[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26869-26872]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0554; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-201-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-

600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a static analysis
performed by Airbus that revealed that some areas of the wing structure
cannot sustain the damage previously published in certain structural
repair manuals. This proposed AD would require an inspection to
determine that no repair or damage to certain wing areas is beyond the
allowable limits; and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0554; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0554;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-201-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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0229, dated November 15, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300
series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A static analysis performed by Airbus on A300, A310, A300-600,
and A300-600ST aeroplanes, revealed that some areas of the wing
structure cannot sustain the damage previously published in the
A300, A310, A300-600, and A300-600ST Structural Repair Manuals
(SRM).
    The SRMs were therefore amended to reduce the dimensions of
allowable damage and to indicate the areas of the wing structure
where damage is no longer acceptable.
    This condition, if not detected, could reduce the structural
integrity of the wings.
    Consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletins (SB) A300-57-0256,
A310-57-2102, A300-57-6114, and A300-57-9027 (hereafter referred to
as ``the applicable Airbus SB''), as applicable for A300, A310,
A300-600, and A300-600ST aeroplanes, to inspect the areas identified
in these SBs and determine if the repair(s) or damage(s) found stay
within the limits indicated in the latest SRM issue (including
temporary revisions).
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
accomplishment of an inspection of the aeroplane records. If
aeroplane records are missing or incomplete, a Detail Inspection
(DET) of specific wing areas is required to ensure that no repair or
damage is beyond the limits allowed in the current revision of the
SRM (including temporary revisions) [and repair if necessary].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0554.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Airbus Service Information.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0256, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (Airbus Model A300 series airplanes).
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6114, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (for Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes).
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2102, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
    This service information describes an inspection of the airplane
maintenance records or a detailed inspection of the left-hand and
right-hand wing areas to determine whether any repair or damage is
beyond the allowable limits in the current revision of the SRM, and
repair if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane models in different configurations. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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 these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Cost per
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost         product       Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................  Up to 18                           $0  Up to $1,530....  Up to $195,840.
                                work[dash]hours x
                                $85 per hour =
                                $1,530.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0554; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
201-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-
203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-
600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and
Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a static analysis performed by Airbus
that revealed that some areas of the wing structure cannot sustain
the damage previously published in the A300, A310, A300-600, and
A300-600ST Structural Repair Manuals. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct any repair or damage on the wing structure that
is outside the allowable structural limits. Such conditions could
reduce the structural integrity of the wings and could result in
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection of the left- and right-hand wing areas to
determine whether any repair or damage exceeds the allowable
structural limits, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records
is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if it can be positively
determined from that review whether any repair or damage exceeds the
allowable structural limits and the airplane configuration can be
conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Corrective Action

    If, during any review or inspection, as required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, any repair or damage is found that is outside the
allowable structural limits specified in the applicable service
information in paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 3 months after
accomplishing the review or inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, repair using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(i) Service Information for the Actions Specified in Paragraph (g) of
This AD

    Use the applicable service information for the actions specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0256, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (for Airbus Model A300 series airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6114, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (for Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes)).
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2102, Revision 00, dated
August 3, 2015 (for Model A310 series airplanes).

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International

Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0229, dated November 15, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0554.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12055 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13680]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5471]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66499; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt an Alternative to the $4 Initial Listing
Bid Price Requirement for the Nasdaq Capital Market of Either $2 or $3,
if Certain Other Listing Requirements Are Met

March 1, 2012.
    On January 3, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') 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
proposal to adopt an alternative to the $4 minimum bid price initial
listing requirement for the Nasdaq Capital Market of either $2 or $3,
if certain other listing requirements are met. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 20,
2012.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66159 (January 13,
2012), 77 FR 3021.
    \4\ See Letter from David A. Donohoe, Jr., Donohoe Advisory
Associates LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is March 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period to take action on the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's
proposal and the comment received. The Exchange's proposal would, among
other things, allow a company's primary equity securities to be
initially listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market if those securities have
a minimum bid price of $2 or $3 per share and certain other listing
requirements are met.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates April 19, 2012, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5471 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28087-28089]
[DOCID:fr18my07-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55755; File No. 4-536]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated and the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc.

