[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73812-73813]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0567; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-124-AD;
Amendment 39-18043; AD 2014-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by issuance of revised certification
maintenance requirements for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator
(HSTA). This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection
program. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear
and cracking of the HSTAs, which could result in reduced structural
integrity and reduced control of the airplane due to the failure of
system components.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 16, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 16,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0567 or in person at
the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2014 (79 FR 47594).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-13, dated April 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A revision has been made to Part 2 of the Canadair Regional Jet
Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Appendix A--Certification
Maintenance Requirements [CMR] which introduces a new task for the
HSTA. Failure to comply with the CMR task could lead to an unsafe
condition.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued to ensure that premature wear and
cracking of the affected components are detected and corrected.
[This condition could result in reduced structural integrity and
reduced control of the airplane due to the failure of system
components.]

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0567-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 47594, August 14,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 47594, August 14, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 47594, August 14, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 416 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $35,360, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0567; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-25-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18043. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0567; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-124-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 16, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category,
equipped with horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) part number
(P/N) 601R92305-7 (vendor P/N 8396-5).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by issuance of revised certification
maintenance requirements (CMR) for the HSTA. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct premature wear and cracking of certain HSTAs,
which could result in reduced structural integrity and reduced
control of the airplane due to the failure of system components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Task C27-40-103-05, ``Restoration
(Overhaul) of the HSTA,'' of Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 2A-
58, dated January 31, 2014, into Appendix A--Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR), of Part 2, of the Bombardier CL-600-
2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). The initial compliance
time for accomplishing Task C27-40-103-05, ``Restoration (Overhaul)
of the HSTA,'' of Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 2A-58, dated
January 31, 2014, is at the applicable phase-in time specified in
Bombardier TR 2A-58, dated January 31, 2014, or within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. The revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy
of Bombardier TR 2A-58, dated January 31, 2014, into Appendix A--
CMR, of Part 2 of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 MRM. When Bombardier TR
2A-58, dated January 31, 2014, has been included in the general
revisions of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 MRM, the general revisions
may be inserted into the MRM, provided the relevant information in
the general revision is identical to that in Bombardier TR 2A-58,
dated January 31, 2014.

(h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-13, dated April 17, 2014,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0567.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Temporary Revision 2A-58, dated January 31, 2014,
to Appendix A--Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2 of
the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2014.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28924 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 50490]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1951-172]

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; Georgia Power Company

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters
    b. Project No: 1951-172
    c. Date Filed: May 29, 2012
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company
    e. Name of Project: Sinclair Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: Lake Sinclair in Baldwin County, Georgia
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r
    h. Applicant Contact: Joey Charles, Georgia Power Company, Bin
10151, 241 Ralph McGill Blvd. NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3374, (404)
506-2337
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: September 10, 2012
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-1951-172) on any comments or
motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Application: Georgia Power Company requests
Commission approval to grant The Legacy at Sinclair, a condominium
complex, a permit to use project lands and waters for the construction
of residential, multi-slip boat docks inside the project boundary on
Lake Sinclair. The proposal includes a total of six boat docks, two of
which would accommodate 10 watercraft each, and four of which would
accommodate 7 watercraft each. The docks would occupy 2.56 acres of
project lands along 2,290.65 feet of shoreline. Concrete walkways and a
wooden boardwalk and seawall already exist at the site.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also 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 (P-1951) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: August 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20429 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 61480-61482]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52624; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-79

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend CBOE Rule 8.4 Relating to Remote Market-Maker
Appointments

October 18, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 30, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the

Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.4 relating to Remote Market-
Maker appointments. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the CBOE's Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the CBOE's Office of

the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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 CBOE 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 this rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.4 relating
to Remote Market-Maker (``RMM'') appointments. CBOE Rule 8.4 provides
that RMMs will have a Virtual Trading Crowd (``VTC'') Appointment,
which confers the right to quote electronically in a certain number of
products selected from various ``tiers.'' There are five tiers that are
structured according to trading volume statistics and an ``A+'' Tier
which consists of three option classes--options on Standard & Poor's
Depositary Receipts, options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock,
and options on Diamonds.
    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.4(d) relating to the ``A+'' Tier
to include an additional option class in the ``A+'' Tier, namely
reduced-value options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index. CBOE
believes it is appropriate to include this option class in this tier
based on its anticipated trading volume.
    CBOE also proposes to delete Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 8.4 as
it is no longer necessary. Interpretation .01 initially was approved in
April 2005 in connection with CBOE's implementation of its RMM
program.\5\ The purpose of the inactivity fee was to prevent RMMs from
applying for appointments in products in which they had no intention of
quoting, thereby preventing other members from securing appointments in
products. CBOE subsequently determined to eliminate the inactivity
fee,\6\ but did not at that time delete reference to the inactivity fee
in Interpretation .01. This rule filing makes that change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51542 (April 14,
2005), 70 FR 20952 (April 22, 2005), approving SR-CBOE-2005-22.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51705 (May 18,
2005), 70 FR 30158 (May 25, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ 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 of, a free and open market and a national market system,
and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\ As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act,\11\ the Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\12\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and render the proposed
rule change to become operative immediately. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed change to
the ``A+'' Tier that is described in this proposed rule change and the
deletion of Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 8.4 do not raise any new,
unique, or substantive issues from those raised in the filing that
initially established the ``A+'' Tier,\14\ or the filing that
eliminated the inactivity fee.\15\ Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposal to become operative immediately.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See supra note 5.
    \15\ See supra note 6.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed
rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-79 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2005-79 and should be submitted on or before
November 14, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5860 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5005-5006]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0006; OMB No. 1660-0022]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Community Rating System--Application Letter & Quick
Check; Community Recertifications; Environmental & Historic
Preservation Certifications

