  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FILE NAME:  company.wpt   (1/1/2005) (xml)

Template Number P25

ATTENTION:

	All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

	All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should
be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.
Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format  in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Insert petition number]

 [metconazole,
5-[(4-chlorophenyl)-methyl]-2,2-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylmethyl)
cyclopentanol, measured as the sum of cis- and trans- isomers] in or on
the raw agricultural commodities [fruits, stone (Crop Group 12) at 0.2
parts per million (ppm); nuts, tree (Crop Group 14) including pistachio
at 0.02 ppm; almond hulls at 5.0 ppm; and peanut at 0.02 ppm].

[Insert petition number]

 [metconazole,
5-[(4-chlorophenyl)-methyl]-2,2-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylmethyl)
cyclopentanol, measured as the sum of cis- and trans-isomers] in or on
the raw agricultural commodities [barley, grain at 2.0 parts per million
ppm; barley, hay at 7.0 ppm, barley straw at 7.0 ppm; beet, sugar, root
at 0.1 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 2.0 ppm; beet, sugar, pulp, dry at 1.9
ppm; beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, raw at 0.25 ppm;
oat, grain at 1.0 ppm; oat, straw at 6.0 ppm; oat, hay at 17 ppm; rye,
grain at 0.25 ppm; rye, straw at 14.0 ppm; soybean, forage at 3.0 ppm;
soybean, hay at 6.0 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.10 ppm; soybean, aspirated
grain fractions at 1.0 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.2 ppm; triticale at 0.25
ppm, wheat, grain at 0.15 ppm; wheat, hay at 16.0 ppm; wheat, straw at
18.0 ppm;  wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 10.0 ppm; wheat, milled
byproducts at 1.0 ppm].

EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petitions.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petitions.

. [Nature of the residue studies (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 860.1300)
were conducted in wheat, canola, banana, peas, and mandarin oranges as
representative crops in order to characterize the fate of metconazole in
all crop matrices. Two radiocarbon labeling positions were studied in
each crop. In all crops triazole ring labeling was used, and the other
label was positioned either in the p-chlorophenyl or the cyclopentyl
rings. In all five crops the metconazole Residues of Concern (ROC) were
characterized as parent metconazole. A confined rotational crop study
also determined that parent metconazole was the residue of concern in
the representative crops of wheat, radish, and lettuce/spinach.

. [Independently validated analytical method have been submitted for
analyzing parent metconazole residues with appropriate sensitivity in
all the crop and processed commodities for soybean, sugar beet, barley,
wheat, oats, rye, stone fruit [crop group 12], tree nuts [crop group
14], and peanuts) for which tolerances are being requested.

. [Field trials were carried out to determine the magnitude of the
residue in/on soybean, sugar beet, barley, wheat, oats, rye, stone fruit
[crop group 12], tree nuts [crop group 14], and peanuts. The number and
locations of field trials are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline
860.1500. Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rates,
the maximum number of applications, and the minimum pre-harvest interval
(PHI) for all the crops. Detected residues of metconazole in all crops
support the proposed tolerances.

[A complete, valid and reliable database of mammalian and genetic
toxicology studies supports the proposed tolerance for metconazole on
stone fruit, tree nuts, and peanut (Valent uses) and wheat, barley, rye,
oat, sugar beet, and soybean (BASF uses). Two geometric isomers of
metconazole exist, with the fungicidal activity being associated
primarily with the cis isomer. The technical material is composed of >97
% (nominal) active ingredient and that is manufactured for use on stone
fruit, tree nuts, and peanut (Valent uses) and wheat, barley, rye, oat,
sugar beet, and soybean (BASF uses) is a mixture of cis- and trans-
isomers in an 85 to 15 ratio (85:15).  Toxicology studies submitted in
support of this petition were conducted on the metconazole technical
material composed of either the 85:15 isomer mixture (AC 900768) or a
more purified (greater than 95%) sample of the cis-isomer (WL 136184).

 AC 900768 technical is considered to be slightly toxic (Toxicity
Category III) to the rat by the oral route of exposure. In an acute oral
study in rats, the LD50 value of AC 900768 technical was 727 milligrams
per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg b.w.) for males and 595 mg/kg b.w.
for females. The oral LD50 for combined sexes was 660 mg/kg b.w. An oral
LD50 study in rats conducted with WL 136184 technical also supports the
classification of metconazole as slightly toxic by the oral route of
exposure. The oral LD50 values of WL 136184 technical were 1,626 mg/kg
b.w. for males and 1,312 mg/kg b.w. for females, with an LD50 value for
combined sexes of 1,459 mg/kg b.w.

The 85:15 isomer mixture demonstrates no acute toxicity via the dermal
route of exposure [LD50 value >2000 mg/kg (highest dose tested)]
(Toxicity Category III) or inhalation route of exposure [LC50 >5.6 mg/L]
(Toxicity Category IV).  The material is mildly irritating to the eye
(Toxicity Category III) and is not irritating to the skin (Toxicity
Category IV), nor is it a skin sensitizer.]

Genotoxicity.  [AC 900768 technical (the 85:15 isomer mixture) and WL
136184 technical (greater than 95% cis isomer) were tested in an
extensive battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays measuring
several different endpoints of potential genotoxicity. Collective
results from these studies indicate that metconazole does not pose a
genotoxic risk, and therefore, is not likely to be a genotoxic
carcinogen.]

