5296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

account for difference in riskiness 

among exposures that fall into the same 

category. 

FHFA could also consider adopting 

criteria that reference certain financial 

or other metrics related to the obligor or 

counterparty. To be meaningful, the 

criteria would need to account for or 

bear a reasonable correlation to the 

potential riskiness of default among 

different obligors or counterparties. Any 

criteria would also need to be readily 

obtainable by both FHFA and the 

regulated entities if this approach is to 

be workable. 

Question 2: What types of objective 

criteria could be used to differentiate 

credit exposures and apply meaningful 

credit risk capital charges? Should 

different criteria be used for different 

broad classes of investments or 

exposures? Could there be perverse 

incentives or other ‘‘downsides’’ to this 

approach? What might be the problems 

with this approach? 

Another approach could be to build 

on each regulated entity’s internal credit 

review process and allow an entity to 

assign exposure to various categories 

and assess risk charges based on 

qualitative and quantitative standards 

set by FHFA. For example, FHFA could 

assign limits or capital requirements 

based on regulated entities’ internal 

ratings or some modification of such, as 

reviewed or approved by FHFA. This 

approach would be more subjective than 

the alternative discussed above but 

could allow FHFA to leverage the data 

collection and analysis already 

performed by the regulated entities. 

Question 3: What qualitative and 

quantitative standards would FHFA 

need to set to implement an approach 

that relied on the regulated entities to 

generate internal estimates of credit risk 

exposures? What are the strengths and 

weaknesses of such an approach? What 

would be the strengths and weaknesses 

of having FHFA itself set credit risk 

capital charges based on its own 

estimates of risk? 

Question 4: In order to apply a 

meaningful risk-based capital charge, 

FHFA needs to set forth requirements 

for the regulated entities to estimate the 

credit risk of their various exposures. 

Could an approach be developed that 

estimates a meaningful risk-based 

capital charge that avoids requiring a 

specific credit risk charge or specifying 

criteria to estimate credit risk? What 

might such an approach be? 

3. Alternative Approaches to Prudential 

Regulations 

FHFA could follow various 

approaches in replacing the NRSROreferenced requirements in the 

regulations described above. One 

approach could be to require a regulated 

entity to analyze and document 

compliance with certain specific creditworthiness standards or metrics set 

forth by FHFA. These standards would 

need to assure that the investment or 

activity is not speculative in nature, and 

instead carries credit risk appropriate 

for the regulated entity’s risk profile and 

risk management practices. FHFA could 

also require the regulated entity to 

consider specific, broader investment 

criteria that go beyond credit-worthiness 

considerations in its analysis. 

FHFA could also rely on the regulated 

entity’s internal credit assessment 

process and let the regulated entities 

decide on what specific investments or 

exposures may be appropriate. Under 

this approach, FHFA would likely need 

to provide regulatory and policy 

guidance on how any internal credit 

assessment process is to be structured 

and to rely heavily on the supervisory 

process to make sure that the regulated 

entities are strictly following their own 

guidelines and are not assuming high 

levels of credit risk. 

Finally, some of the regulations 

described in this ANPR could be deleted 

without necessarily exposing the 

regulated entities to significant risks. At 

the same time, FHFA could consider 

other approaches, such as a prohibition 

on investment in broad categories of 

instruments or on assumption of 

particular types of exposures to replace 

the ratings based requirements. 

Question 5: What are the strengths 

and weaknesses of these various 

approaches? Are there any existing, 

objective tools or approaches that could 

readily replace references to ratings 

issued by NRSROs in the regulations 

discussed in this ANPR? Are there other 

approaches not discussed above that 

may be appropriate? 

Question 6: What specific creditworthiness or investment criteria should 

FHFA incorporate into a new regulation, 

if it decided to adopt such a regulation? 

For example, should FHFA limit 

investments by regulated entities to 

securities that would be eligible 

investments for money market funds, or 

to securities with original maturities of 

one-year or less, or based on other 

objective criteria? What principles 

would FHFA need to incorporate into 

any regulation or policy that was meant 

to govern a regulated entity’s internal 

credit assessment process? 

Question 7: Can any of the current 

prudential requirements that reference 

NRSROs or credit ratings be eliminated 

without compromising FHFA’s ability to 

monitor and promote the safe or sound 

operations of the regulated entities? 

Question 8: Is it important that 

FHFA’s approach to replacing 

requirements in its regulations that 

reference credit ratings issued by 

NRSROs be consistent with that of other 

financial regulators, especially federal 

banking agencies? 