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension
with changes to a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning application for the National Flood Insurance
Program's Community Rating System program. This program allows
communities to become eligible for discounts on the cost of flood
insurance when the communities undertake activities to mitigate
anticipated damage due to flooding. The application materials verify
and document the community mitigation activities performed and provides
the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the information necessary
to determine what flood insurance premium discounts are appropriate for
participating communities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2020-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Lesser, Program Specialist,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You
may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Reform Act
(NFIRA) of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, section 541) requires that a
community rating system be established. This ratings system is a
voluntary program for communities and it would provide a method by
which flood mitigation activities engaged in by these communities could
be measured. The effect of this mitigation activity would reduce the
exposure of the communities to damage resulting from flooding and in
turn reduce the losses incurred as a result of this flooding. To
encourage participation, discounts on flood insurance are offered
within communities that successfully complete qualified mitigation
actions, and the community ratings system provides the ability to
measure these actions and to recertify the communities in successive
years.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Rating System--Application Letter & Quick Check;
Community Annual Recertifications; Environmental & Historic
Preservation Certifications.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension with changes to a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0022.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-35, Community Rating System Application
Letter and Quick Check; FEMA Form 086-0-35A, Community Annual
Recertifications, FEMA Form 086-0-35B, Environmental and Historic
Preservation Certifications; and FEMA Form 086-0-35C, Repetitive Loss
Update Form.
    Abstract: The Community Rating System (CRS) Application Letter &
Quick Check, the CRS certification and update forms, and accompanying
guidance are used by communities that participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program's (NFIP) CRS program. The CRS is a voluntary program
where flood insurance costs are reduced in communities that implement
practices, such as building codes and public awareness activities, that
are considered to reduce the risks of flooding and promote the purchase
of flood insurance.
    Affected Public: Public: State, local, or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,170.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 4,170.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 52,292.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $3,816,061.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: There are
no estimated operation and maintenance costs associated with this
collection.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: There are no
estimated capital and start-up costs associated with this collection.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $6,612,799.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;

(c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-01397 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


										February 3, 2009

Ms. Cindy Axinn Newberg

EPA Stratospheric Protection Division

Office of Atmospheric Programs

Office of Air and Radiation (6205J)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0163

Honeywell is submitting this letter in response to the Proposed Rule
addressing Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Ban on the Sale or
Distribution of Pre-Charged Appliances.  It specifically deals with
appliances utilizing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b.

Honeywell is a major HCFC-22 producer and also produces
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that can be used as non-ozone depleting
alternatives to these refrigerants.  We seek to provide for market needs
in a way that provides, in a seamless manner, for both new equipment and
allows for service of existing operating units while seeking to minimize
potential damage to the stratospheric ozone layer.

Honeywell agrees with the EPA judgment that Section 615 of the Clean Air
Act provides for an appropriate legal basis for EPA action on import of
products containing HCFCs.  We also agree that implementation of
restriction on import of equipment containing HCFCs in a timetable and
manner consistent with similar domestic bans is the right thing to do
for the environment and to avoid preferential treatment for products
manufactured outside the U.S. If this is not done, HCFC production and
dependence will be encouraged, more of these ozone depleting
refrigerants will be made outside the country and dependence on an
increased HCFC-22 supply would be needed to service this additional
equipment.  We recognize that HCFC-22 supply is likely to be constrained
relative to demand for the period 2015-2019 and agree with EPA efforts
to redirect users to alternatives, increased recovery and recycle and
improve stewardship practices.

The long delay in issuing the NPRM that finally appeared on December 23,
2008 has created a problem that EPA must address.  The original NPRM was
prepared in 2007 by EPA and the total review process for this proposal
was unfortunately far longer than anticipated.  The impact of the delay
of the NPRM was to eliminate the lead-time needed for manufacturers of
equipment using HCFC-22 to transition to other refrigerants.  We note
that some of the products using refrigerants, particularly air
conditioners, are seasonally produced and sold.  Manufacturers of such
equipment had anticipated an EPA rule that would allow sale of new
equipment charged before December 31, 2009 without regard for sale date.
 By banning sale of products containing HCFC-22 after December 31, 2009,
EPA will leave manufacturers of such equipment with large unsaleable
inventories of equipment.  Given the short time to react to this
unexpected redirection, we suggest EPA reconsider this option and opt
for allowing sell through of equipment produced and charged prior to
January 1, 2010 rather than limiting interstate commerce.