 May 14, 2007.
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) and
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\
granting approval and declaring effective an amended and restated plan
for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities (``Plan'') that was
filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act \2\ by the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (together with CBOE, the
``Parties'') with respect to the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX''),
which is a facility of CBOE featuring a fully-automated marketplace for
trading of non-option securities by CBOE members.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B), respectively.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55612 (April 10,
2007), 72 FR 19556 (April 18, 2007) (``Notice''). CBOE serves as the
self-regulatory authority for CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory
responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities
allocated to it under the Plan as they relate to the CBSX. At the same
time, CBOE is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated
to NASD under the Plan.

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\4\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') that is either a national
securities exchange or registered securities association to examine
for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with
its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) or 19(g)(2) of the Act.\5\ Section 17(d)(1)
of the Act \6\ was intended, among other things, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those
broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common
members'').\7\ With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1)
authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the
responsibility to receive regulatory reports; to examine for and
enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations; or
to perform other specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to
propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities,
other than financial responsibility rules, with respect to their common
members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare
such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it
determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and for the protection of investors; to foster cooperation and
coordination among the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the
development of, a national market

system and a national clearance and settlement system; and is in
conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon
effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is
relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that
are allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively. Rule
17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the
designated examining authority (``DEA'') to examine common members
for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements
imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2007, the Commission issued notice of the Plan filed
by CBOE and NASD.\9\ The Commission received no comments on the Plan.
The Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication in the
examination of Dual Members \10\ and in the filing and processing of
certain registration and membership records as it relates to the CBSX
by allocating to NASD certain examination and enforcement
responsibilities with respect to CBSX. Included in the Plan is an
attachment (the ``CBOE Certification of Common Rules,'' referred to
herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every CBOE rule applicable
to CBSX,\11\ and any federal securities law, rule, or regulation for
which, under the Plan, NASD would bear responsibility for examining,
and enforcing compliance by, common members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \10\ See Section 1(c) of the Plan (defining Dual Member as
``those CBOE members that are also members of NASD and the persons
associated therewith'').
    \11\ As noted in the Certification, to the extent that any CBOE
rule listed on the Certification makes reference to options, such
rule shall be read to apply to equity securities as provided by CBOE
Rule 53.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \12\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \13\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to NASD certain
responsibilities for common members that would otherwise be performed
by both CBOE and NASD. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes
efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because
CBOE and NASD will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance
with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, CBOE and NASD have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those CBOE governing the
operation of CBSX that are substantially similar to NASD rules in that
examination for compliance with each applicable CBOE rule would not
require NASD to develop one or more new examination standards, modules,
procedures, or criteria to analyze the application of the rule, or a
Dual Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule
(``Common Rules''). The Common Rules covered by the Plan are
specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the
Parties from time to time.\14\ In addition, under the Plan, NASD would
assume regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the federal
securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set
forth in the Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CBOE has represented that, with respect to CBSX, there are
no CBOE rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules that are
within the scope of the Plan but not included in the Certification.
See Telephone call between Richard Holley III, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Lawrence J.
Bresnahan, Vice President, Member Firm Regulation, CBOE, on May 11,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory
responsibility, and CBOE will retain full responsibility, for: (1)
Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving CBOE's own marketplace, including without
limitation CBOE's rules relating to the rights and obligations of
market makers; (2) registration pursuant to CBOE's applicable rules of
associated persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common
Rules); (3) CBOE's duties as a DEA under Rule 17d-1 of the Act;\15\ and
(4) any rules of CBOE that do not qualify as Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, CBOE will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of CBOE or NASD, and, if necessary, submit to NASD an updated list of
Common Rules to add CBOE rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules; delete CBOE
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer substantially similar to NASD rules; and confirm that the
remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be CBOE rules
that are substantially similar to NASD rules.\16\ NASD will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, CBOE will also
provide NASD with a current list of dual members and shall update the
list no less frequently than once each quarter.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 2 of the Plan.
    \17\ See Section 3 of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective and approving a plan
that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD
for the oversight and enforcement of all CBOE rules applicable to CBSX
that are substantially similar to the rules of NASD for Dual Members of
CBOE and NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not
be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that
the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to
CBOE rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of
Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide
to add a CBOE rule to the Certification that is not substantially
similar to an NASD rule; delete a CBOE rule from the Certification that
is substantially similar to an NASD rule; or leave on the Certification
a CBOE rule that is no longer substantially similar to an NASD rule,
then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which
must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act
and noticed for public comment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which NASD would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, Dual Members, also would
constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits CBOE and NASD to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice. The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan permits
the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by themselves
reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the Plan, since
Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or re-allocation
of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission notes that paragraph 13 of the Plan reflects
the fact that NASD's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the Commission approves the termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-536. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 17(d) and
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the Plan in File No. 4-536, between CBOE
and NASD, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and
declared effective.

