[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 4268-4271]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28603; 812-13552]

Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund, et al.; Notice
of Application

January 14, 2009.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

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

Applicants: Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund
(``CHI''), Calamos Convertible and High Income Fund (``CHY''), Calamos
Strategic Total Return Fund (``CSQ''), and Calamos Global Dynamic
Income Fund (``CHW'') (each, a ``Fund'' and collectively, ``Funds'').

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
granting an exemption from sections 18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act for
a period from the date of the Order until October 31, 2010. The Order
would permit each Fund to issue or incur debt subject to asset coverage
of 200% that would be used to refinance all of the Fund's auction rate
preferred shares (``ARPS'') issued prior to February 1, 2008 that are
outstanding at the time of the Order. The Order also would permit each
Fund to declare dividends or any other distributions on, or purchase,
capital stock during the term of the Order, provided that any such debt
has asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such
transaction.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 24, 2008, and amended
on October 14, 2008, December 18, 2008, January 12, and January 14,
2009.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on February 9, 2009, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o James J. Boyne, Calamos
Advisors LLC, 2020 Calamos Court, Naperville, IL 60563.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
SEC's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-
1520 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Funds is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and
is registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management
investment company. Each Fund is advised by Calamos Advisors LLC
(``Calamos'') and has issued and outstanding a class of common shares
and several series of ARPS.
    2. Applicants state that the Funds issued their outstanding ARPS
for purposes of investment leverage to augment the amount of investment
capital available for use in the pursuit of their investment
objectives. Applicants state that, through the use of leverage, the
Funds seek to enhance the investment return available to the holders of
their common shares by earning a rate of portfolio return (which
includes the return related to investments made with proceeds from
leverage) that exceeds the leverage costs, which have been the amount
of dividends that the Funds paid to holders of the ARPS. Applicants
represent that ARPS shareholders are entitled to receive a stated
liquidation preference amount of $25,000 per share (plus any
accumulated but unpaid dividends) in any liquidation, dissolution, or
winding up of the relevant Fund before any distribution or payment to
holders of the Fund's common shares. They state that dividends declared
and payable on ARPS have a similar priority over dividends declared and
payable on the Fund's common shares. In addition, applicants state that
ARPS are ``perpetual'' securities and are not subject to mandatory
redemption by a Fund so long as certain asset coverage tests are met.
Further, applicants state that ARPS are redeemable at each Fund's
option.
    3. Applicants state that prior to February 2008, dividend rates on
the ARPS for each dividend period were set at the market clearing rate
determined through an auction process that brought together bidders,
who sought to buy ARPS, and holders of ARPS, who sought to sell their
ARPS. Applicants explain that if an auction failed to clear (because of
an imbalance of sell orders over bids), the dividend payment rate over
the next dividend period was set at a specified maximum applicable rate
(the ``Maximum Rate'') determined by reference to a short-term market
interest rate (either the LIBOR or ``AA'' commercial paper rate for an
equivalent period). Applicants state that an unsuccessful auction is
not a default; the relevant Fund continues to pay dividends to all
holders of ARPS, but at the specified Maximum Rate rather than a market
clearing rate. Prior to February 2008, the Maximum Rate had never