During the January 7, 2009 public hearing a number of parties expressed
concern that the proposed regulation would leave manufacturers of air
conditioning equipment with large inventories of unsaleable equipment.
Subsequent to the public hearing on the rule, EPA has indicated in a
“Fact Sheet” about the rule that sale of appliances manufactured
before 1/1/10 would be allowed thereafter, and that the agency
considered the term “appliances” to mean that the refrigerant loop
is completed and the appliance can function, holds the complete and
proper charge, and is read for us for its intended purpose.  From this
definition, we understand that pre-charged central air conditioning
systems manufactured before 1/1/10 could continue to be sold to
customers after 1/1/10.  We agree with this approach to deal with the
problem and urge EPA to clarify this point in the preamble and final
rule also.

EPA has chosen to ban commerce for products containing virgin HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b for equipment to be exported.  Honeywell feels that such a
ban would be detrimental to U.S. manufacturers, because purchasers of
such equipment, particularly in the developing world, are very price
sensitive.  We expect they would still obtain such equipment however  it
would be sourced from other countries.  If this occurred, there would be
no net global environmental benefit and it would damage U.S. businesses.
 We suggest EPA allow export to countries that allow continued use of
HCFC-22 in new equipment after January 1, 2010.

We understand EPA intended this proposed rule to address only
newly-produced HCFC refrigerants and that equipment produced after
January 1, 2010 would be allowed to be charged with recovered and
recycled HCFCs- a goal that we fully support.  This position would
encourage increasing the capture, recovery and recycling of used HCFCs.
This objective is critical to assuring adequacy of service refrigerant
supply especially from 2015 onward.  However, we see great difficulty in
monitoring and enforcing this rule.  As a consequence, we expect that
this element of the proposed rule will create a loophole which will
encourage misrepresentation of new material as used.  Thus we recommend
EPA not allow continued use of used HCFC in equipment produced after
January 1, 2010.

In defining equipment, EPA has chosen in the NPRM to include pre-charged
components including line sets and TXV valves.  This position will
likely shorten the expected lifetime of already installed and operating
equipment which was purchased with the understanding it could be
serviced until 2020.  Service component parts are vital to allowing the
continued use of major installations such as commercial refrigeration
systems as well as residential cooling equipment.  We feel that these
service only pre-charged components should be clearly defined and
allowed to be replaced with newly manufactured components that contain
newly produced HCFCs in order to continue beneficial use and life of
previously installed equipment.  EPA should clearly define which
components will or will not be allowed to use HCFC-22 following January
1, 2010.

Once again, the “Fact Sheet” recently communicated by EPA addresses
the above concern in a way that Honeywell supports.  In that
communication it indicated that sale and distribution would also be
allowed for pre-charged appliance components that are manufactured
before January 1, 2010 and used for the purpose of servicing existing
(pre-2010) appliances.  This means that components such as condensing
units, line sets, and expansion valves that are charged with refrigerant
and completely manufactured before January 1, 2010, but not yet
installed in an appliance, could be sold and distributed for this
purpose. We urge EPA to clarify these points regarding components in the
preamble and final rule.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this NPRM.  Should
there be any questions or need for clarification, please contact me at
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Yours truly,

Steven H. Bernhardt, PhD

Global Director Regulatory Affairs

Honeywell Specialty Materials

Honeywell

P.O. Box 1053

Morristown, NJ  07962-1053


Rich Leukroth To: Pvoytek@ crosslink. net   ~ . cc: John Schaeffer/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA / 05/ 13/ 2003 03.55 PM Subject: TCE revised Table 1 and Appendix C. 5 Peter,

Thanks for your comments on the initial draft revisions to Table 1 modifications for Tier II TCE testing and reporting activities. Your points are well taken. I've had some discussions with the folks in ORD and we come back to you with a revision that I believe will work for everyone. Also included in the attached file are modification to ECA Appendix 0.5 regarding the route to route extrapolation reporting. These modifications are needed to reflect changes in Tier II activities described in Table 1 and to enhance transparency of the final reporting products.

Give me a call if you have questions or need to discuss further.

RevFootnotes TbIl 5 13 03. wp ************************* *************************

Richard W. Leukroth, Jr. Environmental Scientist / Toxicologist Chemical Control Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 7405; Room 4328 S 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8167 FAX: 202 564 4765 E mail: leukroth. rich@ epa. gov Deliveries: EPA East Building 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Room 3166A ( 7401M) Washington, DC 20004 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 JUN24 8: 05AM OPPT 2002 0056 0067 Table 1.

Tier II Testing and/ or Extrapolation Reporting Acute neurotoxicity extrapolation of Tier II drinking water acute neurotoxicity data to inhalation 2 Subchronic neurotoxicity ( drinking water)

Subchronic neurotoxicity extrapolation of Tier II drinking water subchronic neurotoxicity data to inhalation 2 Developmental toxicity ( drinking water)

Developmental toxicity extrapolation of Tier II drinking water developmental toxicity data to inhalation ~

Reproductive toxicity ( drinking water)

Reproductive toxicity extrapolation of Tier II drinking water reproductive toxicity study data to inhalation ~

Imrnunotoxicity extrapolation of extant oral data in ECA Appendix E. 2 to inhalation ~

Carcinogenicity extrapolation of extant oral data in ECA Appendix E. 3 to 40 CFR § 799.9620 ( as annotated in ECA Appendix D. 3)

ECA Appendix C 40 CFR § 799.9620 ( as annotated in ECA Appendix D. 3)

ECA Appendix C 40 CFR § 799.9370 ( as annotated in ECA Appendix D. 4)

ECA Appendix C 40 CFR § 799.93 80 ( as annotated in ECA Appendix D. 5)

ECA Appendix C ECA Appendix C ECA Appendix C Required Testing, Test Standards, and Reporting Requirements for 1,1 ,2 Trichloroethane: Modifications to Tier II Testing and Reporting Activities Testing Required testing Test standard Deadline Segment for final report1 ( Months)

Acute neurotoxicity ( drinking water) 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 9 6 inhalation ~ I Number of months after the effective date of this Federal Register Notice, which announces that EPA has concluded the EPA Program Review, when the linal report is due. In addition, every 6 months from the effective date of the Order until the end of the ECA testing program, interim reports describing the status of all testing to be performed under the ECA for TCE must be submitted by the Companies to EPA.

2 Quantitative route to route extrapolations based on the Tier II acute and suhchronic drinking water neurotoxicity study data, and developed for each of the following dose metrics: parent compound in venous blood and brain, as maximum concentration ( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ( AUC), and metabolite, as amount metabolized in the liver or brain per day normalized to organ weight.

~ Quantitative route to route extrapolations based on the Tier II drinking water developmental toxicity study data,

and developed for each of the following dose metrics: parent compound in venous blood, as maximum concentration ( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ( AUC), and metabolite, as amount metabolized in the liver per day normalized to liver weight.

~ Quantitative route to route extrapolations based on the Tier II Drinking water reproductive effects toxicity study data, and developed for each of the following dose metrics: parent compound in venous blood, as maximum concentration ( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ( AUC), and metabolite, as amount metabolized in the liver per day normalized to liver weight.

Quantitative route to route extrapolations based on the data of Sanders et al. ( 1985), and developed for each of the following dose metrics: parent compound in venous blood and spleen, as maximum concentration ( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ( AUC), and metabolite, as amount metabolized in the liver or spleen per day normalized to organ weight.

6 Quantitative route to route extrapolations based on the data of NCI ( 1978), and developed for each of the following dose metrics: parent compound in venous blood and liver, as maximum concentration ( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ( AUC), and metabolite, as amount metabolized in the liver per day normalized to liver weight. C. 5 General Outline for Route to Route Extrapolation A total of six route to route extrapolation reports will be generated, one for each of the following endpoints: acute neurotoxicity, subchronic neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive effects toxicity, immunotoxicity, and carcinogenicity. Each of these reports will follow the general outline presented below.

1.0. Introduction   Summary of HAPS Framework   Summary of PBPK Model 2.0. Summary of Key Study   For acute neurological, subchronic neurological, developmental, and reproductive toxicity, the design and results of the Tier II testing will be summarized   For immunotoxicity, the design and results of Sanders et al. ( 1 995) and White et al. ( 1 985) will be summarized   The design and results of NCI ( 1978) will be summarized 3.0. Selection and Discussion of Critical En~ point~ s~ ? nd Do~ eMeas~ re(~

  Develop ~ for each of the followin.~ dose metrics: parent . pornpou~ din v.~ nousblood and brain~ as maximum concentration ( çmax.) an ~ the time concentration curv~{~ UC)~ aboliteas gin tmetabolizeiijn the liver or brain çr day p~ j~ gljzed to or~ anwei ht.

  Develop a ~ effects toxicifyjor earh of the following dose metrjcs: parent corr~ poundin venous blood.~ as maximum concentration .( Cmax) and as the area under the time concentration curve ~( AJ~ ç)~ ~

 For immunotoxicity, the route to route extrapolations are based on the data of Sanders et al. ~~ j~ eveloa ~ ~ r fjh~ jo~ jpg~ metrics parent comj~ oundin venous blood anç sp1een~ as ma~ j urn~ and as the areaunder the time concentration curve (~ JQ, and rnetabolite~ gsamounL metabolized ~

 For carcinogenicity, the route to route extrapolations are based on the data of NCI ( 1978). Develop a quantitative route to route extrapolation for each of the fo1lowip~ dose metrics: parent compou. pd in venous blood apd live~ a~ jPA~' mçpncentratiop~ ma~~ p~ d as the area under the time concentration curve ndmetg~ olto metabolizedin the li ver ~ ormalizedtoliverweiht.

4.0 Route to Route Extrapolation Results   Quantitative calculation of the inhalation dose response curve based upon the PBPK model and the oral data.

5.0. Sensitivity, Uncertainty, and Variability Analysis   Discussion of the sensitivity analysis for impact of change in each parameter to the PBPK siinu lation and to the resultin route to route extra olatioi~.

 Qualitative ( or if possible, quantitative) assessment of the variability and uncertainty in the ~ odelarameter~ alues. 6.0. Conclusions 7.0. References 8.0. Appendices   PBPK niodel (. CSL) and conmiand ( CMI)) files that include the procedures used to ~ eTIeratc ~ Iliesccit~ icd~ ei~ rics.