. [Developmental toxicity studies in rats conducted with AC 900768
technical and WL 136184 technical showed no evidence of teratogenic
effects in fetuses, and no evidence of developmental toxicity in the
absence of maternal toxicity. Thus, metconazole is neither a selective
developmental toxicant nor a teratogen in the rat. Two rat developmental
toxicity studies have been conducted with AC 900768 technical. In the
first study, the no-observable-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for maternal
toxicity was 12 mg/kg b.w./ day, based on decreased body weight gain at
30 mg/kg b.w./day, the next highest dose tested, and the NOAEL for
developmental toxicity was also 12 mg/kg b.w./day, based on decreased
fetal body weights and an increased incidence of skeletal ossification
variations at 30 mg/kg b.w./day. In the second study, the maternal and
fetal NOAEL was 16 mg/kg/day based on findings similar to the first
study at the next higher dose level of 65 mg/kg/day. In the rat
developmental toxicity study conducted with WL 136184 technical, the
NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 24 mg/kg b.w./day based on decreased
body weight gain at 60 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested, and the
NOAEL for developmental toxicity was also 24 mg/kg b.w./day, based on an
increase in the total number of resorptions, reductions in fetal body
weights and an increased incidence of skeletal ossification variations
at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.

Results from a developmental toxicity study in rabbits with the 85:15
isomer mixture also indicated no evidence of teratogenicity or
developmental toxicity in the absence of maternal toxicity. Thus,
metconazole technical is neither a selective developmental toxicant nor
a teratogen in the rabbit. In this rabbit developmental study, the NOAEL
for maternal toxicity was 20 mg/kg b.w./day based on decreased food
consumption and body weight gain, reductions in hemoglobin, hematocrit
and corpuscular volume, increases in platelet counts and alkaline
phosphatase activity, and increased absolute and relative liver weights
at 40 mg/kg b.w./day (the highest dose tested). The NOAEL for
developmental toxicity was also 20 mg/ kg b.w./day, based on an increase
in the total number and mean number of resorptions and decreased fetal
body weight at 40 mg/kg b.w./day.

Two multi-generation reproduction studies were conducted with
Metconazole Technical -- one with the >95% cis form and one with the
85/15 cis/trans form.  Dose levels and results in both studies were
similar, although the 95% cis study diet was adjusted to maintain a
constant dose.  Dose levels in the >95% cis study were 0, 2, 8, 32 and
48 mg/kg/day and in the 85/15 cis study were 0, 30, 150 and 750 ppm
(approximately 0, 2.1, 10.6 and 52.8 mg/kg/day for pre-mating growth
period).  For the >95% cis study, the results support a NOAEL for
parental toxicity of 8 mg/kg/day based on increased ovarian weight and
increased gestation length at the next highest dose tested (32
mg/kg/day).   The NOAEL for growth and development of the offspring is
also 8 mg/kg/day, based on reductions in live litter size for F2 litters
at 32 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for reproductive performance and fertility
was 48 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested).  In the 85/15 cis/trans
study, the NOAEL identified for parental toxicity, offspring growth and
development and reproductive toxicity was 10.8 mg/kg/day (150 ppm) based
on effects observed at the highest dose tested of 52.8 mg/kg/day (750
ppm).

Results of the pilot and definitive reproduction studies and
developmental toxicity studies conducted with AC 900768 technical and/or
WL 136184 technical show no increased sensitivity to developing
offspring as compared to parental animals, as comparable NOAELs were
obtained for parental toxicity and growth and development of offspring.]

Subchronic toxicity.  [Short-term (28-day) dietary toxicity studies in
rats were conducted with AC 900768 and WL 136184 technical materials. In
the 28-day study with AC 900768, the NOAEL was 100 ppm (approximately
9.6 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reductions in body weight, body weight
gain, food consumption, and hemoglobin concentration for males, as well
as increased absolute and relative liver weights, and increased
incidences of hepatic fatty vacuolation and parenchymal hypertrophy for
males and females at 1,000 ppm (the next highest concentration tested).
Similar results were observed in the study conducted with WL 136184
technical. Based on these results, the NOAEL for WL 136184 is 300 ppm
(approximately 28.5 mg/kg b.w./day), supported by decreased body weights
and body weight gains and increased incidences of hepatic fatty
vacuolation for males and females, increased absolute and adjusted liver
weights for females, and decreased food consumption for males at 1,000
ppm (the next highest concentration tested).

In a 28-day dietary study in dogs conducted with AC 900768 technical
(85:15 isomer mixture), the NOAEL was a dietary concentration of 1,000
ppm (approximately 38.6 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased food
consumption, body weight losses, increased alkaline phosphatase
activity, increased spleen and liver weights, and urinalysis changes for
males and females, and increased absolute and relative thyroid gland
weights for females at 7,000 ppm, the highest concentration tested.

Subchronic (90-day) dietary studies in rats were conducted with AC
900768 technical and WL 136184 technical. In the study conducted with AC
900768, the NOAEL was 100 ppm (approximately 6.8 mg/kg b.w./day) based
on hepatic fatty vacuolation in males at 300 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested. The NOAEL from the study conducted with WL 136184
technical was 450 ppm (approximately 30.9 mg/kg b.w./day) based on
decreased food consumption, body weights, and body weight gains,
clinical chemistry changes, increased absolute and adjusted liver
weights, and histopathological changes in the liver and/or stomach for
males and females, and decreased red blood cell parameters for females
at 1,350 ppm, the highest concentration tested.

In a 90-day dietary study in mice conducted with AC 900768, the NOAEL
was 30 ppm (approximately 5.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on increased
aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activities in males, increased
absolute and relative weights of the liver and spleen of females, and
increased incidences of hepatocellular vacuolation and hypertrophy for
males and females at 300 ppm, the next highest concentration tested.

A 90-day dietary study in beagle dogs with AC 900768 technical supports
a NOAEL of 60 ppm (approximately 2.5 mg/kg b.w./day) based on decreased
body weight gain and food consumption for females, and a slight increase
in reticulocyte count for males at 600 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested.

  [NOTE: At the 90-day timepoint of the chronic (one-year) toxicity
study in the dog, the NOAEL for decreased body weight gain is 300 ppm
(approximately 11.1 mg/kg b.w./day).]

.  [Findings similar to those observed in the short-term subchronic
studies were also apparent in the long-term dietary toxicity studies
conducted in rats, dogs and mice.

In a chronic toxicity study, Llong-term (104-weeks) administration of
metconazole technical to rats supported a NOAEL for systemic toxicity of
100 ppm (approximately 4.8 mg/kg b.w./day), based on increased adjusted
liver weight, clinical chemistry changes, and increased incidences of
hepatocellular lipid vacuolation and centrilobular hypertrophy at
interim sacrifice for males at 300 ppm, the next highest concentration
tested.

In a 104-week carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets containing 0, 100,
300 or 1000 ppm metconazole technical, the NOAEL for carcinogenicity was
1000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day) the highest dose tested.  The NOAEL for chronic
systemic toxicity was 100 ppm (5.6 mg/kg/day) based on increased
incidences of centrilobular hypertrophy and pigment disposition in the
liver and increased incidences of cortical vacuolation in the adrenal at
300 ppm.

In a one-year dietary study in beagle dogs, the NOAEL was 300 ppm
(approximately 11.1 mg/ kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight
gain for males during weeks 1 to 13 and increased alkaline phosphatase
activity for males and females at 1,000 ppm, the next highest
concentration tested. In a 104-week carcinogenicity study in rats
conducted with AC 900768, the NOAEL for carcinogenicity was 1,000 ppm
(approximately 50 mg/kg b.w./ day), the highest concentration tested. In
this study the NOAEL for chronic systemic toxicity was 100 ppm
(approximately 5.6 mg/kg b.w./day), based on increased incidences of
centrilobular hypertrophy and pigment disposition in the liver, and
increased incidences of cortical vacuolation in the adrenal in males at
300 ppm, the next highest concentration tested.

A 91-week carcinogenicity study in mice with AC 900768 supports a NOAEL
for non-neoplastic effects of 30 ppm (approximately 4.8 mg/kg b.w./
day), based on increased white blood cell count for males, increased
aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activities and increased absolute
and adjusted liver weight for females, and microscopic changes in the
liver, spleen and adrenal gland for males and females at 300 ppm (the
next highest concentration tested). The NOAEL for carcinogenicity was
300 ppm (approximately 48.3 mg/kg b.w./day) based on increased
incidences of hepatocellular adenomas in males and females and
hepatocellular carcinomas in females at 1,000 ppm, the highest
concentration tested. The increased incidences of hepatic adenomas and
carcinomas at the highest concentration tested are considered to occur
through promotional and non-genotoxic secondary mechanisms following
toxicity and induction of mixed function oxidase in mice. Consequently,
metconazole is not likely to be oncogenic in humans at the insignificant
levels of exposure resulting from its use as a fungicide.

. [The rat metabolism studies indicate that the qualitative nature of
the residues of metconazole in animals is adequately understood. In
studies conducted with radiolabeled AC 900768 (85:15 isomer mixture) or
radiolabeled WL 136184 (greater than 95% cis isomer) radioactivity was
rapidly eliminated in urine and feces within 48 hours of dosing. Biliary
excretion was shown to be a prominent route of elimination. At both high
and low doses of AC 900768, male rats generally excreted statistically
significantly lower amounts of radioactivity in the urine, and greater
amounts of radioactivity in the feces, compared to females. The pattern
of metabolites detected was similar at high and low doses, and little or
no parent compound was found in the feces or urine. Five days following
oral dosing of AC 900768 at the higher level, low levels of
radioactivity were detected in the majority of tissues analyzed; however
higher concentrations of radioactivity were found in the adrenal glands,
gastro-intestinal tract and liver. A comparison of radioactivity levels
in the adrenal glands following oral administration of low and high
doses indicates that uptake in the adrenal may be saturable. No
differences in tissue levels were noted between males and females.]

. [The metabolism of metconazole technical is similar in plants and
mammals with extensive hydroxylation being the predominate reaction.
Due to the similar structural nature of most metabolites, the toxicity
of the plant metabolites is adequately estimated from the results of
studies performed in animals.  EPA concern for several unique plant
metabolites common to most triazole fungicides is being addressed with
research conducted by the US Triazole Task Force.  On the basis of this
research, an interim human health risk assessment for aggregate exposure
to 1, 2, 4-triazole was published in the Federal Register (40 CFR Part
180, Vol. 69 No. 149 Page 47005, 8/4/04) and will be refined once the
research is complete.]

.  [The toxicology database for metconazole technical is current and
complete.  This includes a thorough evaluation of the potential effects
on reproduction and development, and the pathology of the endocrine
organs following short-term and long-term exposure.  The battery of
tests included as part of this petition fully characterizes potential
endocrine-related in vivo effects, clearly defines NOAEL/LOAEL values,
and indicates no increased sensitivity to developing offspring.]

. [Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk
due to acute and chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population to
residues of metconazole. This fungicide considering both the cis and
trans isomers, in or on raw agricultural commodities, was expressed as
the parent compound.  The analysis included all the proposed tolerance
values for soybean, sugar beet, barley, wheat, oats, rye, triticale,
stone fruit (crop group 12), tree nuts (crop group 14), peanuts, and
bananas.]

[Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

Acute dietary exposure estimates were based on proposed tolerance
values, default process factors with the exception of a determined
process factor for sugar beet molasses, and 100% of all crops treated.
The consumption data was from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The result exposure estimates were compared against the metconazole
acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) of 0.16 mg/kg b.w./day for females
13-49 years of age.  This endpoint is based on the NOAEL from a rat
developmental toxicity study of 16 mg/kg/day with an FQPA safety factor
of 1.  An acute oral toxicological endpoint could not be determined for
all other sub-populations.  Considering the exposure assumptions
discussed above, metconazole acute dietary exposure from food is 0.88 %
aPAD for females 13-49 years of age.  The results of the acute dietary
assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.	Results for Metconazole Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID at the 95th
Percentile

Population	Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)*

U.S. Population	0.00251	NA

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.004683	NA

Children (1-2 years old)	0.004738	NA

Children (3-5 years old)	0.003825	NA

Children (6-12 years old)	0.002258	NA

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.001347	NA

Females (13-49 years old)	0.00140	0.88

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.002625	NA

Adults (50+ years old)	0.001594	NA

The results of the analysis show that for females 13-49 years of age,
the estimated exposure is well below the Agency's level of concern (<
100% aPAD).  Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e.
utilizing anticipated residue values, percent crop treated values) would
further reduce the estimated exposure values.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on proposed tolerance
values, default process factors with the exception of a determined
process factor for sugar beet molasses, and 100% crop treated values for
all commodities.  The consumption data was from the USDA Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the
EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The chronic Ppopulation Aadjusted Ddose (cPAD) used for U.S. population
and all sub-populations is 0.0483 mg/kg bw/day. This endpoint is based
on the NOAEL values from both a 104-week rat chronic toxicity study and
a mouse 78-week carcinogenicity study of 4.8 mg/kg/day with an FQPA
safety factor of 1. Considering the exposure assumptions discussed
above, metconazole chronic dietary exposure from food for the U.S.
population was 1.7 % of the cPAD.  The most highly exposure population
sub group was children 1-2 years of age at 4.1% cPAD.   The results of
the chronic dietary assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Results for Metconazole Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID

Population	Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.000733	1.5

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.001231	2.6

Children (1-2 years old)	0.001754	3.7

Children (3-5 years old)	0.00147	3.1

Children (6-12 years old)	0.0009	1.9

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000525	1.1

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000481	1.0

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000698	1.5

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000518	1.1

The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).  Additional
refinements in the chronic dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values and percent crop treated values) would
further reduce the estimated exposure values.]

. [Based on results from the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models estimates,
the acute Estimated Drinking Wwater Concentrations (EDWC) for
metconazole exposure are estimated to be 48.22 ug/L (ppb) in surface
water and 0.42 ug/L in shallow ground water.  The chronic EDWC’s for
exposure are estimated to be 24.31 ug/L in surface water and 0.42 ug/L
in shallow ground water.  The concentrations were determinedused are
based on the maximum number of applications at the maximum label rate
and minimum interval for turf,. The turf use allows the greatest amount
of metconazole to be applied of any proposed use.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the maximum
estimated metconazole water concentrations (acute - 48.22 ug/L, chronic
24.31 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights reported in CSFII,
using DEEM-FCID software.  The acute and chronic estimated water
exposure values are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.  Minimal
exposure of metconazole occurs through drinking water with 1.96% of the
aPAD for females 13-49 years of age and less than 4.0% of the cPAD for
all other subpopulations.

Table 3. Results for Metconazole Acute Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Acute Drinking Water Concentration
using DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	% aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.002519	NA

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.009497	NA

Children (1-2 years old)	0.003952	NA

Children (3-5 years old)	0.003611	NA

Children (6-12 years old)	0.002514	NA

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.002044	NA

Females (13-49 years old)	0.002347	1.96

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.002334	NA

Adults (50+ years old)	0.002108	NA

Table 4. Results for Metconazole Chronic Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the    Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water
Concentration using DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.000512	1.1

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.00168	3.5

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000761	1.6

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000712	1.5

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000491	1.0

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.00037	0.8

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000476	1.0

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000478	1.0

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000503	1.0

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate acute risk includes residues of metconazole from food and
water (Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the
acute aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate that there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed uses and the
results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no
harm.

Table 5. 	Estimated Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk of Metconazole

Population Subgroup	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

U.S. Population	NA	0.00251	0.002519	0.005029	NA

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	NA	0.004683	0.009497	0.01418	NA

Children 1-2 years	NA	0.004738	0.003952	0.00869	NA

Children 3-5 years	NA	0.003825	0.003611	0.007436	NA

Children 6 – 12 years	NA	0.002258	0.002514	0.004772	NA

Youth 13-19 years	NA	0.001347	0.002044	0.003391	NA

Females 13-49 years	0.16	0.0014	0.002347	0.003747	2.34

Adults 20-49 years	NA	0.002625	0.002334	0.004959	NA

Adults + 50	NA	0.001594	0.002108	0.003702	NA

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of metconazole from food
and water (Table 6). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed uses and the
results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no
harm.

  Table 67. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of
Metconazole

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.0483	0.000733	0.000512	0.001245	2.59

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.0483	0.001231	0.00168	0.002911	6.06

Children 1-2 years	0.0483	0.001754	0.000761	0.002515	5.24

Children 3-5 years	0.0483	0.00147	0.000712	0.002182	4.55

Children 6 – 12 years	0.0483	0.0009	0.000491	0.001391	2.90

Youth 13-19 years	0.0483	0.000525	0.00037	0.000895	1.86

Females 13-49 years	0.0483	0.000481	0.000476	0.000957	1.99

Adults 20-49 years	0.0483	0.000698	0.000478	0.001176	2.45

Adults + 50	0.0483	0.000518	0.000503	0.001021	2.13

There are no CODEX maximum residue levels established or proposed for
residues of metconazole in soybean, sugar beet, barley, wheat, oats,
rye, triticale, stone fruit (crop group 12), tree nuts (crop group 14),
peanuts, and bananas.]

