Data Requirement:PMRA Data Code      {............}                         EPA DP Barcode420869                         OECD Data Point{............}                         EPA MRID 49307518                         EPA Guideline850.1075

Test material:  Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA) (Metabolite of DCPA)   Purity: 99.94% Common name: Chemical name:IUPAC:             CAS name:             CAS No. 2136-79-0             Synonyms: Primary Reviewer:Teresa NelisSignature:   Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JVDate:   10/11/2016 Secondary Reviewer: Moncie V. WrightSignature:   Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV     Date:   10/28/2016

Primary Reviewer:Christina M. WendelSignature:  EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Biologist Date: 10/29/2021

Secondary Reviewer(s): Michael WagmanSignature:  EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Senior ScientistDate: 11/16/2021

Reference/Submission No.:  {.....................}

Company Code {............}[For PMRA] Active Code{............}[For PMRA]  Use Site Category:{............}[For PMRA] EPA PC Code 078701

Date Evaluation Completed: 16-11-2021

CITATION:  Wood, J. 2014. Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA): Acute Toxicity on Oncorhynchus Mykiss (Revised per PRN 11-03 and 86-5). Study performed by Covance Laboratories Ltd, North Yorkshire, England. Laboratory Study Number: 1708/020.  Study sponsored by AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd, Surrey, England. Study completed November 24, 2003.

This Data Evaluation Record may have been altered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division subsequent to signing by CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV personnel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In a 96-hour acute toxicity study, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were exposed to Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA) (a metabolite of DCPA) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg a.i./L under static conditions. The mean-measured concentrations were <0.01 (<LOD, control), 6.72, 12.7, 23.8, 46.4, and 93.4 mg a.i./L.

Mortality and sublethal effects were observed daily, although effects were not dose responsive. After 96 hours, mortalities of 7, 7, and 21% was observed in the 6.72, 23.8, and 46.4 mg a.i./L mean-measured treatment groups, and no mortalities were observed in the control or the 12.7 and 93.4 mg a.i./L treatment groups. Sublethal effects, including swimming abnormally or lying on bottom of tank, were observed in one fish at 24 hours in the 23.8 mg a.i./L mean-measured treatment group and not in the control or at any of the other treatment levels.

The 96-hour LC50 was >93.4 mg a.i./L, and the observed NOAEC was 23.8 mg a.i./L based on the mean-measured concentrations.

Based on the results of this study, TPA (metabolite of DCPA) would be classified as practically non-toxic up to the concentration analytically verified to Oncorhynchus mykiss in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound and is classified as acceptable.

   Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size/Age (mean weight or length): Juveniles (mean wet weight: 0.92 g; mean fork length: 4.6 cm)        Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static        96-hour LC50: >93.4 mg a.i./L95% C.I.:  N/A    Probit Slope: N/A     Observational NOAEC: 23.8 mg a.i./L

   Endpoint(s) Affected: Mortality and sublethal effects I. MATERIALS AND METHODS

   GUIDELINE FOLLOWED:This study was conducted according to a protocol that meets the testing requirements specified in the U.S. EPA's Ecological Effects Test Guideline OCSPP (form. OPPTS) 850.1075: Fish Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater and Marine (1996), and OECD Guideline for the testing of Chemicals No 203, Fish Acute Toxicity Test (1992). The reviewer assessed the study methods and results according U.S. EPA OCSPP 850.1075 and OECD 203 and noted any differences and/or similarities between guidelines if they existed. The following deficiencies were noted by the reviewer:     Seven fish were tested per replicate. In the draft and final OPPTS and OCSPP 850.1075 guideline seven fish per replicate (at a minimum) is required but prefers 10 fish per replicate (1 replicate minimum and 2 are preferred) to obtain a more statistically accurate representation of the dose-response curve, to allow for mortality which may occur, yet be unrelated to chemical effect, and to avoid necessary repetitions of the test due to excessive control mortality. OECD guidance only requires seven fish per replicate. Given that no mortality occurred in the controls, this is considered to be a minor deficiency.  Per OCSPP 850.1075 and 1000, dechlorinated tap water is not recommended for preparation of dilution water and should only be used as a last resort because some forms of chlorine are difficult to remove adequately. However, if dechlorinated tap water is used, it should be demonstrated that test organism survival, growth, and reproduction are not affected and that test organisms do not show other signs of stress. Additionally, chlorine analysis should be performed on each batch of dilution water. The residual chlorine concentrations were 0.03-0.05 mg/mL in the dilution water during the acclimation period, and 0.00  -  0.03 mg/mL in the dilution water control during the test. Draft OPPTS 850.1075 guidance recommends residual chlorine concentrations no higher than 0.003 mg/L in dilution water. The final OCSPP 1000 guideline recommends residual chlorine concentrations no higher than 0.01 mg/L in dilution water. This is considered a minor study deficiency.  Zinc and copper concentrations in dilution water during the acclimation period were 0.073 and 0.065 mg/L, respectively, which is higher than the 0.001 mg/L concentration recommended by OPPTS guidance. OECD guidance and the final OCSPP 850.1075 do not address specific requirements for these specific water quality parameters. However, OCSPP 850.100 does provide specifications for dilution water quality. This is considered a minor deficiency.  Dilution water TOC content was not provided. Both draft and final OPPTS and OCSPP 850.1010 guidelines recommends specific maximum concentrations. However, this is considered a minor deficiency a minor deficiency as the solubility (175.4 mg/L) of TPA in water would not result in an underestimation of toxicity; and details of the holding conditions and quality of the dilution water were presented in Appendix 1 of the study report (pg. 25-26). Light intensity measurements were not reported, nor was the use of a transition period. It was only reported that a 16L:8D hour photoperiod was utilized. All  guidelines (draft OPPTS and final 850.1075 and OECD) suggest that light intensity be reported. The draft OPPTS and final OCSPP 850.1705 guidelines recommends 30-minute transition periods between light and dark conditions, while OECD guidance does not address the use of transition period. This is considered a minor deficiency.              These deficiencies do not have an impact on the scientific integrity of this experiment.        COMPLIANCE:Signed and dated GLP, Quality Assurance and Data Confidentiality statements were provided.  This study was conducted in compliance with U.S. EPA Good Laboratory Practice regulations (40 CFR, Part 160), UK Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 3106, the OECD Principles on GLP ENV/MC/CHEM (98)17, and GLP Standards for Agricultural Chemicals 14-Seisan-7739, with no exceptions indicated.