  PBPK model simulation daia in tabular and/ or ~ raphicaIform. and accumpam~ uiganaivse~ that ~


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73434-73438]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0765]

Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human
Consumption; Acacia (Gum Arabic)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the
food additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of
acacia (gum arabic) in foods. This action is in response to a petition
filed by Nexira.

DATES: This rule is effective December 6, 2013. See section IX of this
document for information on filing objections. Submit either electronic
or written objections and requests for a hearing by January 6, 2014.
The Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the rule
as of December 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written objections and
requests for a hearing identified by Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0765, by any
of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written objections in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0765 for this rulemaking. All objections
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions
on submitting objections, see the ``Objections'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
objections received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In a notice published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2011
(76 FR 78866), we announced that Nexira, c/o Keller and Heckman LLP,
1001 G St. NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 (petitioner) had
filed a food additive petition (FAP 1A4784). The petition proposed to
amend the food

additive regulations in Sec.  172.780, Acacia (gum arabic) (21 CFR
172.780) to provide for the expanded safe use of acacia (gum arabic) in
food. Specifically, the petition proposed to list the use of acacia in
Sec.  172.780 as a source of dietary fiber in the existing food
categories listed in Sec.  184.1330(c) (21 CFR 184.1330(c)), excluding
meat, poultry, and foods for which standards of identity have been
issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 341), and as a source of dietary fiber and as
an emulsifier and emulsifier salt, flavoring agent and adjuvant,
formulation aid, processing aid, stabilizer and thickener, surface-
finishing agent, and texturizer in four additional food categories
(i.e., breakfast cereals, certain baked products, grain-based bars, and
soups). The petitioner subsequently clarified that it only proposed to
list the use of acacia in soups and soup mixes that are not subject to
regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the
Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
    Under 21 CFR 171.1(c), paragraph H, either a claim of categorical
exclusion under 21 CFR 25.30 or Sec.  25.32 (21 CFR 25.32) or an
environmental assessment under 21 CFR 25.40 must be submitted in a food
additive petition. A claim of categorical exclusion under Sec.
25.32(k), which applies to substances added directly to food that are
intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and that are
not intended to replace macronutrients in food, was initially submitted
with the petition. We reviewed the claim of categorical exclusion
submitted by the petitioner and stated in the original filing notice
(76 FR 78866) our determination that, under Sec.  25.32(k), the
proposed action was of a type that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and
therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required. However, upon further review of the
petition, we decided that the food additive may replace macronutrients
in food and, therefore, the categorical exclusion in Sec.  25.32(k) was
not applicable for the proposed action. Accordingly, in an amended
filing notice published in the Federal Register of September 4, 2012
(77 FR 53801), we announced that the petitioner had submitted an
environmental assessment for the petition in lieu of the claim of
categorical exclusion, and that we would review the potential
environmental impact of the petition. We placed the environmental
assessment on display in the Division of Dockets Management for public
review and comment.

II. Introduction

A. Identity

    Acacia is the dried gummy exudate from the stems and branches of
trees of various species of the genus Acacia, family Leguminosae. The
precise molecular structure of acacia is not known, but it is generally
depicted as a group of compacted polysaccharide bundles individually
linked to a linear proteinaceous core. The polysaccharide is composed
of the following: L-arabinose, D-galactose, L-rhamnose, and D-
glucuronic acid and its 4-O methyl derivative. The composition of
acacia, with respect to the proportion of sugars and to the amino acids
comprising the proteins, varies depending on the species of Acacia used
to produce the gum.

B. Regulated Food Uses

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 1974 (39 FR 34203), we
published a proposed rule to affirm that the use of acacia as a direct
human food ingredient is generally recognized as safe (GRAS), with
specific limitations. In the Federal Register of December 7, 1976 (41
FR 53608), we issued a final rule based on this proposal, amending the
regulations in then 21 CFR part 121 to affirm that acacia as a direct
human food ingredient is GRAS with specific limitations. In the Federal
Register of March 15, 1977 (42 FR 14302 at 14653), acacia was
redesignated from Sec.  121.104(g)(19) to part 184 by adding Sec.
184.1330 Acacia (gum arabic). To ensure that acacia is not added to the
U.S. food supply at levels that could raise safety concerns, we
affirmed acacia as GRAS with specific limitations as listed in Sec.
184.1330.
    Under Sec.  184.1330, acacia is affirmed as GRAS for use in various
specific food categories at levels ranging from 1.3 to 85.0 percent.
Use of acacia in all other food categories was limited to not more than
1.0 percent. Under Sec.  184.1(b)(2) (21 CFR 184.1(b)(2)), an
ingredient affirmed as GRAS with specific limitations may be used in
food only within such limitations, including the category of food,
functional use, and level of use. Any addition of acacia to food beyond
those limitations set out in Sec.  184.1330 requires either a food
additive regulation or an amendment of Sec.  184.1330. Consistent with
Sec.  184.1(b)(2), a food additive petition (FAP 1A4730) was filed in
the Federal Register on February 13, 2003 (68 FR 7381) to amend the
food additive regulations in part 172 (21 CFR part 172) to provide for
the safe use of acacia as a thickener, emulsifier, or stabilizer in
alcoholic beverages at a use level not to exceed 20 percent in the
final beverage. In response to this petition, we issued a final rule in
the Federal Register of February 17, 2005 (70 FR 8032), that added
Sec.  172.780 to provide for this use.

