[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8238-8240]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02266]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91016; File No. SR-IEX-2020-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange, LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX Rule 11.510 To
Reduce the Outbound Latency That Presently Applies to All Messages Sent
From IEX Back to Users of the Exchange

January 29, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On December 9, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``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 amend IEX Rule (``Rule'') 11.510 to reduce the
outbound latency that presently applies to all messages sent from IEX
to users of the Exchange, as well as to make conforming changes to the
outbound latency that applies to all trading messages sent from the IEX
order book to the system routing logic with respect to routable orders.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2020.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90645 (December 11,
2020), 85 FR 81982 (December 17, 2020) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 11.510 to eliminate the
``coil'' delay that is currently applied to outbound order execution
messages and IEX proprietary market data sent to IEX users and the IEX
system routing logic used by IEX's affiliated routing broker-dealer,
IEX Services LLC (``IEXS'').\4\ Currently, users access IEX through the
Exchange-provided network interface at the IEX Point-of-Presence, or
``POP,'' located in Secaucus, New Jersey.\5\ Electronic messages that
users send inbound to the IEX system, and order execution messages and
IEX proprietary market data sent outbound to users, traverse the IEX
coil, which is a box containing approximately 38 miles of compactly
coiled optical fiber cable, and travel an additional geographic and
physical distance between the POP and the IEX system located at the
Exchange's primary data center in Weehawken, New Jersey.\6\ The time
required for such communications to traverse the coil combined with the
geographic and physical distance (and related networking) currently
equates to an equivalent 350 microseconds of latency.\7\ IEXS is a
member of the Exchange and its associated routing logic currently is
subject to the same 350 microseconds of latency as other members when
sending order messages to the IEX order book and when receiving order
execution messages and IEX proprietary market data.\8\ As a result,
IEXS has no speed or informational advantage compared to other Exchange
members and data recipients.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Rule 11.510; Notice, supra note 3, at 81982.
The Exchange did not propose any changes to the coil delay that
applies to inbound order messages, including order cancellations and
modifications, from users at the POP to the IEX system and from the
system routing logic to the order book. See proposed Rule 11.510;
Notice, supra note 3, at 81984. The Exchange does not apply a coil
delay to its communications with the Securities Information
Processors (``SIP(s)'') or away trading centers, and those aspects
of the Exchange likewise are not changing under the proposal. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 81983.
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 81983.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id. If a user sends a routable order to the Exchange, after
traversing the inbound latency (including the coil) from the POP to
the IEX system, the order is directed to the system routing logic.
Id. The current 350 microsecond latency on order messages between
the IEX routing logic and order book is implicated when the routing
logic has determined to route to the IEX order book all or part of
the routable order submitted by the user, and is in addition to the
350 microsecond latency between the POP and the IEX system. Id. As a
result, currently, users connected at the POP experience a
cumulative, one-way latency of 700 microseconds on routable order