been triggered due to failed auctions for any of the Funds.
    4. Applicants state that if investors did not purchase all of the
ARPS tendered for sale at an auction prior to the failure of the
auction market, dealers historically would enter into the auction and
purchase any excess shares to prevent the auction from failing.
Applicants represent that this auction mechanism had generally provided
readily available liquidity to holders of ARPS for more than twenty
years. Applicants believe that many investors invested short-term cash
balances in ARPS believing they were safe short-term investments and,
in many cases, the equivalent of cash.
    5. Applicants state that in February 2008, the financial
institutions that historically provided ``back stop'' liquidity to ARPS
auctions stopped participating in them and the auctions began to fail.
Applicants state that, beginning in February 2008, the Funds
experienced auction failures due to an imbalance between buy and sell
orders. Applicants believe that there is no established secondary
market that would provide holders of ARPS with the liquidation
preference of $25,000 per share. Applicants state that each of the
Funds to date has secured debt financing enabling it to refinance (and
accordingly redeem) a significant portion of its outstanding ARPS.\1\
Applicants state that CSQ, CHI and CHY's financing arrangements provide
a commitment level that, if completely drawn upon, would allow them to
retire all (or almost all) of their ARPS. However, Applicants represent
that these Funds have been prohibited from utilizing these facilities
in their entirety to redeem their remaining ARPS because they would not
have the 300% asset coverage required by section 18(a)(1)(A) of the Act
after a full redemption of the ARPS. Similarly, Applicants state that
CHW has obtained the authorization of its board of trustees (``Board'')
to issue a further $50 million in extendible notes and believes there
is a market for them, but is unable to issue additional notes in order
to redeem its remaining outstanding ARPS because it would not have 300%
asset coverage immediately following the issuance of those notes. As a
result, applicants state that there is currently no reliable mechanism
for holders of their ARPS to obtain liquidity, and believe that,
industry-wide, the current lack of liquidity is causing distress for a
substantial number of ARPS shareholders and creating severe hardship
for many investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CSQ obtained a 180 day rolling margin loan that enabled it
to redeem 81.5% of its ARPS. CHI and CHY redeemed 72.9% and 81.4% of
their ARPS, respectively, with the proceeds of a renewable
commercial paper conduit facility with a maturity of 364 days. CHW
issued extendible notes in a Rule 144A offering with a term of 364
days and used the proceeds of such notes to redeem 85.7% of its
ARPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicants seek relief for a period from the date of any Order
until October 31, 2010 (``Exemption Period'') to facilitate temporary
borrowings by the Funds that would enhance their ability to provide a
liquidity solution to the holders of their ARPS in the near term \2\
while they either pay down or seek a more permanent form of replacement
leverage, such as a new type of preferred stock that provides liquidity
at liquidation value.\3\ Applicants submit that the gradual reduction
of leverage through the use of proceeds of any common share issuances
or the development of an alternative form of preferred stock might take
several months, if at all, after the Order has been issued. Applicants
state that it is uncertain when, or if, the securities and capital
markets will return to conditions that would enable the Funds to
achieve compliance with the asset coverage requirements that would
apply in the absence of the Order. Given the uncertainty and the
current and continuing unsettled state of the securities and capital
markets, applicants believe that the Exemption Period is reasonable and
appropriate. Each Fund's refinancing of its ARPS would be subject to