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79734-79737]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32750]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65987; File No. SR-BX-2011-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amending the BOX Trading
Rules To Reduce the PIP From One Second to 100 Milliseconds

December 16, 2011.
    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 December 7, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 18 (The Price
Improvement Period (``PIP'')) of the Rules of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to reduce the PIP from one second to 100
milliseconds. The text of the proposed rule change is available from
the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter V,
Section 18(e)(i) (The Price Improvement Period (``PIP'')) of the BOX
Rules to reduce the time period of the PIP from one second to 100
milliseconds (1/10 of one second). The PIP allows BOX Options
Participants to designate certain customer orders for price improvement
and submit such orders to the PIP (``PIP Order'') with a matching
contra order (``Primary Improvement Order''). Once such an order is
submitted, BOX commences a PIP by broadcasting a message to Options
Participants that (1) states that a Primary Improvement Order has been
processed; (2) contains information concerning series, size, PIP Start
Price and side of the market of the order; and (3) states when the PIP
will conclude (``PIP Broadcast''). Further, responses within a PIP
(i.e., Improvement Orders), are also broadcast to BOX Options
Participants. This proposed rule change would reduce the duration of
the PIP from one second to 100 milliseconds. When approving previous
reductions in BOX exposure periods (e.g., crossing orders and the PIP)
the Commission concluded that reducing these time periods to one second
was fully consistent with the BOX electronic market.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53854 (May 24,
2006), 71 FR 30975 (May 31, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-23) and 59638 (March
27, 2009), 74 FR 15020 (April 2, 2009) (BX-2009-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX is not proposing any change to the requirement in Chapter V,
Section 17 of the BOX Rules that requires an Order Flow Provider
(``OFP'') to expose its customer's order on the BOX Book for at least
one second before executing its own principal order against such
customer order. An exception to this requirement to expose a customer
order for one second is provided in Chapter V, Section 18(c) of the BOX
Rules, permitting an OFP to execute its principal order against an
order it represents as agent if the OFP submits the agency order to the
PIP. BOX believes this exception for PIP orders is appropriate because
the customer order is guaranteed an execution at the National Best Bid/
Offer (``NBBO'') or a better price through the PIP. Additionally, BOX
Options Participants are informed about the two-sided order starting
the PIP through receipt of the PIP Broadcast. BOX Participants have the
opportunity to compete for participation in the execution of the
customer order by responding to the PIP Broadcast with their best-
priced Improvement Order.
    BOX believes the proposed rule change could provide more customer
orders an opportunity for price improvement because it will reduce the
market risk for all Participants executing trades in the PIP. BOX
Participants that initiate a PIP (``Initiating Participants'') are
required to guarantee an execution at the NBBO or at a better price,
and are subject to market risk while their PIP Order is exposed to
other BOX Participants. While other PIP Participants are also subject
to market risk, those providing responses in the PIP through
Improvement Orders are not permitted to cancel their orders, but can
only modify their Improvement Order, including reducing their order
quantity, by providing a better price. When a PIP Participant submits
more than one Improvement Order during a PIP, doing so decreases the
time that each Improvement Order is exposed to market risk. BOX
believes that the Initiating Participant acts in a critical role in the
PIP. Their willingness to guarantee the customer order an execution at
NBBO or a better price is the keystone to the customer order gaining
the opportunity for price improvement. As such, BOX believes that
reducing the PIP from one second to 100 milliseconds, and the
Participants' corresponding market risk, particularly the risk for the
Initiating Participant, will benefit customers because it is more
likely that additional PIP transactions will be initiated.
    BOX believes that its Options Participants operate electronic
systems that enable them to react and respond to orders in a meaningful
way in fractions of a second. BOX anticipates that its Participants
will continue to compete within the proposed PIP duration of 100
milliseconds. In particular, BOX believes that 100 milliseconds will
continue to provide market participants with sufficient time to respond
to,

compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, and will provide
investors and other market participants with more timely executions,
and reduce their market risk.
    BOX believes that further reducing the PIP from one second to 100
milliseconds will benefit Participants trading in the PIP. BOX believes
it is in these Participants' best interests to minimize the PIP while
continuing to allow Participants adequate time to electronically
respond. Both the order being exposed and Participants' Improvement
Orders are subject to market risk during the PIP. While a limited
number of Participants wait to respond until later in the PIP,
presumably to minimize their market risk, in more than eighty percent
(80%) of PIP executions BOX Participants respond within the first 100
milliseconds.\4\ BOX believes that 100 milliseconds will continue to
provide all market participants with sufficient time to respond,
compete, and provide price improvement for orders and will provide
investors and other market participants with more timely executions,
thereby reducing their market risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based on a BOX review of all PIP executions from May through
July 2011 and a sample of PIP transactions from September through
November 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of this proposed rule change, BOX recently
distributed a survey to all BOX Participants that have participated in
the PIP in 2011. To substantiate that BOX Participants can receive,
process, and communicate a response to a BOX PIP Broadcast within 100
milliseconds, the survey asked Participants to identify (i) how many
milliseconds it takes for a PIP Broadcast to reach Participant systems;
(ii) how many milliseconds it takes their systems to generate a PIP
Broadcast response; (iii) how many milliseconds it takes their PIP
Broadcast response to reach BOX; and (iv) whether or not a reduction of
the PIP to 100 milliseconds would impair Options Participants' ability
to compete for orders in the BOX PIP. All of the Participants that
responded to the specific timing questions in this survey indicated
that they can receive, process, and communicate multiple PIP Broadcast
responses back to BOX within substantially less than 100
milliseconds.\5\ Also in consideration of this proposed rule change,
BOX reviewed all PIP executions by its Participants for the three month
period of May through July 2011. This review of PIP transaction
executions indicates that approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of
Improvement Orders that are executed at the conclusion of a PIP were
submitted within 100 milliseconds of the initial PIP Order.
Additionally, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of Improvement
Orders executed at the end of the PIP were submitted in less than 10
milliseconds, and seventy percent (70%) were submitted in less than 5
milliseconds. Through the survey BOX conducted, BOX confirmed that
those Participants whose PIP Broadcast responses currently average
greater than 100 milliseconds do operate sufficiently automated
electronic systems to enable them to react and respond to multiple PIP
Broadcasts within 100 milliseconds. Based on the responses received,
BOX confirmed that it typically takes a message less than ten
milliseconds to travel each way between BOX and its Participants.\6\
Participants confirm that it typically takes not more than five
milliseconds for Participant systems to process PIP Broadcast
information and generate a response.\7\ If it takes less than 10
milliseconds for a PIP Broadcast to reach a Participant's system, less
than 5 milliseconds for the Participant system to process the message
and generate a response, and then less than 10 milliseconds for that
response to travel back to BOX, it is generally less than 25
milliseconds from the time BOX sends a PIP Broadcast to the time BOX
receives a Participant's response (in the form of an Improvement Order)
to that Broadcast. If it takes less than 25 milliseconds for a
Participant to receive and respond to a PIP Broadcast, then a single
Participant could receive and respond to four iterations of PIP
messages within 100 milliseconds. Accordingly, BOX believes that 100
milliseconds will continue to provide all market participants with
sufficient time to respond, compete, and provide price improvement for
orders and will provide investors and other market participants with
more timely executions, thereby reducing their market risk. The 85% of
Improvement Orders executed at the end of the PIP that were received
within 100 milliseconds of the PIP Order also demonstrates the speed of
Participant systems. BOX's review of PIP transactions and the BOX
survey results indicate that Participants can receive, process, and
respond to a PIP Broadcast and multiple Improvement Orders while
trading within a BOX PIP of 100 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fourteen of sixteen firms responded to the survey. Nine
firms responded to the specific timing questions.
    \6\ All Participants responding to the specific timing questions
confirm that it typically takes a message less than ten milliseconds
to travel each way between BOX and their system.
    \7\ Six of nine Participants responding to the specific timing
questions confirm that it typically takes not more than five
milliseconds for them to process PIP Broadcast information and
generate a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, Supplementary Material .02 to Chapter V, Section 18
provides that a PIP will not run simultaneously with or overlap another
PIP in any manner. Because the PIP currently lasts for one second,
Options Participants are unable to initiate another PIP during the one
second that the PIP occurs, and BOX rejects PIP Orders during this one
second. By reducing the PIP to 100 milliseconds and thereby decreasing
the likelihood that a PIP is underway, and the resulting PIP Order
rejection, BOX believes that it is likely that the number of PIP
transactions will increase.\8\ The PIP has saved investors more than
$350 million versus the prevailing NBBO since 2004, a monthly average
of more than $3.5 million. BOX believes that reducing the PIP duration
will result in additional PIP transactions, and thus, in customers
having a greater opportunity to benefit from price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Less than one in every one thousand PIP orders was rejected
for the period from January through September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on current PIP related market data and the BOX Participant
survey, BOX believes that reducing the PIP from one second to 100
milliseconds would not impair Participants' ability to compete in the
PIP.\9\ More than sixty-five percent of PIP auctions include
competition for execution (i.e., at least one other Options Participant
competes with the Initiating Participant for execution of a customer
order).\10\ Additionally, almost fifty percent of all PIP auctions
include three or more Participants competing for PIP execution.\11\ BOX
notes, however, that its market makers are the Participants most likely
to compete with Initiating Participants for execution against customer
orders. BOX believes the PIP provides an incentive for them to do so by
quoting their best and most aggressive prices, inuring the benefit of
price improvement directly to customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ All fourteen Participants responding to the survey indicated
that reducing the PIP to 100 milliseconds would not impair their
ability to participate in the BOX PIP.
    \10\ Based on a sample of PIP transactions for the first and
third Wednesday of each month, a total of more than 40 trading days,
for the period from January 2010 through September 2011.
    \11\ Based on a sample of PIP transactions for the first and
third Wednesday of each month, a total of more than 40 trading days,
for the period from January 2010 through September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX believes that the information outlined above regarding PIP