messages to and from the IEX system. Id. at 81983-84; see also Rule
11.230(b), 11.510(c)(1), and proposed Supplementary Material
(``Supp.'') .03 to Rule 11.510.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 81983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's proposed elimination of the coil delay on outbound order
execution messages and proprietary market data will reduce the latency
on outbound communications to 37 microseconds, which latency will be
due to geographic and physical distance and network connectivity.\10\
The proposed elimination of the coil delay on outbound order execution
messages and proprietary market data will affect IEXS in the same
manner that it effects other Exchange users, thus ensuring that the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer is similarly situated and
not competitively advantaged vis-[agrave]-vis any non-affiliated
routing broker-dealer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 11.510(a); see also Notice, supra note 3,
at 81984. Specifically, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule
11.510(a) to state that outbound communications from the IEX system
to the POP will not traverse the physical distance provided by
coiled optical fiber and instead will be subject to an equivalent 37
microseconds of latency due to traversing the geographic
distribution and network connectivity between the system at the
primary data center and the network access point of the POP. See
proposed Rule 11.510(a). Relatedly, the Exchange proposed to amend
Rule 11.510(b)(2) to state that, for outbound communications
(including, without limitation, execution report messages found in
the Exchange's FIX Specification, quote and trade update messages
found in the Exchange's TOPS and DEEP specifications, and DROP
messages), the Exchange's connectivity infrastructure is designed to
provide an equivalent 37 microseconds of latency from the system at
the primary data center to the Exchange-provided network interface
at the POP. See proposed Rule 11.510(b)(2).
    \11\ See Notice; supra note 3, at 81986. Specifically, the
Exchange proposed to amend Rule 11.510(c)(1) to state that all
outbound communications (including, without limitation, execution
report messages found in the Exchange's FIX specification) from the
order book to the system routing logic are subject to 37
microseconds of latency, which is in addition to the 37 microsecond
latency on outbound communications from the IEX system to the POP
described in proposed Rule 11.510(b)(2). See proposed Rule
11.510(c)(1); see also proposed Supp. .03 (stating that all
responses from the IEX order book to the system routing logic are
subject to 37 microseconds of latency and all messages from the
system routing logic to users are subject to an additional 37
microseconds of outbound latency). Users connected to IEX at the POP
therefore would experience a cumulative delay of 74 microseconds on
outbound messages from the IEX system regarding their routable
orders. See proposed Rule 11.510(c)(1); see also proposed Supp. .03.
Users would continue to experience a cumulative latency of 700
microseconds on inbound routable order messages. See proposed Rule
11.510(c)(1); proposed Supp. .03; Notice, supra note 3, at 81984. In
addition, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule 11.510(c)(2)(A) to
specify that the IEX routing logic may only receive Exchange data
products subject to 37 microseconds of latency, equivalent to the
outbound latency applicable to all other data product recipients
that is described in proposed Rule 11.510(b)(2). See proposed Rule
11.510(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposed to make several non-substantive
clarifying changes to add further detail to Rule 11.510 to: (i) Define
the term ``POP''; \12\ (ii) reference the 350 microsecond latency on
inbound communications from the POP to the IEX system and from the
system routing logic to the order book separately from the proposed 37
microsecond latency on outbound communications from the system to the

POP and from the order book to the system routing logic; \13\ (iii)
further describe, without alteration, how the Exchange handles incoming
routable orders, and specify that the 350 microseconds of latency on
inbound communications from the routing logic to the order book is in
addition to the inbound latency on communications from the POP to the
system; \14\ (iv) refine references to ``POP'' throughout the rule such
that they refer to connectivity at the POP or the connectivity
infrastructure between the system and the POP, as appropriate; \15\ (v)
add explanatory cross references to provisions within the rule; \16\
and (vi) make non-substantive grammatical revisions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 11.510(a).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 11.510(a) and 11.510(c)(1).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 11.510(c)(1).
    \15\ See proposed Rule 11.510.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 11.510(b), 11.510(c)(3)(A), and Supp.
.02.
    \17\ See proposed Rule 11.510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\18\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and with Section
6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ which requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's coil delay on outbound order execution messages and
proprietary market data, which has been in place since IEX became a
registered national securities exchange in 2016, was designed to help
IEX members avoid potential information leakage in connection with an
execution on IEX that could reduce their ability to access liquidity on
other markets after trading on IEX.\21\ Since 2016, however, various
technological developments, including the widespread availability of
improved smart order routing techniques that take into account
transmission latency in coordinating simultaneous order arrival and
execution times across multiple trading venues, have greatly reduced
the potential for information leakage when sweeping the market, thus
mitigating the utility of IEX's outbound coil delay to IEX users.\22\
In addition, SIP latencies have decreased materially since 2016,
effectively nullifying the purpose of the coil delay on IEX proprietary
data since market participants currently can receive SIP data faster
than IEX proprietary data.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 81983-84. By contrast, the
inbound coil delay, which is not affected by this proposal, is
designed to enable IEX to more effectively manage and price orders
resting on its book when the market moves. Id. at 81983.
    \22\ Id. at 81983-86; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 89686 (August 26, 2020), 85 FR 54438, 54441 (September 1, 2020).
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 81984 and n.25 (noting that,
at the time of IEX's exchange launch in September 2016 the average
latencies for quote messages was 470 microseconds for the CQ Plan
and 762 microseconds for the UTP Plan, and for trade messages was
320 microseconds for the CTA Plan and 619.7 microseconds for the UTP
Plan); see also www.utpplan.com (stating that current median latency
is approximately 13.0-14.2 microseconds); www.ctaplan.com (stating
that current median latency is under 17 microseconds for quotes and
under 18 microseconds for trades); and compare current Rule
11.150(b)(2) (stating that the POP is currently designed to provide
350 microseconds of latency on IEX proprietary market data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Against this backdrop, the Exchange asserts that the considerations
that existed in 2016 for imposing the coil delay on its outbound order
execution messages and proprietary data have been superseded by
developments in the market and are now outweighed by the benefits that
would be provided by the proposal--in particular, enhancement of
members' ability to manage risk and market exposure through receipt of
execution messages and IEX market data closer in time to when
executions or quote changes occur.\24\ The Exchange also states that
the proposal would enable other exchanges to update their pegged orders
faster, and enable other exchanges' affiliated routing brokers to more
quickly incorporate executions on IEX into their routing decisions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 81984-86.
    \25\ Id. at 81986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, IEXS (the Exchange's affiliated routing broker) and
all other IEX members will remain on equal footing in that they will
experience the same 37 microseconds of latency on their receipt of IEX
order execution messages and proprietary market data. As a result, IEXS
will have no informational or time advantage--or resulting competitive
advantage--over any other IEX member.\26\ Also, due to the equivalent
reduction in the latency attendant to both outbound execution messages
and IEX proprietary market data, parties to an execution on IEX will
not receive information regarding the execution prior to other market
participants, and thus will have no informational or time advantage--or
resulting competitive advantage--over members who receive IEX
proprietary data but are not parties to the execution. For these
reasons, the Commission believes that the proposal is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act, and would not impose any inappropriate or unnecessary burden on
competition, consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ IEX will sequence the necessary systems changes to
implement this proposed rule change in two steps, the first
occurring for IEX users and the second for IEXS, thus ensuring that
IEX's system routing logic is not preferenced over other users
during implementation. Id. at 81985. After step one and before step
two, while all outbound communications from the order book to the
routing logic would continue to be subject to an equivalent 350
microseconds of latency, outgoing messages (i.e., responses) from
the routing logic to users (with respect to routable orders sent to
IEX) would be subject to the proposed reduced outbound latency of 37
microseconds. Id. at 81985 n.29. During this intervening period IEXS
also would be able to receive IEX proprietary market data subject to
the same 37 microseconds of latency as other members and data
recipients. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, permitting the Exchange to modernize its
infrastructure in a way that will better enable its members to manage
risk and market exposure without inhibiting their ability to capture
liquidity when routing orders to multiple market venues is consistent
with the Section 6(b)(5) goals of promoting just and equitable
principles of trade, removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protecting investors and the public interest. These goals also will be
furthered by the proposal to the extent that other exchanges are better
able to manage their own resting orders and routing processes through
faster receipt of order messages and proprietary data from IEX. This
potential effect on other exchanges, coupled with the fact that no
other exchange currently imposes an artificial delay on outbound order
execution messages or proprietary market data,\27\ also support the
conclusion that the proposal will not impose any inappropriate or
unnecessary burden on competition,

consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 81986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed
clarifying changes to Rule 11.510 add helpful detail that will further
enhance investors' understanding of how IEX operates in a manner
consistent with the Act, thereby helping to protect investors and the
public interest consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-IEX-2020-18) be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02266 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53997-53999]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0495; Product Identifier 2019-NM-029-AD; Amendment
39-19752; AD 2019-19-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-05-
09, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N
airplanes, and Model A321-253N airplanes. AD 2019-05-09 required
repetitive detailed inspections of certain electrical harnesses for
discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2019-05-09 also
provided an optional terminating modification for the repetitive
detailed inspections. This AD retains the actions of AD 2019-05-09, and
adds a requirement for a terminating modification for the repetitive
detailed inspections, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by
reports of low clearance between the electrical harness and nearby
hydraulic pipes in the inboard trailing edge of the wing. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 13, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 4,
2019 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019).

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0495.

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-2019-
0495; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket is 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0035, dated February 15, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0035'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes,
and Model A321-253N airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR
10259, March 20, 2019) (``AD 2019-05-09''). AD 2019-05-09 applied to
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes, and Model A321-
253N airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 1,
2019 (84 FR 31254). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive
detailed inspections of certain electrical harnesses for discrepancies
and corrective actions, if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to add a
requirement for a terminating modification for the repetitive detailed
inspections.
    This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance between the
electrical harness and nearby hydraulic pipes in the inboard trailing
edge of the wing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition,
which could lead to chafing of electrical harnesses in the vicinity of
hydraulic pipes and could result in a potential source of ignition in
the flammable fluid leakage zone, and possibly result in a fire or
explosion and loss of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2019-0035, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of April 4, 2019 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019). This
material 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      EStimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2019-05-09...  6 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $510          $7,140
                                         hour = $510.
New proposed actions..................  16 work-hours x $85 per            8,900          10,260         143,640
                                         hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 EsTimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost               Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 8 work-hours x $85 per                (*)   Up to $680 *
 hour = $680.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019), and
adding the following new AD:

2019-19-16 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19752; Docket No. FAA-2019-0495;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-029-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 13, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR 10259,
March 20, 2019) (``AD 2019-05-09'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N
airplanes, and Model A321-253N airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0035, dated February 15, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0035'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical
system installation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance between the
electrical harness and nearby hydraulic pipes in the inboard
trailing edge of the wing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
this condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
chafing of electrical harnesses in the vicinity of hydraulic pipes
and could result in a potential source of ignition in the flammable
fluid leakage zone, and possibly result in a fire or explosion and
loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0035.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0035

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA AD

2019-0035 refer to its effective date, this AD requires using April
4, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-05-09).
    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0035 refers to its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0035 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although certain service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0035 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0035 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 4, 2019 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0035,
dated February 15, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For information about EASA AD 2019-0035, contact the EASA,
at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0495.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 23, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-22032 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13571-13573]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0240; Product Identifier 2018-CE-057-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/
350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-
H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1, and PC-6-H2 airplanes.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes

the unsafe condition as flap actuator taper pins that were not swaged
during the manufacturing process. We are issuing this proposed AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992,
CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41
619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 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-2018-
0240; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

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-2018-0240;
Product Identifier 2018-CE-057-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No. 2018-0235, dated November 5, 2018 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Pilatus Aircraft
Limited Models PC-6, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/
A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-
H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1, and PC-6-H2 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a recent overhaul, two new flap actuators were found to
have taper pins installed that, apparently, had not been swaged.
Investigation results identified that the taper pins had been
incorrectly swaged during the manufacturing process.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
loss of one or both taper pins, consequent asymmetric flap
deployment or flap surface flutter, possibly resulting in loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the taper pins of the affected parts for correct
installation and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires
inspection of, and, depending on findings, corrective action(s) on,
affected parts held as spare, prior to installation.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0240.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin No.
27-005, dated July 2, 2018. The service information contains procedures
for removing and inspecting the flap actuator assemblies and pushrod
assemblies, modifying or replacing the taper pins if necessary, and
reinstalling the assemblies. 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 the 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the 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 will affect 30 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic inspection requirements of this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $30,600, or $1,020 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on modification
or replacement actions would require parts costing $30,000, for a cost
of $1,000 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

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):