the approval of the refinancing arrangements by the Fund's Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each Applicant believes that refinancing would be
appropriate and, over the longer term would provide additional
investment income net of borrowing costs, and thus would be
beneficial to its common shareholders.
    \3\ See, e.g., Eaton Vance Management, SEC No-Action Letter
(June 13, 2008) (permitting the issuance of ``liquidity protected
preferred shares'' to supplement or replace Eaton Vance funds'
auction rate preferred stock).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 18(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for
any registered closed-end investment company to issue any class of
senior security representing indebtedness, or to sell such security of
which it is the issuer, unless the class of senior security will have
an asset coverage of at least 300% immediately after issuance or sale.
Section 18(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for any
registered closed-end investment company to issue any class of senior
security that is a stock, or to sell any such security of which it is
the issuer, unless the class of senior security will have an asset
coverage of at least 200% immediately after such issuance or sale.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 18(h) of the Act defines asset coverage of a senior
security representing indebtedness of an issuer as the ratio which
the value of the total assets of the issuer, less all liabilities
and indebtedness not represented by senior securities, bears to the
aggregate amount of senior securities representing indebtedness of
the issuer. The section defines asset coverage of the preferred
stock of an issuer as the ratio which the value of the total assets
of the issuer, less all liabilities and indebtedness not represented
by senior securities, bears to the aggregate amount of senior
securities representing indebtedness of the issuer plus the amount
the class of senior security would be entitled to on involuntary
liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 18(a)(1)(B) prohibits a closed-end fund from declaring a
dividend or other distribution on, or purchasing, its own capital stock
unless its outstanding indebtedness will have an asset coverage of at
least 300% immediately after deducting the amount of such dividend,
distribution or purchase price.\5\ Section 18(a)(2)(B) prohibits a
closed-end fund from declaring a dividend or other distribution on, or
purchasing, its own common stock unless its outstanding preferred stock
will have an asset coverage of at least 200% immediately after
deducting the amount of such dividend, distribution or purchase price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An exception is made for the declaration of a dividend on a
class of preferred stock if the senior security representing
indebtedness has an asset coverage of at least 200% at the time of
declaration after deduction of the amount of such dividend. See
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Further, section 18(g) of the Act
provides, among other things, that ``senior security,'' for purposes
of section 18(a)(1)(B), does not include any promissory note or
other evidence of indebtedness issued in consideration of any loan,
extension or renewal thereof, made by a bank or other person and
privately arranged, and not intended to be publicly distributed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the
Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or
unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction from any
provision of the Act if and to the extent necessary or appropriate in
the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    4. Applicants request that the Commission issue an Order under
section 6(c) of the Act to exempt each Fund from the 300% asset
coverage requirements set forth in sections 18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act. Specifically, the Funds seek relief from the section 18 asset
coverage requirements for senior securities representing indebtedness
for the Exemption Period to permit the Funds to refinance any ARPS
issued prior to