    It is therefore ordered that CBOE is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to the NASD under the Plan in File No. 4-
536.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9569 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 11164-11167]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28168; 812-13367]

Kohlberg Capital Corporation; Notice of Application

February 25, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 23(a), 23(b) and 63 of the Act, and under sections 57(a)(4)
and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act permitting certain
joint transactions otherwise prohibited by section 57(a)(4) of the Act.

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

Summary of the Application: Applicant, Kohlberg Capital Corporation
(``Kohlberg Capital'') requests an order to permit it to issue
restricted shares of its common stock to its officers and employees
under the terms of its equity incentive plan.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 27, 2007, and
amended on February 13, 2008 and February 22, 2008. Applicants have
agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of
which is reflected in this notice.

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 applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on March 21, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicant, 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, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant, 295 Madison Avenue,
6th Floor, New York, NY 10017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6817, or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(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
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1520 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicant's Representations

    1. Kohlberg Capital, a Delaware corporation, is an internally
managed, non-diversified, closed-end investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a business development company (``BDC'')
under the Act.\1\ Kohlberg Capital provides debt and equity growth
capital to privately-held middle market companies and its investment
objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation from
the investments made by those companies in senior secured term loans,
mezzanine debt and selected equity investments. Kohlberg Capital may
also invest in loans to larger, publicly traded companies, high-yield
bonds, distressed debt securities and debt and equity securities issued
by collateralized debt obligation funds. Shares of Kohlberg Capital's
common stock are traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the
symbol ``KCAP.'' As of September 30, 2007, there were 17, 997,611
shares of Kohlberg Capital's common stock outstanding. As of that date,
Kohlberg Capital had 26 employees, including the employees of its
wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kohlberg Capital was organized on August 8, 2006. On
December 4, 2006, Kohlberg Capital filed with the Commission its
registration statement on Form N-2 under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with its initial public offering of common
stock (the ``IPO''). On December 5, 2006, Kohlberg Capital elected
to be regulated as a BDC. Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any
closed-end investment company that operates for the purpose of
making investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1)
through 55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant
managerial assistance with respect to the issuers of such
securities. Kohlberg Capital completed its IPO on December 15, 2006.
    \2\ Kohlberg Capital does not currently have any wholly-owned
consolidated subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Kohlberg Capital currently has a seven-member board of directors
(the ``Board'') of whom three are ``interested persons'' of Kohlberg
Capital within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act and four are
not interested persons (the ``non-interested directors''). The four
non-interested directors are neither employees nor officers of Kohlberg
Capital (``Non-employee Directors''). Currently, Kohlberg Capital's
Non-employee Directors are all non-interested Directors, but it is
possible that Kohlberg Capital may have Non-employee Directors in the
future who are interested persons of Kohlberg Capital.