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0240; Product Identifier
2018-CE-057-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 20, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6/350,
PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2,
PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1,
and PC-6-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category, with a left-hand or right-hand flap actuator assembly part
number (P/N) 6132.0039.51 or P/N 6132.0039.52 or pushrod assembly P/
N 6132.0040.00 installed, except those assemblies supplied by
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. with a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
form 1 tag dated July 2, 2018 or later.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: These airplanes may also be
identified as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild
Industries airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-
Hiller Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as flap actuator
taper pins that were not swaged during the manufacturing process. We
are issuing this AD to prevent loss of one or both taper pins that
could lead to asymmetric flap deployment or flap surface flutter and
result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, prepare the
airplane and inspect each flap actuator taper pin for correct
installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions-Part 1-On
Aircraft, paragraphs 3.A through 3.B(2), of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.
PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 27-005, dated July 2, 2018 (Pilatus SB No.
27-005).
    (i) If a taper pin has any damage, before further flight,
replace and swage the taper pin and reinstall the pushrod assembly
by following the Accomplishment Instructions-Part 1-On Aircraft,
paragraphs 3.C and 3.D of Pilatus SB No. 27-005.
    (ii) If a taper pin is incorrectly swaged or is not swaged,
before further flight, swage the taper pin and reinstall the pushrod
assembly by following the Accomplishment Instructions-Part 1-On
Aircraft, paragraphs 3.C and 3.D of Pilatus SB No. 27-005.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a flap
actuator assembly, P/N 6132.0039.51 or P/N 6132.0039.52, or pushrod
assembly P/N 6132.0040.00 on any airplane unless the part was
supplied by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. with an EASA form 1 tag dated July
2, 2018 or later, or the part has been inspected in accordance with
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must
instead be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, or EASA.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No. 2018-0235, dated November 5, 2018, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0240. For service information related to this AD, contact
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box
992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax:
+41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation
Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-
4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 25, 2019.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2019-06672 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80829-80831]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No.FAA-2011-1387; Notice No. 23-11-02-SC]

Special Conditions: XtremeAir GmbH, XA42; Acrobatic Category
Aerodynamic Stability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the XtremeAir GmbH
XA42 airplane. The XA42 airplane has a novel or unusual design feature
associated with its static stability. This airplane can perform at the
highest level of aerobatic competition. To be competitive, the aircraft
was designed with positive and, at some points, neutral stability
within its flight envelope. Its lateral and directional axes are also
decoupled from each other providing more precise maneuvering. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are only applicable to aircraft certified
solely in the acrobatic category.

DATES: Send your comments on or before January 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-1387
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions
for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http:[sol][sol]regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at
http:[sol][sol]DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ross Schaller, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816) 329-4162; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On May 3, 2011, XtremeAir GmbH applied for a type certificate for
their new XA42. The XA42 is certified under EASA authority as a dual
category (acrobatic/utility) airplane. It has a two-place tandem canopy
cockpit, and a single-engine. It also features a conventional landing
gear, conventional low-wing planform and is of composite construction.
The engine is a Lycoming AEIO-580-B1A with a rated power of 315 Hp at
2,700 rpm. The airplane is proposed to be approved for Day-VFR
operations with no icing approval.
    The maximum takeoff weight is 2,200 pounds in utility category,
1,874 pounds in acrobatic category. VNE is 225 knots,

VNO is 185 knots and VA is 174 knots, indicated
airspeed. Maximum altitude is 15,000 feet.
    Acrobatic airplanes previously type certificated by the FAA did
comply with the stability provisions of Subpart B of 14 CFR part 23.
However, airplanes like the XA42 are considered as ``unlimited''
acrobatic aircraft because they can perform at the highest level of
aerobatic competition and can perform any of the maneuvers listed in
the Aresti Catalog. Generally, the evolution of the ``unlimited'' types
of acrobatic airplanes, with very low mass, exceptional roll rates and
very high G capabilities, in addition to power to mass ratios that are
unique to this type of airplane, have led to airplanes that cannot
comply with the stability provisions of the regulations. These
airplanes can still be type-certificated, but in the acrobatic category
only and with an appropriate set of special conditions and associated
limitations.
    The FAA will only consider certifying the XA42 in the acrobatic
category. XtremeAir GmbH will not be able to offer a utility category
operating envelope to accommodate the increased fuel load designed for
cross-country operations. The FAA does recognize that fuel exhaustion
is one of the top accident causes associated with this class of
aircraft. For this reason, the FAA proposes to allow XtremeAir to seek
certification of a limited acrobatic envelope at a higher weight that
will still meet the minimum load requirements of +6/-3 g associated
with 14 CFR, part 23, Sec.  23.337. The XA42 airplane would be approved
for unlimited maneuvers at or below its designed unlimited acrobatic
weight. The airplane would also be approved, at some higher weight (for
fuel), that would still meet the requirements of Sec.  23.337 for
acrobatic category and may have restrictions on the maneuvers allowed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR, part 21, Sec.  21.17, XtremeAir
GmbH must show that the XA42 meets the applicable provisions of part
23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-59 thereto.
    Part 36 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, effective
December 1, 1969, as amended by Amendments 36-1 through 36-28.
    Not approved for ditching; compliance with provisions for ditching
equipment in accordance with 14 CFR 23.1415(a)(b) has not been
demonstrated.
    Approved for VFR-day only. Flight in known icing prohibited.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the XA42 because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or a
similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the XA42 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of
regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574, the ``Noise
Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR, part 11,
Sec.  11.19, in accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of
the type-certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The XtremeAir GmbH XA42 will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features:
    For acrobatic category airplanes with unlimited acrobatic
capability:
    Neutral longitudinal and lateral static stability characteristics.