   A. MATERIALS:    1. Test material:  Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA) (metabolite of DCPA)

      Description: White powder

      Lot No./Batch No.:021101

      Purity: 99.94%

      Stability of compound        under test conditions:Analytical verification of the test material at time 0 yielded recoveries ranging from 91 to 108% of the nominal concentrations. At test termination (96 hours), recoveries ranged from 92 to 107% of the nominal concentrations, indicating the test material was stable under the experimental conditions.   (OECD recommends water solubility, stability in water and light, pKa,  Pow, and vapor pressure of test compound)

      Storage conditions of        test chemicals: The test material was stored at room temperature.

Physicochemical properties of TPA. Parameter Values Comments Water solubility at 20°C Not reported.

Vapor pressure Not reported.

UV absorption Not reported.

pKa Not reported.

Kow Not reported.

   2. Test organism:                  Species: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)         EPA recommends a cold water species (preferably rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss) and a warm water species (preferably bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus). OECD recommends choice of species at discretion of testing laboratory.       Age at test initiation:Juveniles       Weight at study initiation: Mean wet weight: 0.9241 (range 0.6065  -  1.1953) g (N = 10)          EPA recommends: mean 0.5 - 5 g       Length at study initiation: Mean fork length: 4.6 (range 4.1  -  5.0) cm (N = 10)        EPA recommends: Longest not > 2x shortest; OECD recommends 2.0 " 1.0 cm for bluegill and 5.0 " 1.0 cm for rainbow trout       Source:  Brow Well Fisheries Ltd, North Yorkshire, UK; Batch No. used in definitive test was P03/02.       EPA recommends that all organisms be from the same source

   B.  STUDY DESIGN:

      1. Experimental Conditions

         a. Range-finding study:  A 96-hour flow-through range-finding study was conducted with a negative control and concentrations of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 100 mg a.i./L. Five fish (one replicate, five fish per replicate), were exposed in each control and treatment group. There was 60% mortality in the 100 mg ai/L treatment group, and no mortality in the control or any of the other treatment groups tested. Sublethal effects (i.e., mild severe toxic effects) were observed after 48 and 72 hours in the fish in the 100 mg a.i./L treatment.  The range of concentrations selected for use in the definitive test were selected based on the results of the range-finding test. Results of the range finding test are found in Appendix 3 of the study report, pg. 33-37.                    b. Definitive Study Table 1:  Experimental Parameters Parameter Details Remarks

Criteria Acclimation  Period:

Conditions: (same as test or not)

Feeding:

Health: (any mortality observed)

>=12 days

Fish were held in holding tanks at a density appropriate to their size in a temperature controlled room under a 16L:8D photoperiod; filtered mains dechlorinated water supplied at 14°C was replaced continually. The pH ranged from 6.9 to 7.6, total hardness as CaCO3 ranged from 57 to 65 mg/L, water temperature ranged from 14.3 to 14.6ºC, and dissolved oxygen (% air saturation) ranged from 89 to 95%.

Fish were fed a proprietary food (Nutrafry AB 02, TROUW UK) in quantities based on the size of the fish. The food was not considered to contain contaminants likely to affect the study. Fish were not fed in the 48 hours preceding the test.

Fish in the batch were used for testing because mortality was less than 5% and no disease was observed in the 7-day period prior to testing.  After a 48-hour settling period the fish were acclimated to test conditions for a minimum of 12 days before tests began. Acclimation period was from April 9-22, 2003 (water quality during holding provided in Appendix 1, pg 26;latest value April 16, 2003).

Uneaten food and debris were cleaned from tanks as required.

Fish mortalities were recorded daily. The stock of fish would not be used for testing if mortality exceeded 5% or if disease was apparent.

Test fish from one holding tank were allocated to the test vessels at the start of the test.

The recommended acclimation period is a minimum of 14 days; OECD guideline recommends a minimum of 12 days.  Pretest mortality should be < 3% 48 h. prior to testing.  OECD pretest mortality criteria: >10% = rejection of entire batch; > 5 and < 10% = continued acclimation for 7 days; <5% = acceptable. Duration of the test 96 hours

The recommended test duration is 96 hours. Test condition

Static/flow-through

Type of dilution system - for flow- through method.

Renewal rate for static renewal

Static

N/A

N/A

A reproducible supply of toxicant is recommended.   Consistent flow rate is usually 5-10 vol/24 hours; meter systems should be calibrated before and after study and checked twice daily during test period.  Aeration, if any Oil-free aeration during test.   Compressed air

Aeration is not recommended; OECD guideline recommends aeration.  If aeration is necessary, test solutions must be analyzed periodically to verify exposure. Test vessel Material: (glass/stainless steel)

Size:

Fill volume:

Glass aquaria; covered

30 L

20 L

Test vessel size is usually 19 L (5 gal) or  30 x 60 x 30 cm. Fill volume is usually 15-30 L of solution. Source of dilution water Quality: Dechlorinated municipal mains tap water filtered by a Purite AC9 activated carbon filter and a Purite ROPF 20 particulate filter, then chilled to approximately 14°C prior to use.