    3. Kohlberg Capital believes that its successful operation depends
on its ability to offer compensation packages to its professionals that
are competitive with those offered by its competitors. Kohlberg Capital
believes its ability to adopt a compensation plan providing for the
periodic issuance of shares of restricted stock (i.e., stock that, at
the time of issuance, is subject to certain forfeiture restrictions,
and thus is restricted as to its transferability until such forfeiture
restrictions have lapsed) (the ``Restricted Stock'') is vital to its
future growth and success. Kohlberg Capital wishes to adopt an equity-
based compensation plan (the ``Plan'') for its officers and employees
(``Employees''), as well as employees of its wholly owned consolidated
subsidiaries (together with the Employees, the ``Participants'').
    4. The Plan will authorize the issuance of shares of Restricted
Stock subject to certain forfeiture restrictions. These restrictions
may relate to continued employment, the performance of Kohlberg
Capital, or other restrictions deemed by the Board to be appropriate.
The Restricted Stock will be subject to restrictions on transferability
and other restrictions as required by the Board. Except to the extent
restricted under the terms of the Plan, a Participant granted
Restricted Stock will have all the rights of any other shareholder,
including the right to vote the Restricted Stock and the right to
receive dividends. During the restriction period, the Restricted Stock
generally may not be sold, transferred, pledged, hypothecated,
margined, or otherwise encumbered by the Participant. Except as the
Board otherwise determines, upon termination of a Participant's
employment during the applicable restriction period, Restricted Stock
for which forfeiture restrictions have not lapsed at the time of such
termination shall be forfeited.
    5. The maximum amount of Restricted Stock that may be issued under
the Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of Kohlberg Capital's
common stock on the effective date of the Plan plus 10% of the
outstanding shares of Kohlberg Capital's common stock issued or
delivered by Kohlberg Capital (other than pursuant to compensation
plans) during the term of the Plan.\3\ The Plan limits the total number
of shares that may be awarded to any single Participant in a single
year to 500,000 shares. In addition, no Restricted Stock Participant
may be granted more than 25% of the shares reserved for issuance under
the Plan. The Plan will be administered by the Board, which will award
shares of Restricted Stock to the Participants from time to time as
part of the Participants' compensation based on a Participant's actual
or expected performance and value to Kohlberg Capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of calculating compliance with this limit,
Kohlberg Capital will count as Restricted Stock all shares of its
common stock that are issued pursuant to the Plan less any shares
that are forfeited back to Kohlberg Capital and cancelled as a
result of forfeiture restrictions not lapsing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Each issuance of Restricted Stock under the Plan will be
approved by the required majority, as defined in section 57(o) of the
Act,\4\ of Kohlberg Capital's directors on the basis that the issuance
is in the best interests of Kohlberg Capital and its shareholders. The
date on which the required majority approves an issuance of Restricted
Stock will be deemed the date on which the subject Restricted Stock is
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``required majority,'' when used with respect to
the approval of a proposed transaction, plan, or arrangement, means
both a majority of a BDC's directors or general partners who have no
financial interest in such transaction, plan, or arrangement and a
majority of such directors or general partners who are not
interested persons of such company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Plan was approved by the Board on February 5, 2008,
including by a majority of the non-interested directors and the
required majority as defined in section 57(o) of the Act. The Plan will
be submitted for approval to Kohlberg Capital's shareholders, and will
become effective upon such approval, subject to and following receipt
of the order.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