February 1, 2008 that are outstanding at the time of the Order with
debt subject to the 200% asset coverage requirement for stock, rather
than the 300% asset coverage that would ordinarily apply under section
18 to senior securities representing indebtedness, (a) when they incur
that debt, and (b) when they declare dividends or any other
distributions on, or purchase, their capital stock, after deduction of
the amount of such dividend, distribution or purchase price. Applicants
state that, except as permitted under the requested Order, if issued,
the Funds would meet all of the asset coverage requirements of section
18(a) of the Act. In addition, applicants state that within the
Exemption Period each Fund that borrows in reliance on the Order will
either pay down or refinance the debt so that the Fund would, then and
thereafter, comply with the applicable asset coverage requirements
(200% for equity or 300% for debt) under section 18 of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that section 18 reflects congressional concerns
regarding preferential treatment for certain classes of shareholders,
complex capital structures, and the use of excessive leverage.
Applicants submit that another concern was that senior securities gave
the misleading impression of safety from risk. Applicants believe that
the request for temporary relief is necessary, appropriate and in the
public interest and that such relief is consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes intended by the policy and provisions of
the Act.
    6. Applicants note that the illiquidity of ARPS is a unique,
exigent situation that is posing urgent, and in some cases devastating,
hardships on ARPS shareholders. Applicants represent that the proposed
replacement of the ARPS with debt would provide liquidity for the
Funds' ARPS shareholders while the Funds continue their efforts to
obtain a more permanent form of financing (such as through the issuance
of preferred equity-based instruments) that fully complies with the
asset coverage requirements of section 18.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Applicants represent that the Order would help avoid the
potential harm to common shareholders that could result if the Funds
were to deleverage their portfolios in the current difficult market
environment \7\ or that could result if a reduction in investment
return reduced the market price of common shares. Applicants also state
that the requested Order would permit the Funds to continue to provide
their common shareholders with the enhanced returns that leverage may
provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Applicants state that a significant portion of each Fund's
portfolio is in convertible securities. Applicants believe that it
is difficult to sell such securities in the current market without
artificially depressing market prices because the liquidity of that
market has been reduced due to deleveraging by hedge funds and as a
result of market makers' own impaired capital positions. Applicants
believe, however, that convertible securities generally remain sound
even though they are presently trading below their intrinsic value.
Applicants thus believe it would be disadvantageous to sell these
securities in the current market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants believe that the interests of both classes of the
Funds' current investors would be well served by the requested order--
the ARPS shareholders because they would achieve the liquidity that the
market currently cannot provide (as well as full recovery of the
liquidation value of their shares), and the common shareholders because
the adverse consequences of forced deleveraging would be avoided and
each Fund's investment return would be enhanced to the extent that the
cost of the new form of leverage is lower than the investment return on
the capital raised through the borrowings.
    9. Applicants represent that the proposed borrowing would be
obtained from banks, insurance companies or qualified institutional
buyers (as defined in Rule 144(a)(1) under the Securities Act of 1933)
who would be capable of assessing the risk associated with the
transaction. Applicants also state that, to the extent the Act's asset
coverage requirements were aimed at limiting leverage because of its
potential to magnify losses as well as gains, they believe that the
proposal would not unduly increase the speculative nature of the Funds'
common shares because the relief is temporary and the Funds would be no
more highly leveraged if they replace the existing ARPS with
borrowing.\8\ Applicants also state that the proposed liquidity
solution actually would simplify the Funds' capital structures, not
make them more complex, opaque, or hard to understand or result in
pyramiding or inequitable distribution of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Applicants acknowledge that managing any portfolio that
relies on borrowing for leverage entails the risk that, when the
borrowing matures and must be repaid or refinanced, an economically
attractive form of replacement leverage may not be available in the
capital markets. For that reason, any portfolio that relies on
borrowing for leverage is subject to the risk that it may have to
forcibly deleverage, which could be disadvantageous to the
portfolio's common shareholders. Applicants therefore state that
they regard leveraging through borrowing as potentially a temporary,
interim step, with the issuance of new preferred equity-based
instruments as a possible longer-term replacement source of
portfolio leverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Applicants state that the current state of the credit markets,
which has affected the ARPS, is an historic event of unusual severity,
which requires a creative and flexible response on the part of both the
public and private sectors. Applicants believe that these issues have
created an urgent need for limited, quick, thoughtful and responsive
solutions. Applicants believe that the request meets the standards for
exemption under section 6(c) of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Each Fund that borrows subject to 200% asset coverage under the
order will do so only if such Fund's Board, including a majority of the
trustees who are not ``interested persons'' (as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act) (``Independent Trustees''), shall have determined
that such borrowing is in the best interests of such Fund, its common
shareholders, and its ARPS shareholders. Each Fund shall make and
preserve for a period of not less than six years from the date of such
determination, the first two years in an easily accessible place,
minutes specifically describing the deliberations by the Board and the
information and documents supporting those deliberations, the factors
considered by the Board in connection with such determination, and the
basis of such determination.
    2. Upon expiration of the Exemption Period, each Fund will have
asset coverage of at least 300% for each class of senior security
representing indebtedness.
    3. The Board of any Fund that has borrowed in reliance on the order
shall receive and review, no less frequently than quarterly during the
Exemption Period, detailed progress reports prepared by management (or
other parties selected by the Independent Trustees) regarding and
assessing the efforts that the Fund has undertaken, and the progress
that the Fund has made, towards achieving compliance with the
appropriate asset coverage requirements under section 18 by the
expiration of the Exemption Period. The Board, including a majority of
the Independent Trustees, will make such adjustments as it deems
necessary or appropriate to ensure that the applicant comes into
compliance with section 18 of the Act within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed the expiration of the Exemption Period. Each Fund
will make and preserve minutes describing these reports and the Board's
review, including copies of such reports and all other information
provided to or relied upon by the Board, for a period of not