Recommended source of dilution water is soft, reconstituted water or water from a natural source.  EPA does not recommend the use of dechlorinated tap water; however, its use may be supportable if the biological responses for the organisms and  chemical analyses of residual chlorine meet conditions in the Agency=s 850.1010 guidelines for dilution water (http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Draft/850.1010.pdf)  Dilution water should be intensely aerated before the study.  OECD permits dechlorinated tap water. Water parameters: Total Hardness

pH

Dissolved oxygen

Total Organic carbon

Particulate Matter

Metals

Pesticides

Chlorine (residual chlorine)

Temperature

{Salinity for marine or estuarine species}

Intervals of water quality measurement

65 mg/L as CaCO3

6.9  -  7.4

88  -  104% (% air saturation)

Not reported

Turbidity: <0.15 FTU

Aluminium, iron, lead, and manganese were not detected (<13 ug/L, <7 ug/L, <0.1 ug/L, and <1.5 ug/L, respectively). Chloride: 17.0 mg/L Calcium: 20.9 mg/L Copper: 65 ug/L Magnesium: 3.76 mg/L Potassium: 1.58 mg/L Sodium: 10.1 mg/L Zinc: 73 ug/L

None detected

0.00  -  0.03 mg/L  (during acclimation 0.03-0.05 mg/L)

13.8 - 14.7 ºC (Continuous monitoring to determine minimum and maximum temperature every 24 hours in control vessel 1: 14.3 - 14.9ºC)

N/A

Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH were measured once daily in both replicate vessels of each treatment level aquaria and the control throughout the exposure period. The temperature was monitored continuously in vessel 1 of the control. Other measurements were taken in dilution (holding) water during acclimation period with latest value taken 16 April 2003. Conductivity (20ºC): 187 uS/cm Alkalinity Total: 33.4 mg/L as CaCO3 Nitrate: 6.962 mg/L NO3

Hardness: EPA recommends  40 - 48 mg/L as CaCO3 (OECD recommends 10 - 250 mg/L) pH: EPA recommends  7.2 - 7.6; 8.0-8.3 for marine-stenohaline fishes, 7.7-8.0 for estuarine-euryhaline fishes, monthly range < 0.8); (OECD recommends  pH 6.0 - 8.5) Dissolved Oxygen: EPA recommends:  Static: $ 60% during  first 48 hrs and $ 40% during second 48 hrs; flow-through: $ 60%; (OECD guideline recommends at least 80% saturation value). Temperature:   EPA recommends 12 EC  for coldwater species, 17 or 22 EC  for warmwater species, and  22 + 1 EC  for  estuarine/marine organisms. (OECD recommends 21 - 25oC for bluegill and 13 - 17oC for rainbow trout). Salinity:   EPA recommends 30-34%. (parts per thousand) for marine, 10-17%. for estuarine fish, weekly range < 6%..

Water quality should be measured at beginning of test and every 48 hours. Number of replicates/groups: control: solvent control: treated ones:

2 N/A 2 per level

Recommended number of replicates include a control and five treatment levels. Each concentration should be 60% of the next highest concentration; concentrations should be in a geometric series. Number of organisms per replicate / groups: control: solvent control: treated ones:

7 N/A 7 per level 14 fish per control and each treatment level

Number of organisms per replicate should be   $ 10/concentration; OECD guideline recommends at least 7 fish/concentration. Biomass loading rate 0.32 g of fish biomass per liter of solution per day

Recommended static conditions are # 0.8 g/L at # 17EC and # 0.5 g/L at > 17EC.  Recommended flow-through conditions are # 1 g/L/day.  OECD recommends a maximum of 1 g fish/L for static and semi-static, while higher rates are recommended for flow-through. Test concentrations: nominal:

mean-measured:

0 (negative control), 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg a.i./L

<0.01 (<LOD, control), 6.72, 12.7, 23.8, 46.4, and 93.4 mg a.i./L Both stock solutions as well as the test concentrations were clear and colorless throughout test. Solvent (type, percentage, if used) N/A

The solvent should not exceed 0.5 ml/L for static tests or 0.1 ml/L for flow-through tests; OECD recommends that the solvent not exceed 100 mg/L. Lighting Artificial light and a photoperiod of 16L:8D; transition period and light intensity measurements not reported.

The recommended photo period is 16 hours of light and 8 hours of dark with a 15-30 minute transition period.  OECD recommends a photo period of 12 -16 hours. Feeding Fish were not fed during the 48-hour period prior to exposure initiation or during the exposure period.

Fish should not feed during the study. Recovery of chemical  Frequency of determination

Level of quantization (LOQ) Level of detection (LOD)

Test solutions were sampled in every treatment vessel at 0, 48 and 96 hours. Test solutions were analyzed for TPA using HPLC with UV detection (220 nm).

