existing OTC antimicrobial Type A medicated articles. This
shift to a marketing status requiring veterinary oversight has been
viewed as an important step to mitigate the microbial food safety risks
of antimicrobial new animal drugs, particularly for those drugs
considered to be medically important.
    FDA believes that the judicious use of medically important
antimicrobial drugs intended for use in food-producing animals requires
the scientific and clinical training of a licensed veterinarian. In the
Federal Register of April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22328), FDA announced the
availability of a Guidance for Industry (GFI) 209 entitled
``The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-
Producing Animals'' that outlines several recommendations regarding the
judicious use of medically important antimicrobials, including the need
for veterinary oversight or consultation when these antimicrobials are
used in medicated feed or medicated drinking water of food-producing
animals (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM216936.pdf).
    Accordingly, in the same issue of the Federal Register (77 FR
22327, April 13, 2012), FDA published a notice announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry (GFI 213)
entitled ``New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products
Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-
Producing Animals; Recommendations for Aligning Product Use Conditions
With GFI 209.'' In draft GFI 213 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf), FDA is recommending that affected
drug sponsors revise the conditions of use of their medically important
antimicrobial new animal drugs and combination new animal drug products
from OTC to VFD status for medicated feed products and from OTC to Rx
status for medicated drinking water products. Also, the draft guidance
proposes timelines for stakeholders wishing to comply voluntarily with
the guidance.
    The following antimicrobial drugs, in products administered in the
feed or water of food-producing animals, are covered under draft GFI
213: Chlortetracycline, erythromycin, lincomycin, neomycin,
oxytetracycline, penicillin, spectinomycin, sulfamethazine, tylosin,
and virginiamycin.\1\ Ionophore drugs are not included under draft GFI
213. FDA is currently reviewing the comments it received on
draft GFI 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information related to animal drugs in the
classes of medically important antimicrobials, see Appendix A of GFI
152 entitled ``Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New
Animal Drugs with Regard to Their Microbiological Effects on
Bacteria of Human Health Concern'' (http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm042450.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the FDA has completed its review of comments, the Agency will
draft and publish final GFI 213. FDA anticipates that sponsors
of affected products should be able to complete implementation of the
changes discussed in this draft guidance within 3 years from the date
of publication of the final version of this guidance.
    Also in that same issue of the Federal Register (77 FR 22247, April
13, 2012), FDA provided the draft text of a proposed regulation (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-13/pdf/2012-8844.pdf) to streamline
and modernize the current VFD regulation (21 CFR 558.6) which governs
veterinary oversight and authorization of the use of certain animal
drugs in medicated feed. The public comment period for that document
remained open until July 12, 2012. FDA is currently reviewing the
comments it received on the draft proposed regulation. After completion
of this review, the Agency will draft and publish the proposed VFD
regulation.
    FDA acknowledges that changing the marketing status of certain
antimicrobial drugs to require the involvement of a licensed
veterinarian has practical implications for animal producers and
practicing veterinarians. Once the status is changed from OTC to Rx or
VFD, producers will no longer be able to purchase the animal drug or
medicated feed product directly from suppliers, unless the producer has
a valid prescription or order from a licensed veterinarian. The impact
of this change on producers may vary depending on the extent to which a
given producer already has access to and utilizes veterinary services.
This change also has potential impact on practicing veterinarians
depending on their practice (business) model.
    FDA is seeking additional input as it moves forward to further
develop and implement its judicious-use policy, including the plan to
phase in veterinary oversight or consultation in the use of medically
important antimicrobial drugs. As part of this input gathering effort,
FDA is partnering with APHIS to conduct a series of five meetings (see
DATES and ADDRESSES) to provide the public with opportunities to
discuss and provide critical feedback on the challenges faced by
stakeholders generally, and livestock producers and practicing
veterinarians in particular, as FDA phases in veterinary oversight of
the therapeutic use of medically important antimicrobials. During these
meetings, particular emphasis will be placed on discussing the
potential challenges faced by producers in areas of the country that
may lack access to adequate veterinary services and on exploring
possible options for minimizing such impacts. FDA also will seek public
input through other forums, for example, Webinars, as it works
collaboratively with the USDA, along with veterinary and producer
organizations, to help address this important issue. Comments also may
be made to the FDA docket at any time (see Comments).
    Agenda: The meeting will allow for public comment and discussion
regarding the judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in food-producing
animals. The following specific questions will be discussed at the
upcoming meetings:
    (1) What is the current availability of veterinary services for
your facility and how do you utilize this care?;
    (2) How would the proposed changes in marketing status for
medically important antimicrobials to VFD/Rx and proposed revisions to
the VFD regulations affect your operation or practice?; and
    (3) What are some possible solutions or models for access of
veterinary services that would benefit your operation in light of these
changes?
    The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the
Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferencesMeetings/default.htm and will be posted to the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 4, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-05339 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2774-2775]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2003-15754]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated December 16, 2011, the Reading, Blue Mountain and
Northern Railroad (RBMN) has petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or
modification of a signal system. FRA has reopened and assigned the
application Docket Number FRA-2003-15754.
    Applicant: Reading, Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad, Mr.
Jonathan Barket, AVP, Communications & Signals, 1 Railroad Boulevard,
Port Clinton, Pennsylvania 19549.
    RBMN seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of the automatic
block signal (ABS) system on Track 1 on the main line and Lehighton
Branch, Lehigh Division, between Milepost (MP) 119.3, Lehighton, and MP
130.6, Independence, PA.
    The reason given for the proposed change is that the signal system
has been out of service since being damaged by weather in December
2003. RBMN applied, in Docket Number FRA-2003-15754, for an extension
to the time allowed to repair the signal system after the damage. The
application was denied due to not being filed correctly. At the time,
there was another railroad operating in the application area and the
application was not submitted as a joint application. RBMN did not
resubmit a joint application as requested in FRA's decision letter
denying the application. In the ensuing years, operations have changed,
with RBMN being the sole operator on the trackage involved. RBMN
records indicate that the ABS has been out of service since before the
August 1996 acquisition of this section of railroad. Since the
acquisition, RBMN states they have operated this section by means of
Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee (NORAC) Form D permits.
FRA records continue to show the area being operated under NORAC Rule
251. Therefore RBMN requests to discontinue the ABS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200