Discussion

    The Code of Federal Regulations states static stability criteria
for longitudinal, lateral, and directional axes of an airplane.
However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific
issues raised in the flight characteristics of an unlimited aerobatic
airplane. Therefore, the FAA has determined after a flight test
evaluation that, in addition to the requirements of part 21 and part
23, special conditions are needed to address these static stability
characteristics.
    Accordingly, these special conditions are for the XtremeAir GmbH
XA42 static stability characteristics to be certified solely as an
acrobatic category airplane. Other conditions may be developed, as
needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the
manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
XA42. Should XtremeAir GmbH apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these flight characteristics on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for XtremeAir GmbH XA42 airplanes.

1. Unlimited Acrobatic-Only Category Static Stability Requirements

    For unlimited, acrobatic-only category aircraft, the FAA proposes
that the XtremeAir GmbH XA42 comply with the following stability
special conditions in lieu of the existing Sec. Sec.  23.171, 23.173,
23.175, and 23.177:
    A. In place of 14 CFR part 23, Sec.  23.171 Flight--General
(stability) requirement, comply with the following:
    SC23.171 Flight--General: The airplane must be neutrally or
positively stable in the longitudinal, directional, and lateral axes
under sections SC23.173 through SC23.181. In addition, the airplane
must show suitable stability and control ``feel'' (static stability) in
any condition normally encountered in service, if flight tests show it
is necessary for safe operation.
    B. In place of 14 CFR part 23, Sec.  23.173, Static longitudinal
stability requirement, comply with the following:
    SC23.173 Static longitudinal stability: Under the conditions
specified in SC23.175 and with the airplane trimmed as indicated, the
characteristics of the elevator control forces and the friction within
the control system must be as follows:
    (a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the
specified trim speed and a push required to obtain and maintain speeds