III. Evaluation of Safety

    Under the general safety standard in section 409 of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 348), a food additive cannot be approved for a particular
use unless a fair evaluation of the data available to FDA establishes
that the additive is safe for that use. Our food additive regulations
(21 CFR 170.3(i)) define ``safe'' as ``a reasonable certainty in the
minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under
the intended conditions of use.'' To establish with reasonable
certainty that a food additive is not harmful under its intended
conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to
the additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other available
relevant information (such as published literature).

A. Proposed Uses, Exposure, and Specifications

    The petitioner proposes to use acacia as a source of dietary fiber
in those food categories and at the use levels listed in Sec.
184.1330(c), excluding meat and poultry and foods for which standards
of identity have been issued under section 401 of the FD&C Act. The
petitioner also proposes for acacia to be used in several new food
categories as described in table 1.\1\ We evaluated the exposure to
acacia based on 2009 poundage data obtained from the October 2010
Chemical Economics Handbook report on hydrocolloid usage in the United
States (Acacia can be classified as a hydrocolloid, which are
substances that form a gel with water

and are often used as thickeners, stabilizers, or emulsifiers in food
applications.) We calculated the per capita exposure of acacia to be
127 milligrams per person per day. Because acacia may be used in a wide
variety of foods, the entire U.S. population could consume at least one
of the foods containing acacia. Therefore, the use of a per capita
exposure assessment is appropriate, as it represents the entire U.S.
population (Ref. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During our evaluation of this petition, we consulted with
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA,
consistent with 21 CFR 171.1(n) and with a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the two Agencies for reviewing the
safety of substances used in the production of meat and poultry
products. Under the MOU, FDA is responsible for reviewing an
ingredient's safety, and USDA/FSIS is responsible for evaluating
suitability. (MOU 225-00-2000; see also 65 FR 51758 at 51759, August
25, 2000). However, during our consultation with FSIS, the
petitioner clarified that it did not propose for acacia to be used
in meat or poultry products, including soups and soup mixes
containing meat or poultry products that are subject to regulation
by USDA under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.

 Table 1--Proposed Uses of Acacia That Are Beyond Those Regulated Under
                           Sec.   184.1330(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Maximum use level
   Food category (percent)          (percent)           Intended use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakfast cereals............                 6    Source of dietary
                                                    fiber; emulsifier
                                                    and emulsifier salt;
                                                    flavoring agent and
                                                    adjuvant;
                                                    formulation aid;
                                                    processing aid;
                                                    stabilizer and
                                                    thickener; surface-
                                                    finishing agent;
                                                    texturizer.
Cakes, brownies, pastries,                    3    Same as above.
 biscuits, muffins, and
 cookies.
Grain-based bars (e.g.,                      35    Same as above.
 breakfast and snack bars,
 granola, rice cereal bars).
Soups and soup mixes that are                 2.5  Same as above.
 not subject to USDA
 regulation under the Federal
 Meat Inspection Act or the
 Poultry Products Inspection
 Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current regulation for the use of acacia as a thickener,
emulsifier, or stabilizer in alcoholic beverages (Sec.  172.780)
indicates that the additive must meet the specifications in the Food
Chemicals Codex, 7th Edition (FCC 7). The most current FCC is the 8th
Edition (FCC 8) and given that the specifications for acacia in FCC 8
are identical to those in FCC 7, we are amending Sec.  172.780 by
adopting the specifications for acacia in FCC 8 in place of FCC 7.
    Additionally, on our own initiative, we are amending Sec.
172.780(b) to update the address at which copies of FCC 8 may be
examined. The existing regulation refers to an FDA address at ``5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740.'' However, in 2013, we
consolidated our library holdings at our main library at 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, 3d Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Therefore,
we are amending Sec.  172.780(b) to reflect the current FDA address at
which copies of FCC 8 may be examined.