Not reported 0.01 mg a.i./L Duplicate samples (20 mL volumes) of each test solution were taken; one sample was analyzed by the Residue Chemistry department at Covance Laboratories Ltd and the other was stored as a reserve.  Both the stock and test solutions appeared as clear and colorless throughout the test. The mean-measured concentrations of TPA ranged from 92 to 107% of nominal concentrations indicating the test material was stable under the experimental conditions (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I). The method of validation was completed on 20 March 2003 (Appendix 2, pg. 27-32 of study report). Positive control {if used, indicate the chemical and concentrations}  N/A

Other parameters, if any None

2. Observations:

Table 2:  Observations Parameter Details Remarks

Criteria Parameters measured including the sublethal effects/toxicity symptoms Mortality and sublethal effects (toxic symptoms)

Observation intervals  1, 3, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours

Observation intervals should be a minimum of every 24 hours. Were raw data included? Yes

Other observations, if any No

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:        A. MORTALITY:

   Mortality was 7 and 14% at 24 hours, and 7 and 21% at 48 hours, in the nominal 25 and 50 mg a.i./L treatment groups, respectively. At 96 hours, mortality of 7, 7, and 21% was observed in the 6.5, 25 and 50 mg a.i./L treatment groups, and no mortalities were observed in the control or the 12.5 and 100 mg a.i./L treatment groups.  The resulting LC50 value was reported to be >100 mg a.i./L, based on the nominal test concentrations.

Table 3:  Effect of TPA on Mortality of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Treatment Nominal               [Mean-Measured] (mg a.i./L) No. of Fish at Start of Study Observation Period

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

No. Dead % Mortality No. Dead % Mortality No. Dead % Mortality No. Dead % Mortality <LOD (Control; dilution water only) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.25 [6.72] 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 12.5 [12.7] 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 [23.8] 14 0 0 1 7 1 7 1 7 50 [46.4] 14 0 0 2 14 3 21 3 21 100 [93.4] 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LC50 >100 mg a.i./L Positive control, if used. mortality: LC50: N/A   Data were obtained from Table 3 on page 23 of the study report.   LOD = 0.01 mg a.i./L        B. NON-LETHAL TOXICITY ENDPOINTS:

   Sublethal effects, including swimming abnormally or lying on bottom of tank, were observed in one fish at 24 hours in the nominal 25 mg a.i./L treatment group and not in the control or at any of the other treatment levels.

Table 4:  Sub-lethal Effect of TPA on Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).  Treatment Nominal  [Mean-Measured] (mg a.i./L) Observation Period

24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 96 hours

% Affected % Affected % Affected % Affected <LOD (Control; dilution water only) 0 0 0 0 6.25 [6.72] 0 0 0 0 12.5 [12.7] 0 0 0 0 25 [23.8] 0 a 7 0 0 50 [46.4] 0 0 0 0 100 [93.4] 0 0 0 0 EC50 Not determined Positive control, if used. % sublethal effect: EC50: N/A   a One fish was swimming abnormally or lying on bottom of tank.    Data were obtained from Table 3 on page 23 of the study report.   LOD = 0.01 mg a.i./L C. REPORTED STATISTICS:

   The 24, 48, 72 and 96 hour LC50 values were calculated using probit analysis after log10 transformation of the nominal exposure concentrations.

   D. VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS:

   Statistical Method: The mortality data and mean-measured concentrations of the test material were entered into the program CETIS, (Version <IP_ADDRESS>) with backend settings implemented by EFED on 10/20/15. The reviewer visually determined the LC50 due to mortalities of <50% in this study.

   96-hour LC50: >93.4 mg a.i./L95% C.I.:  N/A    Probit Slope: N/A

   E.  STUDY DEFICIENCIES:

   There were no major study deficiencies. However, per OCSPP 850.1075 and 1000, dechlorinated tap water is not recommended for preparation of dilution water and should only be used as a last resort because some forms of chlorine are difficult to remove adequately. However, if dechlorinated tap water is used, it should be demonstrated that test organism survival, growth, and reproduction are not affected and that test organisms do not show other signs of stress. Additionally, chlorine analysis should be performed on each batch of dilution water. The residual chlorine concentrations were 0.03-0.05 mg/mL in the dilution water during the acclimation period, and 0.00  -  0.03 mg/mL in the dilution water control during the test. Draft OPPTS 850.1075 guidance recommends residual chlorine concentrations no higher than 0.003 mg/L in dilution water. The final OCSPP 1000 guideline recommends residual chlorine concentrations no higher than 0.01 mg/L in dilution water. Given the adequate control performance, this is considered a minor study deficiency.             F.  REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

   The reviewer's and the study author's results were in general agreement, with the differences attributable to the study author using nominal concentrations. The reviewer's results were based on the mean-measured concentrations (refer to copy of Excel worksheet in Appendix I). No test substance concentration resulted in >=50% effect, the maximum was 21% mortality, and effects were not dose responsive. The reviewer's results are reported in the Executive Summary and Conclusions sections of this DER.

   The study was conducted following the draft OPPTS 850.1075 (1996) guideline, OECD 203 guideline, and the reviewer considered both the draft and the final OCSPP 850.1075 (2016) guideline and OECD 203 guideline (1992) in their evaluation of the data.

   The range-finding test was initiated on 24 March 2003; and the definitive test was completed on 26 April 2003. The analytical phase of the study was completed on 28 April 2003.         G. CONCLUSIONS:

   This study is scientifically sound and is classified as acceptable.  After 96 hours, mortality was 7, 7 and 21% in the 6.72, 23.8 and 46.4 mg a.i./L treatment groups, and effects were not dose-responsive. Sublethal effects was observed in one fish at 24 hours in the 23.8 mg a.i./L treatment group, but not in any other treatment groups at any time. The 96-hour LC50 value was >93.4 mg a.i./L, and the observed NOAEC was 23.8 mg a.i./L, based on mean-measured concentrations.

III.  REFERENCES:

None.