less than six years from the date of such determination, the first two
years in an easily accessible place.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1299 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7596]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4053-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Utah; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Utah (FEMA-4053-DR), dated February 1, 2012,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 1, 2012, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Utah resulting from a severe storm during the period of November
30 to December 1, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Utah.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gary R. Stanley, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Utah have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Davis County for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Utah are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-3205 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7504]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Avicena Group, Inc., Northern Ethanol, Inc., Hydrogen Hybrid
Technologies, Inc. and Stock-Trak Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

February 12, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of
trading in the securities of Avicena Group, Inc., Northern Ethanol,
Inc., Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies, Inc. and Stock-Trak Group, Inc.
Questions have arisen concerning the trading in the companies' stocks
and the accuracy and adequacy of publicly available information
regarding the ownership and control of each company.
    Avicena Group, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered
in Palo Alto, California. The company's common stock is quoted on Pink
Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets Inc. (``Pink Sheets'') under the
ticker symbol ``AVCE.''
    Northern Ethanol, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. The company's common stock is quoted
on Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol ``NOET.''
    Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies, Inc. is incorporated in Nevada and
headquartered in Pickering, Ontario. The company's common stock is
quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets under the ticker
symbol ``HYHY.''
    Stock-Trak Group, Inc. (formerly Neutron Enterprises, Inc.) is
incorporated in Nevada and headquartered in Montreal, Quebec. The
company's common stock is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and Pink
Sheets under the ticker symbol ``STKG'' (formerly ``NTRN'').
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading of the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period commencing at 9:30
a.m. EST, February 12, 2009, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EST, on
February 26, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3376 Filed 2-12-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26404]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79173; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a Change to the Underlying Index for the PowerShares Build
America Bond Portfolio

October 27, 2016.
    On May 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to: (1) Permit the
continued listing and trading of shares of the PowerShares Build
America Bond Portfolio (``Fund'') following a change to the index
underlying the Fund, and (2) propose changes to the index underlying
the Fund and the name of the Fund. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016.\3\ On
June 27, 2016, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change.\5\ On August 12, 2016, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\6\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77849 (May 17,
2016), 81 FR 32371.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78157, 81 FR 43327
(July 1, 2016). The Commission determined that it was appropriate to
designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission designated August
21, 2016 as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78564, 81 FR 55247
(August 18, 2016). Specifically, the Commission instituted
proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule
change's consistency with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' See id. at 55250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on May 23, 2016. November 19, 2016 is 180 days from
that date, and January 18, 2017 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\8\ designates January 18, 2017 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26404 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76611-76612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

Interference With a Crewmember via Laser

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2011, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations,
Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA''), issued an interpretation of
14 CFR 91.11. Section 91.11 provides that ``[n]o person may assault,
threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance
of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.'' The FAA
is aware of an increasing number of incidents involving the use of
lasers being directed toward aircraft operating on the ground or in the
air. Such conduct has the potential to adversely affect safety by
interfering with flight crewmembers in the performance of their duties.
The FAA considers a situation in which a laser beam is aimed at an
aircraft by a person on the ground or from any other location including
from another aircraft so that it interferes with a crewmember in the
performance of the crewmember's duties as a violation of 14 CFR 91.11.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean E. Griffith, Attorney,
Regulations Division, Chief Counsel's Office, AGC-220, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC; telephone:
(202) 267-3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published its June 1, 2011
interpretation of section 91.11 on its Web site, which is available to
the public at: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12765. It is also available on the FAA's Laser
Incident Information and Reporting Web site: http://www.faa.gov/go/laserinfo. In addition, the FAA and the Department of Transportation
have issued press releases with regard to publicizing the dangers of
interfering with flight crew operations by using lasers directed at
aircraft. With this notice published in the Federal Register, the FAA
is again advising the public of the FAA's June 1, 2011 interpretation
of section 91.11 in an effort to increase awareness that: (1) Directing
laser beams towards aircraft operating on the ground or in the air so
that it interferes with a crewmember in the performance of the
crewmember's duties is a violation of section 91.11; and, (2) persons
violating section 91.11 are subject to a substantial civil penalty.