transactions and the feedback provided by BOX Participants provides
substantial support for its assertion that reducing the PIP duration
from one second to 100 milliseconds will continue to provide
Participants with sufficient time to ensure competition for PIP Orders,
and could provide customer orders with additional opportunities for
price improvement.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, BOX
has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to
handle the potential additional traffic associated with the additional
transactions that may occur with the implementation of the proposed
reduction in the PIP duration to 100 milliseconds. Additionally, the
Exchange represents that its systems will be able to sufficiently
maintain an audit trail for order and trade information with the
reduction in the PIP duration.
    Upon Commission approval of the proposal, and at least one week
prior to implementation of the proposed rule change, BOX will issue an
Informational Circular to Participants, informing them of the
implementation date of the reduction of the PIP from one second to 100
milliseconds. This will give Participants an opportunity to make any
necessary modifications to coincide with the implementation date.
Finally, BOX notes that the proposed rule change will have no impact on
provisions related to Auto Auction Orders in Chapter V, Section 14 of
the BOX Trading Rules, nor how such orders function within the PIP.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is 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 for a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. BOX
notes that exposure and allocation timers for the Chicago Board Options
Exchange's Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') and Simple Auction Liaison
(``SAL'') mechanisms, are both currently set at 150 milliseconds.\14\
In particular, the proposed rule change will provide investors with
more timely execution of their options orders, while ensuring that
there is an adequate exposure of orders in the BOX PIP. Additionally,
the proposed change will allow additional investors the opportunity to
receive price improvement through the BOX PIP, and will reduce market
risk for BOX Participants using the PIP. As such, BOX believes the
proposed rule change would help perfect the mechanism for a free and
open national market system, and generally help protect investors' and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG08-100, September 3, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because the PIP duration would be the same for all
Participants. All Participants in the PIP have today, and will continue
to have, an equal opportunity to receive the PIP Broadcast and respond
with their best prices during the PIP. As noted above, based on the
feedback BOX has received from its Participants, they will have, within
100 milliseconds, the opportunity to receive and respond to at least
four iterations of PIP messages and compete for the customer order.
Additionally, BOX believes the reduction in the PIP duration reduces
the market risk for all PIP Participants. The reduction in time period
reduces the market risk for the Initiating Participant as well as any
Participant providing orders in response to a PIP Broadcast. Moreover,
based on the responses BOX received to its survey of PIP Participants,
BOX believes that a reduction in the PIP auction period to 100
milliseconds would not impair Participants' ability to compete in PIP
transactions. BOX believes these results support the assertion that a
reduction in the PIP duration would not be unfairly discriminatory and
would benefit investors.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-BX-2011-084 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-084. 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 that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F
Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-BX-2011-084 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32750 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17966-17967]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12615-001]

Alaska Power & Telephone Company; Notice of Request to Use
Alternative Procedures In Preparing a License Application

March 26, 2008.
    Take notice that the following request to use alternative
procedures to prepare a license application has been filed with the
Commission.
    a. Type of Application: Request to use alternative procedures to
prepare an original license application.
    b. Project No.: 12615-001.
    c. Date filed: March 10, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Alaska Power & Telephone Company.
    e. Name of Project: Soule River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Soule River, tributary to Portland Canal,
approximately 9 miles south of the community of Hyder, Alaska. The
project would occupy approximately 1,112 acres of federal lands within
the Tongass National Forest, administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Glen Martin, Project Manager, Alaska Power &
Telephone Company, 193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend,
Washington 98368,<PHONE_NUMBER> X 122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip, phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Comments: 30 days from the date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. The project would consist of a 160-foot-high concrete-faced,
rock-fill dam; an impoundment with a 950-acre surface area at a full
pool elevation of 550 feet mean sea level; a 2.5-mile-long, 14-foot-
wide access road with a 100-foot-long bridge across the Soule River;
marine access facilities along the Portland Canal at the mouth of the
Soule River; an 18-foot-diameter 11,100-foot-long power tunnel; a 50-
foot by 120-foot powerhouse containing two Francis-type generating
units, having a total installed capacity of 75,000 kilowatts; a 9.72-
mile-long, 138 kilovolt submarine cable that would interconnect in
Stewart, British Columbia with British Columbia Transmission
Corporation's existing electrical transmission system;\1\ and
appurtenant facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Only the portion of the transmission line that would be
located in the United States is under the Commission's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    l. A copy of the request to use alternative procedures is available
for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Alaska Power & Telephone Company has demonstrated that it has
made an effort to contact all federal and state resources agencies,
non-governmental organizations (NGO), and others affected by the
project. Alaska Power & Telephone Company has also demonstrated that a
consensus exists that the use of alternative procedures is appropriate
in this case. Alaska Power & Telephone Company has submitted a

communications protocol that is supported by the stakeholders.
    The purpose of this notice is to invite any additional comments on
Alaska Power & Telephone Company's request to use the alternative
procedures, pursuant to section 4.34(i) of the Commission's
regulations. Additional notices seeking comments on the specific
project proposal, interventions and protests, and recommended terms and
conditions will be issued at a later date. Alaska Power & Telephone
Company will complete and file a preliminary Environmental Assessment,
in lieu of Exhibit E of the license application. This differs from the
traditional process, in which an applicant consults with agencies,
Indian tribes, NGOs, and other parties during preparation of the
license application and before filing the application, but the
Commission staff performs the environmental review after the
application is filed. The alternative procedures are intended to
simplify and expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing
consultation and environmental review processes into a single process,
to facilitate greater participation, and to improve communication and
cooperation among the participants.
    Alaska Power & Telephone Company has met with federal and state
resources agencies regarding the proposed Soule River Hydroelectric
Project. Alaska Power & Telephone Company intends to file 6-month
progress reports during the alternative procedures process that leads
to the filing of a license application by June 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6723 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67309-67312]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0461; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00156-R;
Amendment 39-21775; AD 2021-22-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD was prompted
by a report of a short circuit caused by chafing of the electrical
wiring in the overhead panel. This AD requires an initial detailed
inspection inside the overhead panel for certain helicopters,
repetitive detailed inspections inside the overhead panel for all
helicopters, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 3, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 3,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0461.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0461; 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, any comments received, and other information. The address
for Docket Operations 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: Jacob Fitch, Aerospace Engineer, COS
Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0044, dated February 5, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0044) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo S.p.a.
Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 14, 2021 (86 FR 31451). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of a short circuit caused by chafing of the electrical wiring in
the overhead panel. The NPRM proposed to require an initial detailed
inspection inside the overhead panel for certain helicopters,
repetitive detailed inspections inside the overhead panel for all
helicopters, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in EASA
AD 2021-0044.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address a short circuit caused by
chafing of the electrical wiring in the overhead panel, which could
cause damaged electrical wiring, possible fire in the overhead panel,
and loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include Credit for Later Service Information