APPENDIX I. Copy of Excel Worksheet with Measured Concentrations


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56651]
[DOCID:fr28se05-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2100]

California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Posting of
Privileged and Confidential Information on Elibrary

September 16, 2005.
    On August 15, 2005, the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) filed with the Commission in the above-captioned proceeding a
document entitled ``Responses to Deficiencies, Clarifications,
Additional Information Requests, and Revisions of January 2005 License
Application.'' Consistent with Commission regulation, this filing was
provided in three separate binders: public information (in Binder
1), non-internet public (NIP) information (in Binder
2), and certain documents and information that DWR asserts to
be privileged and confidential, and therefore exempt from public
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (in
Binder 3). 18 CFR 388.112(b).
    When processing DWR's filing, Commission staff inadvertently made
all three binders publicly available on the eLibrary system, before the
Commission rendered any decision with regard to DWR's privilege claim
for the documents and information in Binder 3. Cf. 18 CFR
388.112(c). According to Commission records, all three binders were
publicly available from approximately 5 pm EDT August 16, 2005, until
approximately 8:30 am EDT August 17, 2005, during which time the NIP
information and privileged and confidential information were accessed a
total of fourteen (14) times on eLibrary.
    In furtherance of the Commission's designated procedures for
processing documents for which privileged treatment is sought,
therefore, all entities that accessed Binder 3 from the
Commission's eLibrary system are hereby requested to destroy all paper
and electronic copies of any and all of the documents and information
included in Binder 3.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5203 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 38930]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97672; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Make Permanent the Operation of Its Flexible Exchange Options
Pilot Program Regarding Permissible Settlement Values for FLEX Index
Options

June 8, 2023.
    On April 10, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make permanent
the operation of its Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'') pilot
program (``Pilot Program'') regarding permissible exercise settlement
values for FLEX Index Options. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on April 28, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97368 (April 24,
2023), 88 FR 26353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 12, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission
finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which
to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient
time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates July 20, 2023,
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2023-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12662 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15667-15671]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0331; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-170-AD;
Amendment 39-17792; AD 2014-05-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, 747-400,
and 747-400F series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524
engines; and certain Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with
Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engines. This AD was prompted by multiple reports
of uncommanded thrust reverser unlock events. This AD requires
replacing certain relays and relay sockets, and doing wiring changes.
For certain airplanes, this AD also requires installing new relay
panels, and removing and installing certain components. Additionally,
this AD requires, for certain airplanes, accomplishing concurrent
actions, which include installing an additional locking system on the
thrust reversers and modifying system wiring for in-flight fault
indications of the thrust reverser system. We are issuing this AD to
prevent an uncommanded thrust reverser deployment during takeoff or in
flight, resulting in decreased airplane control and performance,
possible runway excursions, and failure to climb.

DATES: This AD is effective April 25, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 25,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
February 18, 2000 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
September 14, 1994 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0331; 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 address
for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 The Boeing Company
Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, 747-400, and 747-400F series
airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engines; and certain
Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2013
(78 FR 22802). The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded
thrust reverser unlock events. The NPRM proposed to require replacing
certain relays and relay sockets, and doing wiring changes. For certain
airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require installing new relay panels,
and removing and installing certain components. Additionally, the NPRM
proposed to require, for certain airplanes, accomplishing concurrent
actions, which include installing an additional locking system on the
thrust reversers, installing an additional locking gearbox on each
engine and modifying system wiring for in-flight fault indications of
the thrust reverser system, and installing a second locking gearbox
system on the thrust reversers. We are issuing this AD to prevent an
uncommanded thrust reverser deployment during takeoff or in flight,
resulting in decreased airplane control and performance, possible
runway excursions, and failure to climb.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013)

    Boeing stated that it concurred with the contents of the NPRM (78
FR 22802, April 17, 2013).
    The Air Line Pilots Association International stated that it agrees
with the intent of the NPRM (78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013).

Request To Specify Thrust Reverser Unit (TRU) Part Numbers

    Rolls-Royce plc requested that instead of specifying the engine
models, we specify the part numbers of the affected TRUs for tracking
purposes. Rolls-Royce plc stated that the TRUs are swapped from engine
to engine, and AD compliance would be difficult to track unless it is
tracked based on the TRUs.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. This final rule only
requires changes to the control logic of the thrust reverser by
modifying the associated electrical panels on the airplane. There is no
requirement for TRU hardware replacement. Therefore, it is unnecessary
to specify the part numbers of the affected TRUs in this final rule. We
have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Statement of Financial Impact

    Rolls-Royce plc stated that it is likely the actions required by
the NPRM (78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013) will have a significant
financial affect upon Middle Eastern and Far East operations. Rolls-
Royce plc did not request any change to the NPRM in this regard.
    The commenter did not provide specific information to substantiate
why Middle Eastern and Far East operations would be uniquely affected.
The Costs of Compliance paragraph in this final rule is based on
estimates provided in the service information and is an estimate of
costs incurred by United States operators. We have not changed this
final rule in this regard.

Changes to This Final Rule

    We clarified the required actions specified in the SUMMARY section
of this final rule by removing the wording ``installing an additional
locking system on the thrust reversers'' and ``installing a second
locking gearbox system on the thrust reversers.'' These actions are
included in the phrase ``installing an additional locking system on the
thrust reversers.'' No change has been made to the actions required by
this final rule.
    We revised paragraph (b) of this final rule to indicate that this
final rule affects the requirements of AD 2000-01-05, Amendment 39-
11502 (65 FR 1051, January 7, 2000).
    We revised paragraph (h)(2) of this final rule to clarify that the
installation of an additional gearbox is on the thrust reverser of each
engine, rather than on each engine.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22802, April 17, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement and wiring change    30 work-hours x $85 per  $4,289............  $6,839............          $6,839
 for Model 747-200B, 747-200F,    hour = $2,550.
 747-300, and 747SP series
 airplanes (1 U.S.-registered
 airplane).