    The text of the interpretation issued by the Assistant Chief
Counsel for Regulations, FAA, on June 1, 2011, follows:
    This memorandum is in response to your request for legal
interpretation on whether directing a laser at an aircraft from the
ground could constitute interference with a crewmember under 14 CFR
91.11. The FAA's understanding of the plain language of Sec.  91.11,
and the purpose of the regulation, indicate that the answer to this
question is ``yes.''
    Section 91.11 establishes that ``[n]o person may assault, threaten,
intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the
crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.''
    This regulation was initially adopted in 1961 in reaction to
increased hijackings of aircraft. See 26 FR 7009 (Aug. 4, 1961). The
FAA intended to ``provide additional controls over the conduct of
passengers in order to avoid a serious threat to the safety of flights
and persons aboard them.'' Id. In a later amendment to the rule, the
FAA stated that this section was ``clearly intended to apply to
passengers * * * and any other `person' on board the aircraft.'' 64 FR
1076, 1077 (Jan. 7, 1999).
    Although the primary focus of the regulation, as explained in the
1999 amendments to the rule, was persons on board the aircraft, the
plain language of the regulation does not specify that the person
interfering with a crewmember must be on board the aircraft. We note
that the FAA has successfully invoked this section to assess a civil
penalty against a pilot who walked up to a helicopter that was on the
ground preparing for takeoff, reached into the helicopter and
physically assaulted the pilot. See Adm'r v. Siegel, NTSB Order No. EA-
3804 (Feb. 10, 1993), 1993 WL 56200. Accordingly, the rule, and prior
FAA interpretation, as evidenced by the Siegel case, support a finding
that an individual does not need to be on board the aircraft to violate
Sec.  91.11.
    The FAA is aware of an increasing number of incidents of lasers
being pointed at aircraft, a scenario that could not have been
contemplated by the drafters of the initial rule. The FAA has
recognized ``that the exposure of air crews to laser illumination may
cause hazardous effects (e.g., distraction, glare, afterimage flash
blindness, and, in extreme circumstances, persistent or permanent
visual impairment), which could adversely affect the ability of air
crews to carry out their responsibilities.'' FAA Advisory Circular 70-2
(Jan. 11, 2005). Distracting or impairing a crewmember's vision during
operation of an aircraft could reasonably be construed to constitute
interference with a crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft.
    Therefore, the FAA would consider a situation in which a laser
beam, aimed at an aircraft by a person who is not on board the
aircraft, interferes with a crewmember's performance of his or her
duties aboard the aircraft to be a violation of Sec.  91.11. We note
that this interpretation would apply equally to the similarly worded
provisions of Sec. Sec.  121.580, 125.328, 135.120.
    This response was prepared by Dean E. Griffith, Attorney in the
Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was
coordinated with the Air Transportation, Flight Technologies and
Procedures, and General Aviation and Commercial Divisions of Flight
Standards Service. It was also coordinated with Airspace Services in
the Air Traffic Organization's Office of Mission Support Services.
Please contact us at<PHONE_NUMBER> if we can be of additional
assistance.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2011.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2011-31446 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46283-46287]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18180]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0864; FRL-9392-4]
RIN 2070-AB27

Modification of Significant New Uses of Ethaneperoxoic Acid, 1,1-
Dimethylpropyl Ester

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is
finalizing an amendment to the significant new use rule (SNUR) for the
chemical substance identified as ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-
dimethylpropyl ester, which was the subject of premanufacture notice
(PMN) P-85-680. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture
or process the chemical substance for a use that is designated as a
significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing that activity. EPA believes that this action is
necessary because new uses of the

chemical substance may be hazardous to human health. The required
notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the
intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity
before it occurs.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0864, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or use the chemical substance identified as ethaneperoxoic
acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester, (PMN P-85-680). Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Manufacturers or processors of the subject chemical substance
(NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and
petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical
importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import
certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127,
and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of
the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders
under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their
compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of
import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In
addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical
substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR are subject
to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b)(15 U.S.C.
2611(b)) (see Sec.  721.20), and must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing an amendment to the SNUR for the chemical
substance identified as ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester,
(PMN P-85-680), codified at 40 CFR 721.3020. This final action requires
persons who intend to manufacture or process the chemical substance for
an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final
rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
    This rule was proposed in the Federal Register issue of January 28,
2013 (78 FR 5761) (FRL-9370-5). EPA received no public comments in
response to the proposal. Therefore, the Agency is issuing a final
SNUR, as proposed that:
    1. Removes the significant new use requirements for protective
equipment, hazard communication, and specific uses identified in the
consent order.
    2. Modifies significant new use requirements for environmental
releases by removing notification requirements for disposal and adding
notification requirements for water releases above 61 parts per billion
(ppb).
    3. Revises the recordkeeping requirements to reflect the modified
SNUR requirements.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2)
factors, listed in Unit IV. of this document. Once EPA determines that
a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section
5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice
(SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the
chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described
in Sec.  721.5.