above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that
can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess
of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the
minimum speed for steady unstalled flight need not be considered.
    (b) The stick force or position must vary with speed so that any
substantial speed change results in a stick force or position clearly
perceptible to the pilot.
    C. In place of 14 CFR part 23, Sec.  23.175, Demonstration of
static longitudinal stability requirement, comply with the following:
    SC23.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability:
    (a) Climb. The stick force curve must have, at a minimum, a
neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between 85 and 115 percent
of the trim speed, with--
    (1) Maximum continuous power; and
    (2) The airplane trimmed at the speed used in determining the climb
performance required by section 23.69(a).
    (b) Cruise. With the airplane in trim with power for level flight
at representative cruising speeds at high and low altitudes, including
speeds up to VNO, except that the speed need not exceed
VH--
    (1) The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a neutrally
stable to stable slope at all speeds within a range that is the greater
of 15 percent of the trim speed plus the resulting free return speed
range, or 40 knots plus the resulting free return speed range, above
and below the trim speed, except that the slope need not be stable--
    (i) At speeds less than 1.3 VS1; or
    (ii) For airplanes with VNE established under section
23.1505(a), at speeds greater than VNE.
    (c) Landing. The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a
neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between 1.1 VS1
and 1.8 VS1 with--
    (1) Landing gear extended; and
    (2) The airplane trimmed at--
    (i) VREF, or the minimum trim speed if higher, with
power off; and
    (ii) VREF with enough power to maintain a 3 degree angle
of descent.
    D. In place of 14 CFR part 23, Sec.  23.177, Static directional and
lateral stability requirement, comply with the following:
    SC23.177 Static directional and lateral stability:
    (a) The static directional stability, as shown by the tendency to
recover from a wings level sideslip with the rudder free, must be
positive for any landing gear and flap position appropriate to the
takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and landing configurations. This must
be shown with symmetrical power up to maximum continuous power, and at
speeds from 1.2 VS1 up to the maximum allowable speed for
the condition being investigated. The angle of sideslip for these tests
must be appropriate to the type of airplane. At larger angles of
sideslip, up to that at which full rudder is used or a control force
limit in section 23.143 is reached, whichever occurs first, and at
speeds from 1.2 VS1 to VO, the rudder pedal force
must not reverse.
    (b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 VS1 for any landing
gear and flap positions, and for any symmetrical power conditions up to
50 percent of maximum continuous power, the rudder control movements
and forces must increase steadily, but not necessarily in constant
proportion, as the angle of sideslip is increased up to the maximum
appropriate to the type of airplane. The aileron control movements and
forces may increase steadily, but not necessarily in constant
proportion, as the angle of sideslip is increased up to the maximum
appropriate to the type of airplane. At larger slip angles, up to the
angle at which the full rudder or aileron control is used or a control
force limit contained in section 23.143 is reached, the aileron and
rudder control movements and forces must not reverse as the angle of
sideslip is increased. Rapid entry into, and recovery from, a maximum
sideslip considered appropriate for the airplane must not result in
uncontrollable flight characteristics.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 16, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33049 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591; FRL-      ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the York-Adams
Counties 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  The revision amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
the York-Adams Counties 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area (the Area).  This
revision amends the maintenance plan’s 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) by unequally dividing the existing approved
MVEBs which covers the entire maintenance area into two sub-regional
MVEBs, one set of MVEBs for each county comprising the area.  The
revised plan continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  EPA is approving this
SIP revision to the Pennsylvania maintenance plan for York-Adams in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591 by one of the following methods:

     A.    www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

     B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591, Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy,
Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an anonymous access system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Martin Kotsch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we'',

``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of Pennsylvania's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2163) EPA redesignated the York-Adams
Counties area of Pennsylvania to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
For the York-Adams Counties area, the redesignation included approval of
an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrous Oxides (NOX), which are
ozone precursors, which are then used for transportation planning and
conformity purposes.  There are two separate metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), in this maintenance area, one in each county, with
individual responsibility for doing transportation conformity for their
respective county.  Pennsylvania has unequally divided the existing
MVEBs and created sub-regional MVEBs for each county to better
accommodate the transportation planning and conformity processes within
the Area.

II. Summary of Pennsylvania's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

On May 23, 2008, the State of Pennsylvania submitted to EPA a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision
proposes MVEBs that reflect the unequal division of the existing MVEBS
for the maintenance area.  The divided MVEBs continue to ensure
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone for the York-Adams area.

The following table lists the previously approved MVEBs and the proposed
reallocation of the MVEBs into sub-regional budgets for the York-Adams
Counties area.

York-Adams Area Reallocation of the MVEBs into Sub-regional Budgets

Current MVEBs in the Approved Maintenance Plan - Both Counties

(Tons/Day)

2004 Base Year         2009 Projection     2018 Projection

       VOC                 16.1                              15.9
                9.0

       NOx                 26.4                              22.8
               10.0

                            Proposed MVEBs in the Revised Maintenance
Plan for Both Counties

(Tons/Day) 1/

                              2009 Budget           2018 Budget

Adams County

VOC                              3.84                        2.34

NOx                              4.87                        2.54

  York County

VOC                           12.09                        6.72

NOx                             17.96                        7.50

1/ Due to rounding, the new reallocated budgets, if combined, are
insignificantly higher then the previously approved mobile budgets for
the entire area. This slight difference will still ensure maintenance of
the 8-hour ozone attainment as the combined MVEBs  are still lower then
the attainment year budgets.

EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for VOCs and NOX
emissions listed above in Table 1 as the new MVEBs for transportation
conformity planning.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's May 23, 2008 SIP revision submittal
which amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the York-Adams area.
 This revision unequally divides the previously approved 2009 and 2018
MVEBs to create sub-regional MVEBs for the two counties comprising the
area.  EPA is approving this SIP revision to the maintenance plan for
the Area because the May 23, 2008 submittal continues to demonstrate
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the aggregated sub-regional
MVEBs.  EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment, since no significant adverse comments were received on
the SIP revision at the State level.  However, in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on [Insert date
60 days after publication in the Federal Register] without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by [Insert date 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register].

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action.  Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time

IV.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

Is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

 C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.

This action to approve the York-Adams Counties revised maintenance plan
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See, section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

July 28, 2009
/s/

Dated:                                				William C. Early,

				Acting Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX--Pennsylvania

 2.  In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by revising
the entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the York-Adams, PA
Area to read as follows:

§ 52.2520  	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(e) * * *

(1)* * *

EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY OR QUASI-REGULATORY MATERIAL

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision

Applicable geographic area

State submittal date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

8-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan for

the York-Adams, PA

Area

York-Adams Counties Area

6/14/07

1/14/08

73 FR 2163

5/23/08   	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

*	*	*	*	*

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3181]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 526

Intramammary Dosage Forms; Cephapirin Sodium

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of supplemental new animal drug
applications (NADAs) filed by Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of
Wyeth. The supplemental NADAs provide for revisions to the labeling of
two cephapirin sodium products administered by intramammary infusion to
lactating cows for the treatment of mastitis.

DATES: This rule is effective January 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan C. Gotthardt, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of Wyeth,
800 Fifth St. NW., Fort Dodge, IA 50501, filed supplements to NADA 97-
222 that revise labeling of CEFA-LAK (cephapirin sodium) and TODAY
(cephapirin sodium) Intramammary Infusion administered to lactating
cows for the treatment of mastitis. The application is approved as of
December 20, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 526.365 to
reflect the approval and a current format.
    Approval of these supplemental NADAs did not require review of
additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a
freedom of information summary is not required.
    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 526

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 526 is
amended as follows:

PART 526--INTRAMAMMARY DOSAGE FORMS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 526 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  526.365, revise the section heading and paragraph (d) to
read as follows:

Sec.  526.365  Cephapirin sodium.

* * * * *
    (d) Conditions of use in lactating cows--(1) Amount. Infuse one
dose into each infected quarter immediately after the quarter has been
completely milked out. Do not milk out for 12 hours. Repeat once only
in 12 hours.
    (2) Indications for use. For the treatment of mastitis in lactating
cows caused by susceptible strains of Streptococcus agalactiae and
Staphylococcus aureus including strains resistant to penicillin.
    (3) Limitations. If improvement is not noted within 48 hours after
treatment, consult your veterinarian. Milk that has been taken from
animals during treatment and for 96 hours after the last treatment must
not be used for food. Treated animals must not be slaughtered for food
until 4 days after the last treatment.

    Dated: January 4, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-816 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56834]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AltaGas Renewable Energy Colorado LLC..   EG12-70-000
Patton Wind Farm, LLC..................  EG12-71-000
Big Savage, LLC........................  EG12-72-000
Pacific Wind Lessee, LLC...............  EG12-73-000
High Majestic Interconnection Services,  EG12-74-000
 LLC.
O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc..............  EG12-75-000
NRG Solar Avra Valley LLC..............  EG12-76-000
Spearville 3, LLC......................  EG12-77-000
NaturEner Rim Rock Wind Energy, LLC....  EG12-78-000
NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 1, LLC...  EG12-79-000
Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy LLC...........  EG12-80-000
Blue Sky East, LLC.....................  EG12-81-000
Meadow Creek Project Company LLC.......  EG12-82-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of July/August 2012, the status
of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR
366.7(a).

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22666 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P