Removal, installations, and      Up to 90 work-hours x    Up to $16,607.....  Up to $24,257.....               0
 wiring changes for Model 747-    $85 per hour = $7,650.
 400 and 747-400F series
 airplanes (0 U.S.-registered
 airplanes).
Replacements and wiring changes  Up to 32 work-hours x    Up to $2,245......  Up to $4,965......               0
 for Model 767-300 series         $85 per hour = $2,720.
 airplanes (0 U.S.-registered
 airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary concurrent
requirements. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need accomplishment of the concurrent requirements.

                                                Concurrent Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of an additional locking        336 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $62,674         $91,234
 system for Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-    $28,560.
 300, and 747SP series airplanes.
Installation of an additional locking        185 work-hours x $85 per hour =              72,860          88,585
 gearbox on each engine and modification of   $15,725.
 the system wiring for Model 747-400 and
 747-400F series airplanes.
Installation of a second locking gearbox     754 work-hours x $85 per hour =                   0          64,090
 system for Model 767-300 series airplanes.   $64,090.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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):

2014-05-19 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17792; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0331; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-170-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 25, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the requirements of AD 2000-01-05, Amendment 39-
11502 (65 FR 1051, January 7, 2000).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
this AD, and equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engines.
    (1) Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SP series
airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2178,
Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011.
    (2) Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes, as identified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated November
11, 2011.
    (3) Model 767-300 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2009.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code 7830, Engine Thrust
Reverser.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded thrust
reverser unlock events, three of which had all three locks
disengaged. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded thrust
reverser deployment during takeoff or in flight resulting in
decreased airplane control and performance, possible runway
excursions, and failure to climb.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this
AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SP series
airplanes: Replace relays and relay sockets in the P252 and P253
panels with new relays and relay sockets, and do wiring changes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011.
    (2) For Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes: Install the
components removed from the existing P252 and P253 panels, install
new relays and relay sockets, and do wiring changes on the new P252
and P253 relay panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2,
dated November 11, 2011.
    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes: Replace relays and relay
sockets in the P36 and P37 panels with new relays and relay sockets,
and do wiring changes in the P33, P36, and P37 panels, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
78-0096, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2009.

(h) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SP series
airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, install an additional
locking system on the thrust reversers, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156,
Revision 1, dated August 30, 2001. Accomplishing this installation
is a method of compliance with the installation required by
paragraph (c) of AD 2000-01-05, Amendment 39-11502 (65 FR 1051,
January 7, 2000).
    (2) For Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes identified
as Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated November 11, 2011: Prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD, install an additional locking gearbox on the
thrust reversers of each engine and modify system wiring for in-
flight fault indications of the thrust reverser system, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1999.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD:  Paragraph (a)(1) of AD
2000-02-22, Amendment 39-11540 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000),
refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2, dated
July 29, 1999, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes identified as Group 2
airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated
December 10, 2009: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the
actions required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, install a second
locking gearbox system on the thrust reversers, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0059, Revision 3, dated January 20, 1994.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD:  Paragraph (c) of AD 94-
17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994), refers to
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision 3, dated January 20,
1994, as an appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2178, dated January 22, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2180, dated April 10, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2180, Revision 1, dated November 11, 2010, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.
    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0096, dated August 7, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.
    (5) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2156, dated October 31, 1996, which was incorporated by reference in
AD 99-18-03, Amendment 39-11269 (64 FR 47365, August 31, 1999).

    Note 3 to paragraph (i)(5) of this AD:  Paragraph (c) of AD
2000-01-05, Amendment 39-11502 (65 FR 1051, January 7, 2000), refers
to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156, dated October 31, 1996, as
the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
installation required by that paragraph.

    (6) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2158, Revision 1, dated January 22, 1998, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.

    Note 4 to paragraph (i)(6) of this AD:  In AD 2000-02-22,
Amendment 39-11540 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000), Note 2 to
paragraph (a)(1) of AD 2000-02-22 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin
747-78-2158, Revision 1, dated January 22, 1998, as a method of
compliance for accomplishing the installation required by paragraph
(a)(1) of AD 2000-02-22.

    (7) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0059, Revision 2, dated June 10, 1993, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD, which was incorporated by reference in AD 94-
17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994).

    Note 5 to paragraph (i)(7) of this AD:  Paragraph (c) of AD 94-
17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994), refers to
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision 2, dated June 10,
1993, as an appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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 manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (l)(6) and (l)(7) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 25, 2014.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156, Revision 1, dated
August 30, 2001.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1, dated
August 4, 2011.
    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated
November 11, 2011.
    (iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated
December 10, 2009.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
February 18, 2000 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2, dated July
29, 1999.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 14, 1994 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision 3, dated
January 20, 1994.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (6) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (7) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (8) 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 February 19, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-06155 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45339-45342]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20750]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81680; File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe CDS Risk Policy