    An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to
include a paragraph that allows credit for the use of a later revision
of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0044.
    The FAA disagrees with the request because, in this case, credit is
unnecessary. The FAA is incorporating by reference EASA AD 2021-0044 as
the method for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. EASA AD
2021-0044 includes the Ref. Publications section, which allows the use
of later approved revisions of the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0044. Therefore, no change has been made to this AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, 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

    EASA AD 2021-0044 requires an initial detailed inspection (for
certain helicopters) inside the overhead panel for chafing of the cable
harnesses and for correct clearance between the anchor nuts/screws and
the cable harnesses, of the screws for correct length, and of the
supports for sound bonding, and corrective actions if necessary;
repetitive detailed inspections (for all helicopters) inside the
overhead panel for the condition of the white protective tape on the
anchor nuts, and for chafing of the cable harnesses and for correct
clearance between the anchor nuts/screws and the cable harnesses, and
corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include applying a
white protective tape on the anchor nuts, replacement of incorrect
length screws, replacement of damaged cables and fuses, rerouting of
cable harnesses, replacement of supports, and removal and replacement
of the white protective tape.
    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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    Although EASA AD 2021-0044 and the service information referenced
in EASA AD 2021-0044 specify to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 helicopters 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for chafing, clearance,  1 work-hour x $85 per              $0             $85  $10,880.
 screw length, and bonding.          hour = $85.
Repetitive inspections for          1 work-hour x $85 per          $0 per         $85 per  $10,880 per
 chafing, clearance, and tape        hour = $85 per            inspection      inspection   inspection cycle.
 condition.                          inspection cycle.              cycle           cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace screws, cables, fuses, supports, and    5 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $600          $1.025
 protective tape; reroute harnesses.             $425.
Apply protective tape.........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85              50             135
Replace cables, fuses and protective tape.....  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85             600             685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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) 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.

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:

2021-22-02 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21775; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0461; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00156-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 3, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2400, Electrical
Power System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a short circuit caused by
chafing of the electrical wiring in the overhead panel. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address a short circuit caused by chafing of the
electrical wiring in the overhead panel, which could cause damaged
electrical wiring, possible fire in the overhead panel, and loss of
control of the helicopter.

(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, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0044, dated February 5, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0044).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0044

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0044 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0044 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2021-0044 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (4) Where paragraphs (3) and (5) of EASA AD 2021-0044 refer to
``any discrepancy,'' for this AD, discrepancies include chafing of
the cable harnesses or incorrect clearance between the anchor nuts/
screws and the cable harnesses, incorrect length of the screws,
inadequately bonded supports, and poor condition of the white
protective tape.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although EASA AD 2021-0044 and the service information
referenced in EASA AD 2021-0044 specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided the flight is straight, level, and avoids areas of known
turbulence.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (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.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jacob Fitch,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0044,
dated February 5, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0044, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; Internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0461.
    (5) 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 protected], or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 13, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-25691 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64397-64399]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1306; Project Identifier AD-2022-01040-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA,
PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1525G, and PW1525G-3 model turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by an uncommanded dual engine shutdown upon
landing, resulting in compromised braking capability due to the loss of
engine power and hydraulic systems. This proposed AD would require

replacement of electronic engine control (EEC) full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) software with updated software. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9,
2022.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1306; 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 NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7229; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1306; Project Identifier
AD-2022-01040-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mark
Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA was notified of an airplane that experienced an uncommanded
dual engine shutdown upon landing, resulting in compromised braking
capability due to the loss of engine power and hydraulic systems. A
subsequent investigation determined that the sequence of the auto-
throttle increasing throttle to maintain Mach number, immediately
followed by pilot command to decrease throttle to idle, caused a
transient disagreement between actual and commanded thrust. This
disagreement triggered the thrust control malfunction (TCM) detection
logic and resulted in dual engine shutdown once the weight on wheels
signal was activated upon landing. The installed EEC FADEC software
version latches the fault and allows the engine to continue operation
as commanded but shuts down the engine upon landing. The manufacturer
identified the situations that could trigger the TCM logic erroneously
and updated the EEC FADEC software. This software update makes
corrective improvements to the TCM logic, including revised criteria
for triggering the TCM logic and establishing criteria that permit the
TCM logic to unlatch during flight. This condition, if not addressed,
could result in runway excursion.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-73-00-0054-00A-
930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated June 20, 2022. This service information
specifies procedures for replacing or modifying the EEC to incorporate
FADEC software version V2.11.14.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require removal from service of certain EEC
FADEC software versions and replacement with a software version
eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 147 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade EEC FADEC Software............  2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170         $24,990
                                         hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2022-1306; Project Identifier AD-
2022-01040-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 9, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3,
PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1525G, and PW1525G-3 model turbofan
engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7600, Engine
Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncommanded dual engine shutdown upon
landing, resulting in compromised braking capability due to the loss
of engine power and hydraulic systems. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent compromised braking capability due to uncommanded dual
engine shutdown upon landing. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For affected engines with installed electronic engine control
(EEC) full authority digital engine control (FADEC) software version
earlier than V<IP_ADDRESS>, within 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, remove the EEC FADEC software and replace with EEC FADEC
software version eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, ``EEC FADEC software version
eligible for installation'' is EEC FADEC software version V<IP_ADDRESS>
or later.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Mark Taylor,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on October 14, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-22761 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P