B. Safety Assessment

    To support the safety of the proposed expanded use of acacia, the
petitioner referenced toxicological studies and other relevant
information previously reviewed by FDA (70 FR 8032). The petitioner
referenced data from a 1973 report on acacia by the Select Committee on
GRAS Substances; a 1982 National Toxicology Program report on 2-year
carcinogenicity feeding studies; literature searches performed in 1983,
1987, 1988, and 1992; and a 1990 evaluation of acacia by the Joint Food
and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee
on Food Additives (JECFA).
    Of the publications submitted by the petitioner, only two papers
relevant to the safety assessment of acacia had not been previously
reviewed by FDA. One publication was an extensive review of the
scientific literature available before 2004 and focused on the general
safety and allergenicity of acacia as used in cosmetic products. The
review concluded that the available safety data for acacia was
sufficient to ensure its safe use in cosmetics. The other publication
evaluated the digestive tolerance of acacia in humans and its possible
role as a prebiotic fiber. The publication claimed high doses of acacia
(>50 grams per day (g/d)) are generally well tolerated based on reports
of only mild physiologic responses. We reviewed both publications and
concur with the conclusions (Ref. 2).
    The petitioner also presented a literature review on acacia's
potential as an allergen. We had previously reviewed the allergenicity
literature through 1992 and concluded there was no strong evidence that
acacia is allergenic in food. In reviewing the current petition, we
conducted another search of literature spanning from 1992 through 2012.
This recent search of the literature did not find any published
articles directly addressing the allergenicity or toxicity of acacia
that were not included in the petitioner's submission, nor did this
search reveal any new toxicological issues pertaining to acacia \2\
(Ref. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2011, we received a report of a food product
containing acacia that tested positive for peanut protein. After
ruling out the possibility of cross-contamination in the food
production process, FDA investigations concluded that no peanut
protein was present and that the positive findings were probably due
to the presence of cross-reactive proteins. Although we do not view
this as a food safety issue, the possibility for false positives may
indicate a problem with the current analytical tests used to monitor
allergens in acacia-containing foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our safety evaluations, we have chosen not to establish an
acceptable daily intake (ADI) for acacia due to convincing evidence
that acacia is non-carcinogenic and poorly absorbed, and that mild
physiologic responses were reported in humans only when acacia was
ingested at high doses (>50 g/d) (Ref. 2). Furthermore, JECFA has
confirmed a ``not specified'' ADI for acacia when it is used in
accordance with good manufacturing practices.
    Based on our review of the safety data and estimated dietary
exposure to acacia from current and proposed food uses, we conclude
that the proposed expanded use of acacia in foods is safe.

IV. Labeling

    Under section 403(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343), a food is
misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
Section 403(q)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act specifies that certain nutrients
and their amounts, including dietary fiber, must be included on the
label or in labeling. Similarly, section 403(r) of the FD&C Act lays
out the statutory framework for the use of labeling claims that
characterize the level of a nutrient in a food (e.g., ``high in
fiber'') or that characterize the relationship of a nutrient to a
disease or health-related condition. The petitioner cited reports and
published studies to support the recognition of acacia as a source of
dietary fiber. We concur that acacia supplies dietary fiber. In
accordance with 21 CFR 101.9(g)(2), for food labeling compliance
purposes, appropriate methods cited in Official Methods of Analysis of
the AOAC International, 15th edition (e.g., AOAC 985.29) would be used
for measuring the amount of dietary fiber in a food. Furthermore, if
products containing acacia bear any health and/or nutrient content
claims on the label or in labeling, such claims must be in compliance
with current labeling regulations.

V. Conclusion

    Based on the data and information in the petition and other
relevant material, we conclude that the proposed uses of acacia in food
are safe. Therefore, we are amending the regulations in part 172 as set
forth in this document.

VI. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with Sec.  171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our
decision to approve the petition will be made available for public
disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec.
171.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure.

VII. Environmental Impact

    We have carefully considered the potential environmental effects of
this action. We have concluded that the action will not have a
significant impact on the human environment, and that an environmental
impact statement is not required. Our finding of no significant impact
and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an environmental
assessment, may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

IX. Objections

    If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this
regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately
number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must
specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and
the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you
must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the
particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If
you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing,
your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
specific factual information you intend to present in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include
such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on the objection.
    It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify
documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

X. Section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act

    Our review of this petition was limited to section 409 of the FD&C
Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other
sections of the FD&C Act. For example, the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law on September 27,
2007, amended the FD&C Act to, among other things, add section 301(ll)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)). Section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act
prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug
or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations
have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless
one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (ll)(4) of the FD&C Act
applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether
section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food
containing this additive. Accordingly, this final rule should not be
construed to be a statement that a food containing this additive, if
introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce,
would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this
language is included in all food additive final rules and therefore
should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that
section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.

XI. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

1. Memorandum from D. Doell, Chemistry Review Team, CFSAN, FDA, to
E. Anderson, Regulatory Review Team II, CFSAN, FDA, November 20,
2012.
2. Memorandum from T. Thurmond, Toxicology Review Team, CFSAN, FDA,
to E. Anderson, Regulatory Team II, CFSAN, FDA, January 17, 2013.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 172

    Food additives, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 172 is amended as follows:

PART 172--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED FOR DIRECT ADDITION TO FOOD FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 172 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  172.780, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  172.780  Acacia (gum arabic).

* * * * *
    (b) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals
Codex, 8th ed. (2012), p. 516, which is incorporated by reference. The
Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. You may obtain copies from the United States Pharmacopeial
Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Pkwy., Rockville, MD 20852 (Internet
address: http://www.usp.org). Copies may be examined at the Food and
Drug Administration's Main Library, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2,
3d Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (c) The ingredient is used in food in accordance with good
manufacturing practices under the following conditions:

                     Maximum Usage Levels Permitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Food (as served)              Percent              Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverages, alcoholic..........  20.0.............  Thickener,
                                                    emulsifier, or
                                                    stabilizer.
Breakfast cereals, Sec.         6.0..............  Dietary fiber;
 170.3(n)(4) of this chapter.                       emulsifier and
                                                    emulsifier salt;
                                                    flavoring agent and
                                                    adjuvant;
                                                    formulation aid;
                                                    processing aid;
                                                    stabilizer and
                                                    thickener; surface-
                                                    finishing agent;
                                                    texturizer.
Cakes, brownies, pastries,      3.0..............   Do.
 biscuits, muffins, and
 cookies.
Grain-based bars (e.g.,         35.0.............   Do.
 breakfast bars, granola bars,
 rice cereal bars).
Soups and soup mixes, Sec.      2.5..............   Do.
 170.3(n)(40) of this chapter,
 except for soups and soup
 mixes containing meat or
 poultry that are subject to
 regulation by the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture
 under the Federal Meat
 Inspection Act or the Poultry
 Products Inspection Act.
Food categories listed in Sec.  Levels prescribed  Dietary fiber.
   184.1330 of this chapter,     in Sec.
 except for meat, poultry, and   184.1330 of this
 foods for which standards of    chapter.
 identity established under
 section 401 of the Federal
 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
 preclude the use of acacia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 2, 2013.
Susan M. Bernard,
Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2013-29073 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55829]
[DOCID:fr26se08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13239-000]

Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

September 19, 2008.
    On June 17, 2008, Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Parker Knoll Pumped Storage Project to be
located in Piute County, Utah. The project would occupy federal lands
of the Bureau of Land Management.
    The proposed project consists of: (1) Two proposed upper reservoir
earthen dams, a) 148-foot high, 600-foot-long, b) 32-foot-high, 800-
foot-long; (2) a proposed reservoir having a surface area of 125 acres,
a storage capacity of 8,212 acre-feet, and normal maximum water surface
elevation of 9,610.4 feet msl, (3) a proposed 100-foot-high 4,679-foot-
long earthen lower reservoir dam, (4) a proposed lower reservoir having
a surface area of 117 acres, a storage capacity of 8,689 acre-feet and
normal maximum water surface elevation of 7,109.2 feet msl, (5) a
proposed 12,800-foot-long, 25-foot diameter concrete/steel penstock;
(6) a proposed powerhouse with ten generating units having a total
capacity of 1,330 MW; (7) a proposed 0.30-mile-long, 240-kV
transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an annual generation of 3,640 GWh, and would be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box
535 Rigby, ID 83442, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FERC Contact: Henry Woo, 202-
502-8872.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13239) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22621 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43176-43178]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17967]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0722; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-188-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of alternating current (AC)
generator failures in-service due to incomplete fusion in the weld
joint of the rotor band assembly. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the AC generator to determine the part number, and replacing
the AC generator if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent
rotor windings from coming in contact with the generator housing, which
could result in debris contaminating and potentially blocking the
engine oil scavenge system, leading to loss of oil pressure and an in-
flight shutdown of the engine.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 7,
2012.

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0722;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-188-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2011-22, dated July 13, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There have been several reports of AC Generator failures in-
service. The root cause has been attributed to an incomplete fusion
in the weld joint of the AC Generator rotor band assembly. If not
rectified, the rotor band may fail allowing the rotor windings to
come in contact with the generator housing. The resulting debris
could contaminate and potentially block the engine oil scavenge
system, leading to loss of oil pressure and an in-flight shutdown of
the engine.
    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 84-24-45 to inspect,
[replace with modified or new AC generator] and re-identify the
affected AC generators to a new part number (P/N) 1152218-6 unit in
order to rectify the problem and ensure integrity of the affected
units.

    The required action is replacing the AC generator with a modified
or new AC generator. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-24-45, dated January 13,
2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    TCCA AD CF-2011-22, dated July 13, 2011, prohibits installation of
certain part numbers following the accomplishment of the replacement
required by paragraph (g) of this AD. This AD prohibits installation of
those part numbers as of the effective date of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 83 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $14,110, or $170 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0722; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-188-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 7, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001
through 4338 inclusive, with Honeywell alternating current (AC)
generator part number (P/N) 1152218-3, 1152218-4 or 1152218-5
installed.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: AC
generator.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of alternating current (AC)
generator failures in-service due to incomplete fusion in the weld
joint of the rotor band assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent
rotor windings from coming in contact with the generator housing,
which could result in debris contaminating and potentially blocking
the engine oil scavenge system, leading to loss of oil pressure and
an in-flight shutdown of the engine.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the left and right AC
generators to determine if the AC generator has a part number
identified in step 3.B.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-45, dated January 13, 2011, or has
P/N 1152218-3. If an AC generator has a part number identified in
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-45, dated January 13, 2011, or has
P/N 1152218-3, before further flight, replace the AC generator with
a modified or new AC generator having P/N 1152218-6, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-24-45, dated January 13, 2011.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After-the effective date of this AD, no person may install an AC
generator with a P/N 1152218-5, 1152218-4, or 1152218-3 on any
airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

 (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-22,
dated July 13, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-45, dated
January 13, 2011; for related information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series

Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K
1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 13, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-17967 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P