Question 9: What are some other 

safeguards or requirements (not 

necessarily based on credit-worthiness 

standards) that might provide 

protections similar to those afforded 

under FHFA’s current regulations that 

reference ratings issued by NRSROs? 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2041 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 5 and 119 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0671; Notice No. 10– 

15] 

RIN 2120–AJ86 

Safety Management System for Part 

121 Certificate Holders; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); Extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

comment period for an NPRM that was 

published on November 5, 2010. In that 

document, the FAA proposed to require 

each certificate holder operating under 

14 CFR part 121 to develop and 

implement a safety management system 

(SMS) to improve its aviation related 

activities. Several trade and 

membership organizations representing 

various aviation industry segments have 

requested that the FAA extend the 

comment period closing date to allow 

time to adequately analyze the NPRM 

and prepare comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

NPRM published on November 5, 2010, 

closing on February 3, 2011, is extended 

until March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAA– 

2010–0997 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5297 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Denniston, ARM–200, Office of 

Rulemaking, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–3380; facsimile 

(202) 267–5075, e-mail 

sean.denniston@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section for 

information on how to comment on this 

proposal and how the FAA will handle 

comments received. The ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section also contains 

related information about the docket, 

privacy, and the handling of proprietary 

or confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 

Background 

On November 5, 2010, the FAA 

published Notice No. 10–15, entitled 

‘‘Safety Management Systems for Part 

121 Certificate Holders’’ (75 FR 68224). 

Comments to that document were to be 

received on or before February 3, 2011. 

In a letter dated January 14, 2011 the 

Aeronautical Repair Station 

Association, Aircraft Electronics 

Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, Aviation Suppliers 

Association, Experimental Aircraft 

Association, Modification and 

Replacement Parts Association, National 

Air Transportation Association, and the 

National Business Aircraft Association 

requested that the FAA extend the 

comment period for Notice No. 10–15 

for 90 days. The petitioners requested 

the extension to allow time to 

adequately assess the impact of the 

NPRM and prepare comments. 

While the FAA concurs with the 

petitioners’ requests for an extension of 

the comment period on Notice No. 10– 

15, it does not support a 90-day 

extension. The FAA finds that providing 

an additional 30 days is sufficient for 

commenters to analyze the NPRM and 

provide meaningful comment to Notice 

No. 10–15. The Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–216) directs the FAA to 

issue an SMS for part 121 final rule by 

July 30, 2012. In order to fulfill the final 

rule requirement of Public Law 111– 

216, the FAA is working on an 

accelerated schedule to complete the 

SMS for part 121 final rule. 

Absent unusual circumstances, the 

FAA does not anticipate any further 

extension of the comment period for 

this rulemaking. 

Extension of Comment Period 

In accordance with § 11.47(c) of title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations, the 

FAA has reviewed the petitions made 

by the Aeronautical Repair Station 

Association, Aircraft Electronics 

Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, Aviation Suppliers 

Association, Experimental Aircraft 

Association, Modification and 

Replacement Parts Association, National 

Air Transportation Association, and the 

National Business Aircraft Association 

for extension of the comment period to 

Notice No. 10–15. These petitioners 

have shown a substantive interest in the 

proposed rule and good cause for the 

extension. The FAA has determined that 

extension of the comment period is 

consistent with the public interest, and 

that good cause exists for taking this 

action. 

Accordingly, the comment period for 

Notice No. 10–15 is extended until 

March 7, 2011. 

Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Do not file proprietary or 

confidential business information in the 

docket. Such information must be sent 

or delivered directly to the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document, and marked as proprietary or 

confidential. If submitting information 

on a disk or CD–ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM, and identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the 

FAA is aware of proprietary information 

filed with a comment, the agency does 

not place it in the docket. It is held in 

a separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
5298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 

2011. 

Pamela Hamilton-Powell, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2049 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0088; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–072–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–500 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

It has been found that moisture may 

accumulate and freeze, under certain 

conditions, in the gap between the AOA vane 

base assembly and the stationary ring of the 

sensor’s body. If freezing occurs both AOA 

sensors may get stuck and the Stall Warning 

Protection System (SWPS) will be no longer 

effective without alerting. This may result in 

inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of 

controllability of the airplane. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 17, 2011. 

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: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact EMBRAER 

Empresa Brasileira de Aerona ́utica S.A., 

Phenom Maintenance Support, Av. Brig. 

Farina Lima, 2170, Sao Jose dos 

Campos—SP, CEP: 12227–901—PO Box: 

36/2, BRASIL; telephone: ++55 12 

3927–5383; fax: ++55 12 3927–2619; Email: 

phenom.reliability@embraer.com.br; 

Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 816–329– 

4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 

329–4090. 

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–2011–0088; Directorate Identifier 

2010–CE–072–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

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 

The AGEˆNCIA NACIONAL DE 

AVIAC ̧A ̃ O CIVIL—BRAZIL (ANAC), 

which is the aviation authority for 

Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2010–11–01, 

dated December 20, 2010 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

It has been found that moisture may 

accumulate and freeze, under certain 

conditions, in the gap between the AOA vane 

base assembly and the stationary ring of the 

sensor’s body. If freezing occurs both AOA 

sensors may get stuck and the Stall Warning 

Protection System (SWPS) will be no longer 

effective without alerting. This may result in 

inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of 

controllability of the airplane. 

Since this condition may occur in other 

airplanes of the same type and affects flight 

safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, 

sufficient reason exists to request compliance 

with this AD in the indicated time limit. 

The MCAI requires replacement of both 

Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors and 

cover plates. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

EMBRAER has issued PHENOM 

Service Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, 

dated September 2, 2010, and PHENOM 

Service Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, 

Revision No.: 01, dated November 29, 

2010. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS