Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59067 

Regulatory Review Plan Under 

Executive Order 13579 

FHFA’s current review of OFHEO, 

FHFB, and certain HUD regulations is 

similar to the review it will conduct of 

existing regulations under Executive 

Order 13579. The regulatory review 

plan is set forth below. FHFA will 

conduct the review of its existing 

regulations under Executive Order 

13579 at least every five years. In light 

of the recent establishment of FHFA and 

ongoing regulatory activities mandated 

by HERA and the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

first review will begin no later than 

August 2013, five years after the 

establishment of FHFA. FHFA 

regulations published in Chapter XII of 

Title 12 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations and are also posted on the 

FHFA Internet Web site at http:// 

www.fhfa.gov. 

After considering all comments 

received, FHFA will publish a notice of 

the final regulatory review plan in the 

Federal Register and post it on the 

FHFA Web site, http://www.fhfa.gov. 

The interim regulatory review plan 

follows. 

Plan for Review of Existing Regulations 

Under Executive Order 13579 

a. Scope and timing of regulatory 

reviews. At least every five years, FHFA 

will conduct a review of the regulations 

it has issued and that are in effect. The 

first regulatory review will begin no 

later than August 2013. 

b. Factors considered in the regulatory 

reviews. The regulatory reviews will 

take into consideration the following 

factors, as applicable: 

(1) Legal or regulatory developments, 

including new laws, executive orders or 

judicial decisions that have been 

adopted since the promulgation of a 

regulation that make such regulation 

inefficient, obsolete, contrary to 

controlling legal precedent, or unduly 

burdensome; 

(2) Application by Fannie Mae, 

Freddie Mac, or a Federal Home Loan 

Bank (regulated entity) or the Office of 

Finance of the Federal Home Loan Bank 

System for revision of a regulation 

because of reasonably discernible 

regulatory burden or inefficiency; 

(3) Marketplace developments, 

technological evolution and related 

changes that may have rendered an 

existing regulation, in whole or in part, 

inefficient, outmoded, or outdated; 

(4) Such other occurrences or 

developments as determined by FHFA 

to be relevant to a review for 

inefficiency or unwarranted regulatory 

burden; 

(5) Whether the provisions of the 

regulation are written in plain language 

or otherwise need clarification; 

(6) Compelling evidence that a 

consolidation of two or more 

regulations, elimination of a duplicative 

regulation, or other revision to 

regulatory requirements would facilitate 

compliance by or supervision of a 

regulated entity or the Office of Finance; 

(7) A demonstration of a better 

alternative method to effect a regulatory 

purpose or requirement supported by 

compelling evidence of significantly 

less intrusive means or of a substantially 

more efficient method of accomplishing 

the same supervisory purpose; and 

(8) Such other factors as determined 

by FHFA to be relevant to determining 

and evaluating the need for and 

effectiveness of a particular regulation. 

c. Regulatory review process.—(1) The 

regulatory reviews will be conducted by 

the FHFA Office of General Counsel, 

under the direction of the General 

Counsel, and will include internal 

consultation with other FHFA offices 

and staff, guidance provided by the 

FHFA Director, as well as consideration 

of public comments. 

(2) A review and report of findings 

and recommendations will be provided 

to the FHFA Director on a timely basis. 

The report of findings and 

recommendations will be privileged and 

confidential. 

(3) After receiving the report of 

findings and recommendations, the 

FHFA Director will determine what 

steps may be necessary to relieve any 

unnecessary burden, including 

amendment to or repeal of existing 

regulations or issuance of less formal 

guidance. 

d. No right of action. The regulatory 

reviews are not formal or informal 

rulemaking proceedings under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and 

create no right of action against FHFA. 

Moreover, the determination of FHFA to 

conduct or not to conduct a review of 

a regulation and any determination, 

finding, or recommendation resulting 

from any review are not final agency 

actions and, as such, are not subject to 

judicial review. 

Dated: September 16, 2011. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24405 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0992; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–126–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, 

CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), 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: 

Three (3) events have occurred where the 

Air-Driven Generator (ADG) failed to provide 

power on CL–600–2B19 (CRJ) aeroplanes 

during their regularly scheduled operational/ 

functional checks. An investigation revealed 

that in all cases, the silver-plated copper 

wires within the ADG power feeder cables 

were damaged due to galvanic corrosion. It 

was subsequently determined that the silverplating is inadequate for this application. 

In the event of damage to the power feeder 

cable wires, the ADG may not be able to 

provide emergency electrical power to the 

aeroplane. 

Although there have been no reported 

failures to date on any CL–600–2B16 (604 

Variant) aeroplanes, a sampling program 

carried out on these aeroplanes showed signs 

of microscopic galvanic corrosion on the 

ADG power feeder cable wires. 

* * * * * 

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 November 7, 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, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; 

e-mail thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; 

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 425–227–1221. 

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 (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, 

Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE– 

172, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone (516) 228–7301; fax 

(516) 794–5531. 

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–2011–0992; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–126–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 

The Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–08, 

dated April 28, 2011 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Three (3) events have occurred where the 

Air-Driven Generator (ADG) failed to provide 

power on CL–600–2B19 (CRJ) aeroplanes 

during their regularly scheduled operational/ 

functional checks. An investigation revealed 

that in all cases, the silver-plated copper 

wires within the ADG power feeder cables 

were damaged due to galvanic corrosion. It 

was subsequently determined that the silverplating is inadequate for this application. 

In the event of damage to the power feeder 

cable wires, the ADG may not be able to 

provide emergency electrical power to the 

aeroplane. 

Although there have been no reported 

failures to date on any CL–600–2B16 (604 

Variant) aeroplanes, a sampling program 

carried out on these aeroplanes showed signs 

of microscopic galvanic corrosion on the 

ADG power feeder cable wires. 

This directive is issued to correct this 

potentially unsafe condition by mandating 

the replacement of all ADG power feeder 

cables * * * with an ADG power feeder 

cable that contains tin-plated copper wires. 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Service 

Bulletin 604–24–024, dated January 31, 

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 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 72 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 24 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 $1,897 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 

$283,464, or $3,937 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59069 

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); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2011– 

0992; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM– 

126–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 7, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. 

Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601– 

3R, & CL–604 Variants) airplanes, certificated 

in any category, serial numbers 5301, 5302, 

5305 through 5318 inclusive, 5320 through 

5328 inclusive, 5331 through 5349 inclusive, 

5351 through 5367 inclusive, 5369 through 

5408 inclusive, 5410, 5412 through 5426 

inclusive, 5428 through 5438 inclusive, 5440 

through 5489 inclusive, 5491 through 5498 

inclusive, 5500 through 5517 inclusive, 5519 

through 5522 inclusive, and 5524 through 

5665 inclusive. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 24: Electrical power. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Three (3) events have occurred where the 

Air-Driven Generator (ADG) failed to provide 

power on CL–600–2B19 (CRJ) aeroplanes 

during their regularly scheduled operational/ 

functional checks. An investigation revealed 

that in all cases, the silver-plated copper 

wires within the ADG power feeder cables 

were damaged due to galvanic corrosion. It 

was subsequently determined that the silverplating is inadequate for this application. 

In the event of damage to the power feeder 

cable wires, the ADG may not be able to 

provide emergency electrical power to the 

aeroplane. 

Although there have been no reported 

failures to date on any CL–600–2B16 (604 

Variant) aeroplanes, a sampling program 

carried out on these aeroplanes showed signs 

of microscopic galvanic corrosion on the 

ADG power feeder cable wires. 

* * * * * 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Actions 

(g) Within 72 months after the effective 

date of this AD, replace the ADG power 

feeder cable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 604–24–024, dated January 

31, 2011. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) 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 516–228–7300; 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. 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation (TCCA) Airworthiness Directive 

CF–2011–08, dated April 28, 2011; and 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 604–24–024, 

dated January 31, 2011; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on 

September 16, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24432 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 985 

[Docket No. FR–5532–P–01] 

RIN 2577–AC76 

Revision to the Section 8 Management 

Assessment Program Lease-Up 

Indicator 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend HUD’s regulations for the 

Section 8 Management Assessment 

program (SEMAP) to revise the process 

by which HUD measures and verifies 

performance under the SEMAP lease-up 

indicator. Specifically, HUD proposes to 

amend the existing regulation to reflect 

that assessment of a public housing 

agency’s (PHA) leasing indicator will be 

based on a calendar year cycle, rather 

than a fiscal year cycle, which would 

increase administrative efficiencies for 

PHAs. This proposed rule would also 

clarify that units assisted under the 

voucher homeownership option or 

occupied under a project-based housing 

assistance (HAP) contract are included 

in the assessment of PHA units leased. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: October 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 

0500. Communications should refer to 

the above docket number and title. 

There are two methods for submitting 

public comments. All submissions must 

refer to the above docket number and 

title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1