September 22, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 15, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by ICE Clear Europe. The Commission is
publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed
rule change from interested persons and to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ICE
Clear Europe's CDS Risk Policy relating to portfolio margining, as
described below, to comply with Article 27 of Commission Delegated
Regulation (EU) No. 153/2013 \3\ (the ``Portfolio Margining
Limitation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 153/2013 dated 23
February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt amendments to the CDS Risk
Policy relating to portfolio margining. The changes discussed herein
apply to all cleared credit default swap (``CDS'') products.
    The amendments are intended to comply with the Portfolio Margining
Limitation implementing the European Market Infrastructure Regulation
(``EMIR''),\4\ which requires that where portfolio margining covers
multiple different instruments, the amount of margin reduction that the
clearing house may offer can be no greater than 80% of the difference
between the sum of the margins for each product calculated on an
individual basis and the margin calculated based on a estimation of the
exposure for the combined portfolio. By contrast, where the margin
reduction relates to positions in the same instrument, the clearing
house may apply a margin reduction of up to 100% of that difference.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (``ESMA''), the competent
authority with respect to this requirement under EMIR, has issued an
opinion interpreting this requirement in the context of CDS to provide
\5\ that (i) credit derivatives on different underlying names or
indexes (including two series of the same index) should be considered
different products; and (ii) credit derivatives on the same underlying
name or index with different maturities or coupons may be considered as
the same product. According to ICE Clear Europe, the effect of this is
to require that credit derivatives on different index series of the
same index family be considered different instruments under the
Portfolio Margining Limitation and that therefore portfolio margining
for such instruments must be limited to 80% of the gross margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regulation (EU) No. 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories.
    \5\ Section 3.1.2.C of the ESMA Opinion On Portfolio Margining
Requirements under Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation
(EU) No. 153/2013 dated 10 April 2017 (the ``ESMA Opinion'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement the Portfolio Margining Limitation, ICE Clear Europe
is amending its CDS Risk Policy such that when calculating the spread
response charge (which provides portfolio margin

reductions across a variety of correlated positions, including
positions in different series of the same index), the 99.5% Value-at-
Risk (``VaR'') Monte Carlo (``MC'') benchmark \6\ used in the
calculation will have a minimum amount equal to 20% of the portfolio
gross 99.5% MC VaR requirements. The gross requirement is defined for
this purpose as the sum of the requirements at risk factor level for
single names (for single-name CDS) and index series level (for index
CDS) (i.e., without portfolio margin offsets across such products). ICE
Clear Europe is required to implement the Portfolio Margining
Limitation by September 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 99.5% VaR MC benchmark serves as a minimum initial
margin level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\8\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest.
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) \10\ requires that a registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit
exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-
based models and parameters to set margin requirements. Furthermore,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) \11\ requires that each covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered clearing agency
provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that
accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the CDS Risk Policy would apply a 20%
floor to the 99.5% VaR MC aspect of ICE Clear Credit's spread response
margin component calculation, based on the gross margin requirement
without portfolio offsets. The amendments are being made in order to
comply with the Portfolio Margin Limitation imposed under EMIR, as set
out in the ESMA Opinion, and may in some cases result in higher initial
margin requirements for market participants. ICE Clear Europe believes
that the amended requirement (as with the current methodology)
represents an appropriate risk-based margin framework to take into
account portfolio risk reduction and related portfolio effects in a
manner that will continue to enable the clearing house to mitigate the
risk of clearing member default. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the
amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of the Act
and Commission regulations set forth above.

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are
being proposed in order to implement that Portfolio Margining
Limitation under EMIR. The amendments will affect all CDS Clearing
Members and CDS market participants. ICE Clear Europe does not believe
the amendments will impact competition among CDS Clearing Members or
other market participants, or affect the ability of market participants
to access clearing generally. As noted above, the amendments may
increase initial margin requirements with respect to some portfolios,
because of the limitation on margin reductions as compared to the
current methodology. Although this may affect the cost of clearing for
some market participants, any increased costs will reflect the
requirements imposed under the EMIR Portfolio Margining Limitation and
the risk management benefits for the clearing house that are designed
to be obtained through the Portfolio Margining Limitation. As a result,
ICE Clear Europe believes that any impact on competition is appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2017-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2017-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change, security-
based swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change, security-based swap submission or advance notice between
the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld
from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will
be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear
Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that

you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ICEEU-2017-010 and should be submitted on or before
October 19, 2017.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \12\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \13\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing
agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) \14\ requires that a registered clearing
agency that performs central counterparty services establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit
exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-
based models and parameters to set margin requirements. Furthermore,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) \15\ requires that each covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered clearing agency
provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that
accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act and the relevant rules thereunder.\16\ The
proposed rule change is designed to comply with the Portfolio Margining
Limitation of Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No.
153/2013.\17\ As interpreted by ESMA, this limitation will not permit
complete margin offsets between different cleared instruments, which in
the CDS context means CDS with different reference entities, including
different versions of the same index. Instead, any margin reductions
resulting from the portfolio margining of different CDS instruments
must be limited to 80% of the difference between the sum of the margins
for each instrument calculated on an individual basis and the margin
calculated based on a combined estimation of the exposure for the
combined portfolio. Margin reductions from portfolio margining of the
same CDS instruments, i.e. on the same underlying name or index, even
with different maturities or coupons, can be applied without
limitation. ICE Clear Europe has chosen to implement this requirement
by limiting the margin reductions calculated from the 99.5% VaR MC
aspect of its spread response methodology to 20% of the gross margin
requirement without portfolio offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \17\ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 153/2013 dated 23
February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the proposed rule change, including the
changes to ICE Clear Europe's policies and procedures, as well as data
on the estimated impact of the proposed rule change on margin
requirements. Based on this review, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is designed to implement a more conservative
approach to portfolio margining reductions than under ICE Clear
Europe's existing spread response calculation methodology and is
therefore consistent with assuring the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible. The approach is risk-based and does not impose
unduly conservative margin requirements that would impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Commission further finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),\19\ in that
any additional margin collected based on this more conservative
approach should support ICE Clear Europe's risk management functions
and ability to limit its credit exposures, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission further finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).\21\ The proposed rule
change does not eliminate portfolio margin reductions. The proposed
rule change allows for portfolio margin reductions of 100% where the
margin reduction relates to positions in the same instrument. Where the
portfolio margining covers multiple different instruments, the proposed
rule change limits the margin reduction to no greater than 80%,
consistent with EMIR. The Commission finds that this is a reasonably
designed method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for
relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across different
products consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, ICE Clear Europe requested that the Commission grant
accelerated approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act.\23\ Under Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\24\ the Commission may grant accelerated
approval of a proposed rule change if the Commission finds good cause
for doing so. ICE Clear Europe believes that accelerated approval is
warranted because the proposed rule change is required as of September
30, 2017 in order to comply with the Portfolio Margin Limitation under
EMIR, as interpreted by ESMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\25\ for approving the proposed rule change
on an accelerated basis, prior to the 30th day after the date of
publication of notice in the Federal Register, because the proposed
rule change is required as of September 30, 2017 in order to comply
with EMIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \26\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-010) be,
and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \28\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20750 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 91058-91060]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair
door operation. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections
and modification of the handrail hardware. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 30,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, 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. 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9438; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar A. Gomez, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9438;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-109-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-02, dated January 27, 2015 (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, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A number of airstair door operation interruptions have been
reported. In one case, the airstair door could not be opened. It was
found that the airstair door handrail holder bracket was deformed
and became lodged into the adjacent wardrobe bulkhead, which
prevented the door from opening.
    On airstair doors with Jetway Compatible option, a deformed
handrail holder bracket or a failure of the pin retainer bracket can
interfere with the operation of the airstair door and prevent it
from opening.
    The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. The
inability to open an emergency exit could impede evacuation in the
event of an emergency.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection of
airstair door handrail hardware, and the modification of the
handrail stowage hardware.

    Required actions include applicable corrective actions (replacing
or removing brackets, installing lanyards, adjusting pins, and
adjusting affected parts of the assembly). You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated
February 2, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a
general visual inspection to detect deformities and cracks of the
forward and aft handle holder brackets on the airstair handrail; a
detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer brackets
for the condition of the lanyards and the pins; a check for
unobstructed movement of the pin retainer brackets; and rework of the
airstair door handrail to prevent damage to the bulkhead and to prevent
the door from jamming once the handrails are stowed. 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified

of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive Inspections.........  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0  $85 per inspection  $6,970 per
                                  hour = $85 per                           cycle.              inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
Modification...................  3 work-hours x $85 per            1,556  $1,811............  $148,502.
                                  hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9438; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-109-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 30, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4473 inclusive, equipped with Jetway Compatible Passenger
Airstair Door Modsum 4-422100 or Modsum 4-458687.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of interruptions in the airstair
door operation, including one case where the door would not open.
The airstair door is classified as an emergency exit. We are issuing
this AD to ensure the ability to evacuate passengers through the
airstair door in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections of the Forward and Aft Handle Holder
Brackets and Forward and Aft Pin Retainer Brackets, Repetitive Checks,
and Corrective Actions

    Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform a general visual inspection of the forward and aft handle
holder brackets for damage, such as visible cracks and deformation;
a detailed visual inspection of the forward and aft pin retainer
brackets to make sure that both lanyards are installed and to make
sure that the head of each pin is installed correctly; a check of
the pin retainer brackets for unobstructed movement; an operational
check of the forward passenger door; and all applicable corrective
actions; in accordance with PART A1 and PART A2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79,
Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, except as required by paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections and checks
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until the
terminating action required by paragraph (h) of this AD is
accomplished.
    (1) If one or both lanyards are missing, before further flight,
install lanyards as specified in, and in accordance with PART A1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.
    (2) If a pin is not installed correctly, as specified in PART A1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016, before further flight,
adjust the affected pin until it is installed correctly as specified
in, and in accordance with PART A1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated
February 2, 2016.
    (3) If a pin retainer bracket does not rotate freely, before
further flight, adjust affected parts of the assembly until the pin
retainer bracket rotates freely as specified in, and in accordance
with PART A1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016.

(h) Terminating Action

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date

of this AD: Incorporate ModSum 4-903234 to modify installed Jetway
Compatible Handrail Stowage Bracket, in accordance with PART A3 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
52-79, Revision C, dated February 2, 2016. Incorporating ModSum 4-
903234 terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) 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 the service information identified in
paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, dated May 1, 2014.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision A, dated
November 18, 2014.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-79, Revision B, dated
April 8, 2015.

(j) 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-02, dated January
27, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9438.
    (2) For service information identified in this NPRM, 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. 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 2, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-29671 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1068-1069]
[FR Doc No: X10-460108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-1064]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0087

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Request (ICR)
and Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an
extension of its approval for the following collection of information:
1625-0087, International Ice Patrol Customer Survey. Before submitting
this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described
below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2009-
1064], please use only one of the following means: January 8, 2010.
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), ATTN Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2009-1064], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact

you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to
the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only
one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8-1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying
and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and will address them
accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-1064''
and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the
``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the
West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in 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 the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Information Collection Request:
    Title: International Ice Patrol Customer Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0087.
    This information collection provides feedback on the processes of
delivery and products distributed to the mariner by the International
Ice Patrol.
    Need: In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the U.S. Coast
Guard is directed to conduct surveys (both qualitative and
quantitative) to determine the kind and quality of services our
customers want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with USCG's
existing services. This survey will be limited to data collections
which solicit strictly voluntary opinions and will not collect
information that is required or regulated.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels transiting the North
Atlantic.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 120 hours a year.

    Dated: December 18, 2009.
M.B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-105 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P