New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 5, 2012 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-1003 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76438-76441]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket Number: FAA-2013-0392]

Notice for Data and Information Distribution Policy

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy for Distribution of FAA Data & Information.

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

SUMMARY: On April 24, 2013, FAA issued a proposed Data and Information
Distribution Policy for public comment; 140 comments were received
during the open comment period. On May 9, 2013, subsequent to the FAA's
draft policy release, Executive Order (EO) 13642 ``Making Open and
Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information,'' and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) M-13-13 ``Open Data Policy--
Managing Information as an Asset,'' were issued. In this notice, FAA
addresses all comments received, and announces the FAA's Data and
Information Distribution Policy, developed in accordance with EO13642
and OMB M-13-13.

DATES: Effective Dates: December 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may direct any questions on data
and information policy to the FAA/ATO Data Management Directorate staff
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Executive Order, Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default
for Government Information EO 13642, issued May 9, 2013.
    E-Government & Information Technology Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347,
116 stat, 2899, 44 U.S.C. &101, H.R. 2458/S. 803).
    Open Government Directive, OMB Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, M-10-06, issued December 8, 2009.
    Office of Management and Budget, OMB Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, M-13-13, issued May 9, 2013.
    Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,
Executive Order 13576, issued July 13, 2011.
    Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service,
Executive Order 13571, issued April 27, 2011.
    Digital Government Strategy, Building A 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, issued May 23, 2012.
    Management of Federal Information Resources, Office of Management
and