III. Rationale for the Rule

    During review of PMN P-85-680, the chemical substance identified as
ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester, EPA concluded that
regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the
development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of
the health or environmental effects of this chemical substance. The
basis for such findings is outlined in Unit II. of the proposed rule to
amend this SNUR, included in the Federal Register issue of January 28,
2013 (78 FR 5761) (``proposed amended rule''), and in the original
final rule Federal Register document of June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26102).
Based on these findings, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order requiring
the use of hazard communication and appropriate exposure, use, and
disposal controls was negotiated with the PMN submitter. The SNUR
provisions for this chemical substance were consistent with the
provisions of the original TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The SNUR
was promulgated pursuant to Sec.  721.160, and codified at Sec.
721.1560 and redesignated as Sec.  721.3020.
    After the review of new test data subsequent to issuance of the
TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-85-680 and associated SNUR (see
Unit II. of the proposed amended rule), and consideration of the
factors included in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see Unit IV.), EPA determined
that the chemical substance meets one or more of the concern criteria
in Sec.  721.170(b), but that these criteria are no longer met for the
personal protective equipment, hazard communication, and specific use
notification requirements. Consequently, EPA is proposing this
modification to the SNUR at Sec.  721.3020 according to procedures in
Sec. Sec.  721.160 and 721.185.

IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors, including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.
    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors. To
determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical
substance identified as ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester,
(PMN P-85-680), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity
of the chemical substance, likely human exposures, and environmental
releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the
four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

V. Applicability of the Significant New Use Designation

    If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered
ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating
the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore,
EPA has designated the date of publication of the proposed rule as the
cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the
Federal Register document of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376) for a more
detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.
    Any person who began commercial manufacture or processing of the
chemical substance identified as ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-
dimethylpropyl ester, (PMN P-85-680), for any of the significant new
uses designated in the proposed SNUR modification after the date of
publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the
effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities
will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification
requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any
extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as
significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of
advance compliance under Sec.  [emsp14]721.45(h), the person would be
considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those
activities.

VI. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development
of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two
exceptions:
    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical
substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA
section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical
substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section
5(b)(2)).
    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section
5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required
only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe
any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see Sec.
720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the
authority to require appropriate testing. In this case, EPA recommends
persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency
pertaining to protocol selection.
    The recommended testing specified in Unit II.A. of the proposed
rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the
chemical substance. However, SNUNs submitted without any test data may
increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section
5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained
from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN
submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to
conduct the appropriate tests.
    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to
evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
     Human exposure and environmental release that may result
from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
     Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
     Information on risks posed by the chemical substances
compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

VII. SNUN Submissions

    According to Sec.  721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply
with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as
persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health
and environmental effects as described in Sec.  720.50. SNUNs must be
on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted
to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. Sec.
721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

VIII. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements
for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance
during the development of the direct final rule. The Agency's complete
Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0864.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action modifies a SNUR for a chemical substance that is the
subject of a PMN and TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA has amended the table
in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information
collection requirements contained in this rule. This listing of the OMB
control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies
the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5
CFR part 1320.
    The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number
2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden
requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN
to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated

to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate
includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data
sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and
submit the required SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information
(2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control
number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to
this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that
promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities where the following are true:
    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small
entities in response to the SNUR.
    2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost
significantly more than $8,300.
    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this
rule.
    This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012
certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII.
and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the
certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
     A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by
small entities in response to the SNUR.
     Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity
significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs,
State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any
State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule.
As such, EPA has determined that this final rule does not impose any
enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any
affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections
202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities
of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any
requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply
to this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
this action does not address environmental health or safety risks
disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action
is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and
because this action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

X. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
    Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. Amend Sec.  721.3020 as follows:
0
a. Revise the section heading.
0
b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i).
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and remove paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) and (iv).
0
d. Revise paragraph (b)(1).
0
e. Remove paragraph (b)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  721.3020  Ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as ethaneperoxoic
acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester (PMN P-85-680; CAS No. 690-83-5) is
subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.  721.90
(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=61).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (b) * * *
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in

Sec.  721.125(a), (b), (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and
processors of this substance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18180 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 48992-48994]
[DOCID:fr12au10-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0033]

Baseline Safety and Health Practices; Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
soliciting public comments concerning the collection of information
about the safety and health practices of private sector establishments
in agriculture (with 10 or more workers) and non-agriculture
industries, as well as public sector establishments in those states
with OSHA-approved safety and health programs (State Plan states).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0033,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2010-
0033). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Todd Owen or Theda
Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
undertaking a rulemaking effort directed toward requiring employers to
establish injury and illness prevention programs to monitor and more
effectively implement practices to mitigate workplace hazards, thereby
reducing the incidence of employee injuries and illnesses. OSHA
believes that widespread implementation of such programs will
substantially improve overall workplace safety and health conditions.
    To gain information needed to support this rulemaking effort, OSHA
is proposing to conduct a statistical survey of private sector
establishments in non-agricultural industries. The goal of the survey
is to develop industry-specific, statistically accurate estimates of
the current prevalence of a variety of baseline safety and health
practices that may be elements of injury and illness prevention
programs among establishments. OSHA also proposes to conduct case study
interviews in two sectors: (1) establishments in the agriculture sector
to assess the prevalence of safety and health practices among farms
with more than 10 workers; and (2) interviews with government officials
in State Plan states to assess safety and heath practices among
agencies and departments operated by state and local governments in
State Plan states.
    In addition to the statistical survey (Baseline Safety and Health
Practices) described above--which also includes ``case studies'' in two
industry sectors that could not be adequately sampled by the survey
methodology--the Agency is proposing to conduct as many as 50 site
visits to employers. These employers could potentially be affected by a
new standard that could require a management program or system to
address workplace hazards. Site visits would collect information on
current employer practices (much like the information collected in the
``case studies'' and the survey questionnaire itself), but also solicit
information from employers on how they would comply with such a
regulation and what time or costs would be required to do so. Site
visit reports capture much richer detail about employer conditions than
the survey instrument, reflecting variations of employer size and
industry sector. These site visits would be conducted either by OSHA
personnel or a contractor under the agency's direction.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting OMB approval of the collection of information
(paperwork) requirements contained in the Baseline Safety and Health
Practices Survey. The hour burden of the

information collection effort for the study is 4,177 hours. The burden
hour estimates are based on tests of the length of time each type of
respondent is likely to need to respond to the survey questions. The
total cost to respondents is $213,153. This is a one-time data
collection effort.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to approve
the information collection requirements in the Baseline Safety and
Health Practices Survey.
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Title: Baseline Safety and Health Practices.
    OMB Number: 1218-0NEW.
    Affected Public: Private businesses; state and local government
entities in State plan states.
    Number of Respondents: Statistical Survey--14,202; Case Studies--85
(agriculture and government sectors combined); Site visits--50.
    Frequency: Nonrecurring.
    Estimated Time Per Response: Statistical Survey--30 minutes (0.5
hour); Case Studies--30 minutes (0.5 hour) for agricultural
establishments, 60 minutes (1 hour) for state and local governments;
Site visits--2 hours.
    Total Burden Hours: Statistical Survey--4,022; Case Studies--55;
Site Visits--100.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency
name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0033). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g. copyrighted material)
is not publically available to read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access
the docket is available through the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on this 6th day of August 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-19869 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P