Budget Circular A-130, issued November 28, 2000.
    Background: The FAA objective is to make data and information
resources accessible, discoverable, and usable by the public in
accordance with EO 13642 and OMB M-13-13. This is a transition away
from FAA's historic approach of having multiple direct connections to
FAA systems by a limited number of users. The new distribution policy
will enhance data and information security and sharing, while reducing
the cost of developing and maintaining multiple interfaces/direct
connections currently used to distribute FAA data and information. This
change will help FAA protect the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of data and information services to the public and to
other government users. This policy supports the discovery and
distribution of data and information while supporting FAA's ability to
effectively manage and secure its data and information assets. The
current processing of requests for historical FAA data and information
handled under existing procedures such as Freedom of Information Act or
similar processes is not changed by this policy.
    E.O. 13642 and OMB M-13-13, Open Data Policy comments--Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, Airport Council International North
America, Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), Boeing, Bruel &
Kjaer, Center for Effective Government, FlightAware, Harris, Los
Angeles World Airport, Miami-Dade Aviation Department, SAAB Sensis,
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Sunlight Foundation, Honeywell,
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and WSI all expressed, in various ways, the
concern that the FAA's proposed distribution policy would limit their
access to FAA data and information; some commenters stated the draft
policy was contrary to OMB M-13-13 Open Data Policy. The final FAA Data
and Information Distribution Policy has been revised to reflect these
concerns consistent with the applicable Executive orders and OMB
guidance. Specifically the policy is consistent with OMB's M-13-13 Open
Data Policy which allows for valid restriction for ``privacy,
confidentiality, security, trade secret, contractual or other valid
restriction''. Despite those restrictions, access to FAA data and
information will generally be more available to all users under this
Policy. Users will continue to have to employ their own methods or
software to process the FAA data and information that is made
available. Data and information will not be tailored for one user (or
users) absent specific agreements that include full FAA cost recovery.
    Inconsistent with ``NextGen Objectives''--Airport Council
International North America, Boeing, FlightAware, ForeFlight, and
Harris expressed many of NextGen capabilities are predicted on the
availability and use of common air traffic data among certain users
such as the FAA, aircraft operators, and airport operators. Under this
Policy, FAA will strive for maximum data interoperability and
accessibility to all users in accordance with OMB Open Data Policy
implementation guidance.
    ``Monopoly'' comments--Airlines for America, Airport Council
International North America, Air Transport Association of Canada
(ATAC), Boeing, FlightAware, ForeFlight, Los Angeles World Airport,
Miami-Dade Aviation Department, SAAB Sensis, Sunlight Foundation,
Harris, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon expressed concern that
FAA has previously limited data distribution by empowering certain
entities, via contract, to have exclusive access to air traffic or NAS
(National Air System) data. In addition, there were comments that
contract practices, driven by a desire to re-coup cost of providing
data to users, would undermine the principle of non-exclusivity of
data. In accordance with the OMB M-13-13 Open Data Policy and as noted
above, FAA will make more data and information accessible to the public
and other government agencies as used by the FAA to conduct its
statutory activities.
    Data and Information Management comments--SAAB Sensis expressed
concern over the usage of term ``Information Steward'' as used in the
draft policy notice; this term has been removed in the final policy
since it does not apply to external users. In the future, FAA will
follow OMB guidance and definitions to the extent possible. Other
commenters expressed concerns regarding the quality, accuracy, and
availability of data and information once released from FAA. FAA is
making available the data and information as used by FAA. FAA provides
data and information ``as-is'' without warranty of any kind and cannot
be responsible for any usage and modifications made by external parties
after released. In this context, FAA notes even minor modifications
(format, definitions, metadata, etc.) can have significant safety and
liability implications; users are responsible for whether and how they
choose to consume FAA data and information.
    Cost Recovery comments--Airlines for America, Airport Council
International North America, ATAC, Boeing, Bruel & Kjaer, Center for
Effective Government, FlightAware, ForeFlight, Harris, Los Angeles
World Airport, Miami-Dade Airport, and SAAB Sensis expressed concerns
with the policy language about cost recovery. Under this policy, FAA
will make data and information generally available to the public in the
format used by FAA to meet its statutory requirements and mission,
subject to availability of funding. Users will continue to have to use
their own methods to process the FAA data and information that is made
available and should be aware that FAA data formats and content will
continue to evolve to meet FAA's requirements. While notice of changes
in data formats and content will be provided when possible, there is no
guarantee that notice will always occur. If the public or governmental
users seek data and information in different format than that which is
provided; the FAA will need to consider cost recovery. FAA will take
into consideration all relevant factors in considering any request for
a cost recovery agreement to supply specialized FAA data and
information outside of FAA statutory responsibilities. In any request
for FAA data and information that is not readily available, the
requesting entities would be expected to bear all costs including but
not limited to development, connection, transmission, processing, and
maintenance.
    Stakeholder Input/Workgroup--Airlines for America, Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Associations, Airport Council International, SAAB Sensis,
Boeing, Harris, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon urged FAA to
include stakeholders input by creating a Data Policy Committee
comprised of aviation stakeholders (including airlines, airports, and
industry organizations) to create a comprehensive data and information
distribution policy. In light of EO 13642 and OMB M-13-13, Open Data
Policy, and the comments to the draft policy in Federal Register
Notice, FAA has determined that adequate input from stakeholders has
already been provided to establish this Policy. FAA will continue to
work with all interested parties in the implementation and evolution of
this Policy through the Data Management organizations.
    Policy: Considering the comments received, and to conform to
current U.S. Government practices and policies, especially to the Open
Data Policy, the FAA is establishing this policy for the distribution
of NAS and non-NAS data and information to the public and other
governmental users including the FAA's and other governmental
contractors to

enhance data and information management including governance, security,
and cost. This policy does not confer any substantive rights or
entitlements to consumers of FAA data and information beyond those
established by law or other applicable authority.
    The FAA will:
    1. In accordance with EO 13642 and the OMB M-13-13, Open Data
Policy, establish a catalogue of FAA data and information accessible by
the public and other government user(s). In addition, per OMB guidance,
FAA will identify data management organizations for NAS and non-NAS
data and information management to accomplish this policy for FAA.
    2. Specify the mechanism and metadata by which the public and other
governmental user(s) may consume data and information including limits
and restrictions required to protect national/homeland security,
individual privacy, safety, confidentiality, and any other current or
future government requirements.
    3. Establish authorized access points for distribution of data and
information, prevent direct connections to FAA systems, and seek
disestablishment of any unauthorized access points. The FAA data
management organizations identified above will protect the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and information
services consistent with applicable law, Executive Orders, OMB
guidance, and FAA Orders.
    4. Ensure that all current and future FAA systems (e.g. NextGen)
strive for maximum data interoperability and information accessibility
for consumption and disclosure to all users via authorized distribution
points. Requests for FAA data and information that is not readily
available through the data and information catalogue and standard
interfaces will require full FAA cost recovery for all aspects
including, but not limited to, development, connection, transmission,
processing, and maintenance of providing the data and information. Cost
or technical considerations aside, the FAA may determine that it is not
in its best interest to provide the data and information.
    5. Ensure that FAA data and information is only created for use by
the FAA to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and to the extent
practicable, make that data and information generally available for
consumption. While the data and information made available is to be
accurate and timely for use by the FAA, FAA will make no warranties and
will not be responsible for quality, continuity, or intended use of
data once it leaves the FAA.
    6. Establish policies and procedures to determine the extent to
which FAA contractors or any other entities can use FAA data and
information. Data in the possession or control of the FAA must be
properly accounted for, controlled and managed by all FAA andor FAA
contractors working under any federal, authority. Each contractor
receiving, storing, manipulating, transmitting, or analyzing this data
must submit to FAA a data management plan and have it approved prior to
obtaining any FAA data and information. The plan must be approved by
FAA Data Management Organization (s) noted above in accordance with
Agency policy and requirements. Airports and non-FAA contractors
working under state or local authority may also be subject to these
provisions depending on the data they are receiving from FAA.

Glossary of Terms

    Data: A representation of fact, concept, or instruction represented
in a formalized form suitable for communication, interpretation or
processing either by human and/or by automated systems. This is the
lowest level of abstraction, compared to information.
    Information: Data in context. The meaning given to data or the
interpretation of data based on its context. The finished product as a
result of the interpretation of data. Data processed in such a way that
it can increase the knowledge of the person who receives it. Data that:
    (1) are specific and organized for a purpose;
    (2) are presented within a context that gives it meaning and
relevance, and which;
    (3) leads to an increase in understanding and decrease in
uncertainty. The value of information lies solely in its ability to
affect a behavior, decision, or outcome.
    National Airspace System (NAS) Data: The data and information from
the common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities,
equipment and services, airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts,
information and services; rules, regulations and procedures, technical
information, and manpower and material used to ensure safe and
efficient use of U.S. navigable airspace. Included are system
components shared jointly with the military and other governmental
entities.
    Non-NAS Data: The data and information needed for FAA regulatory,
business administration, and planning function not part of the NAS. It
includes all of the administrative applications, systems, and related
policies and procedures not directly involved in the NAS.
    Open Data: In accordance with OMB M-13-13, Open Data Policy, these
terms refer to publicly available data structured in a way that enables
the data to be fully discoverable and usable by end users and are
consistent with the principles of public, accessible, described,
reusable, complete, and timely, managed post-release.
    Public--Consistent with OMB's Open Government Directive, agencies
must adopt a presumption in favor of openness to the extent permitted
by law and subject to privacy, confidentiality, security, or other
valid restrictions.
    Accessible--Open data are made available in convenient, modifiable,
and open formats that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and
searched. Formats should be machine-readable (i.e., data are reasonably
structured to allow automated processing). Open data structures do not
discriminate against any person or group of persons and should be made
available to the widest range of users for the widest range of
purposes, often by providing the data in multiple formats for
consumption. To the extent permitted by law, these formats should be
non-proprietary, publicly available, and no restrictions should be
placed upon their use.
    Described--Open data are described fully so that consumers of the
data have sufficient information to understand their strengths,
weaknesses, analytical limitations, security requirements, as well as
how to process them. This involves the use of robust, granular metadata
(i.e., fields or elements that describe data), thorough documentation
of data elements, data dictionaries, and, if applicable, additional
descriptions of the purpose of the collection, the population of
interest, the characteristics of the sample, and the method of data
collection.
    Reusable--Open data are made available under an open license that
places no restrictions on their use.
    Complete--Open data are published in primary forms (i.e., as
collected at the source), with the finest possible level of granularity
that is practicable and permitted by law and other requirements.
Derived or aggregate open data should also be published but must
reference the primary data.
    Timely--Open data are made available as quickly as necessary to
preserve the value of the data. Frequency of release should account for
key audiences and downstream needs.

    Managed Post Release--A point of contact must be designated to
assist with data use and to respond to complaints about adherence to
these open data requirements.
    User: A human, his/her agent, a surrogate, or an entity that
interacts with information processing systems. A person, organization
entity, or automated process that accesses data in a system.

Contacts

    You may direct questions on NAS data and information to the FAA/
ATO, Mojdeh Supola, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You may direct questions on Non-NAS data and information to the
FAA/AIT, Tim Perez, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
FAA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-29910 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32449-32451]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0754; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-136-AD;
Amendment 39-18156; AD 2015-10-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the reservoir of the main
landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system. This AD requires
inspection for correct assembly of the MLG alternate extension system
reservoir lid, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this
AD to, in the event of a failure of the primary MLG extension system,
prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension system to fully extend
the MLG into a down-and-locked position, which could result in collapse
of both left-hand and right-hand MLG sides during touchdown.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 14, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 14,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For Bombardier service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. For Parker service information identified in this
AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.parker.com. You may view this
referenced 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>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0754.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 23, 2014 (79 FR 63341).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-15, dated June 6, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

Several cases have been reported of hydraulic fluid loss from the
main landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system reservoir and in
one case, the reservoir was found empty. The cause was determined to
be an incorrectly assembled reservoir lid. In the event of a failed
primary MLG extension system, an alternate MLG extension system with
an empty reservoir may not be able to fully extend the MLG into the
down and locked position, resulting in an unsafe landing
configuration.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the [general visual] inspection of the
MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid for correct assembly
and the required rectification [i.e., corrective action which
consists of repairing the lid assembly].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 63341, October 23, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013,
with the attached Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated
October 22, 2012. This service information describes procedures to
inspect the lid assembly of the MLG alternate extension system
reservoir for correct assembly and corrective actions. 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 of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 173 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 4 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 on U.S. operators to be $58,820, or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take

about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $170 per
product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need this action.

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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) 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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-10-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18156. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0754; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-136-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401, -402, and -
403 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4424 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the
reservoir of the main landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system.
We are issuing this AD to, in the event of a failure of the primary
MLG extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension
system to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked position,
which could result in collapse of both left-hand and right-hand MLG
sides during touchdown.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection
of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid for correct
assembly, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013, and with the attached Parker Service
Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012, as referenced in
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013. Do all
applicable corrective actions within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier All Operator Message 543, dated
October 17, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-15, dated June 6,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0754-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(5) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013.
    (ii) Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22,
2012.

    (3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) For Parker service information identified in this AD,
contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA, 92618;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.parker.com.
    (5) You may view this 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
425-227-1221.
    (6) 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 May 1, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-11389 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P