Sections 23(a) and (b), Section 63

    1. Under section 63 of the Act, the provisions of section 23(a) of
the Act generally prohibiting a registered closed-end investment
company from issuing securities for services or for property other than
cash or securities are made applicable to BDCs. This provision would
prohibit the issuance of Restricted Stock as a part of the Plan.
    2. Section 23(b) generally prohibits a closed-end management
investment company from selling its common stock at a price below its
current net asset value (``NAV''). Section 63(2) makes section 23(b)
applicable to BDCs unless certain conditions are met. Because
Restricted Stock that would be granted under the Plan would not meet
the terms of section 63(2), sections 23(b) and 63 prohibit the issuance
of the Restricted Stock.
    3. Section 6(c) provides that the Commission may, by order upon
application, conditionally or

unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any
provision of the Act, if and to the extent that the exemption is
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. Kohlberg Capital requests an order pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Act granting an exemption from the provisions of sections 23(a) and
(b) and section 63 of the Act. Kohlberg Capital states that the
concerns underlying those sections include: (a) Preferential treatment
of investment company insiders and the use of options and other rights
by insiders to obtain control of the investment company; (b)
complication of the investment company's structure that makes it
difficult to determine the value of the company's shares; and (c)
dilution of shareholders' equity in the investment company. Kohlberg
Capital states that the Plan does not raise the concern about
preferential treatment of Kohlberg Capital's insiders because the Plan
is bona fide compensation plan of the type that is common among
corporations generally. In addition, section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act
permits a BDC to issue to its officers, directors and employees,
pursuant to an executive compensation plan, warrants, options and
rights to purchase the BDC's voting securities, subject to certain
requirements. Kohlberg Capital states that, for reasons that are
unclear, section 61 and its legislative history do not address the
issuance by a BDC of restricted stock as incentive compensation.
Kohlberg Capital states, however, that the issuance of Restricted Stock
is substantially similar, for purposes of investor protection under the
Act, to the issuance of warrants, options, and rights as contemplated
by section 61. Kohlberg Capital also asserts that the Plan would not
become a means for insiders to obtain control of Kohlberg Capital
because the number of shares of Kohlberg Capital issuable under the
Plan would be limited as set forth in the application. Moreover, no
individual Restricted Stock Participant could be issued more than 25%
of the shares reserved for issuance under the Plan.
    5. Kohlberg Capital further states that the Plan will not unduly
complicate Kohlberg Capital's capital structure because equity-based
compensation arrangements are widely used among corporations and
commonly known to investors. Kohlberg Capital notes that the Plan will
be submitted to its shareholders for their approval. Kohlberg Capital
represents that a concise, ``plain English'' description of the Plan,
including its potential dilutive effect, will be provided in the proxy
materials that will be submitted to Kohlberg Capital's shareholders.
Kohlberg Capital also states that it will comply with the proxy
disclosure requirements in Item 10 of Schedule 14A under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''). Kohlberg Capital further
notes that the Plan will be disclosed to investors in accordance with
the requirements of the Form N-2 registration statement for closed-end
investment companies, and pursuant to the standards and guidelines
adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for operating
companies. In addition, Kohlberg Capital will comply with the
disclosure requirements for executive compensation plans applicable to
operating companies under the Exchange Act.\5\ Kohlberg Capital thus
concludes that the Plan will be adequately disclosed to investors and
appropriately reflected in the market value of Kohlberg Capital's
shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Kohlberg Capital will comply with the amendments to the
disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation,
related party transactions, director independence and other
corporate governance matters, and security ownership of officers and
directors to the extent adopted and applicable to BDCs. See
Executive Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Securities Act
Release No. 8655 (Jan. 27, 2006) (proposed rule); Executive
Compensation and Related Party Disclosure, Securities Act Release
No. 8732A (Aug. 29, 2006) (final rule and proposed rule), as amended
by Executive Compensation Disclosure, Securities Act Release No.
8765 (Dec. 22, 2006) (adopted as interim final rules with request
for comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Kohlberg Capital acknowledges that, while awards granted under
the Plan would have a dilutive effect on the shareholders' equity in
Kohlberg Capital, that effect would be outweighed by the anticipated
benefits of the Plan to Kohlberg Capital and its shareholders. Kohlberg
Capital asserts that it needs the flexibility to provide the requested
equity-based employee compensation in order to be able to compete
effectively with other financial services firms for talented
professionals. These professionals, Kohlberg Capital suggests, in turn
are likely to increase Kohlberg Capital's performance and shareholder
value. Kohlberg Capital also asserts that equity-based compensation
would more closely align the interests of Kohlberg Capital's Employees
with those of its shareholders. In addition, Kohlberg Capital states
that its shareholders will be further protected by the conditions to
the requested order that assure continuing oversight of the operation
of the Plan by Kohlberg Capital's Board.

Section 57(a)(4), Rule 17d-1

    7. Section 57(a) proscribes certain transactions between a BDC and
persons related to the BDC in the manner described in section 57(b)
(``57(b) persons''), absent a Commission order. Section 57(a)(4)
generally prohibits a 57(b) person from effecting a transaction in
which the BDC is a joint participant absent such an order. Rule 17d-1,
made applicable to BDCs by section 57(i), proscribes participation in a
``joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,''
which includes a stock option or purchase plan. Employees and directors
of a BDC are 57(b) persons. Thus, the issuance of shares of Restricted
Stock could be deemed to involve a joint transaction involving a BDC
and a 57(b) person in contravention of section 57(a)(4). Rule 17d-1(b)
provides that, in considering relief pursuant to the rule, the
Commission will consider (i) whether the participation of the company
in a joint enterprise is consistent with the Act's policies and
purposes and (ii) the extent to which that participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    8. Kohlberg Capital requests an order pursuant to section 57(a)(4)
and rule 17d-1 to permit the Plan. Kohlberg Capital states that the
Plan, although benefiting the Participants and Kohlberg Capital in
different ways, are in the interests of Kohlberg Capital's shareholders
because the Plan will help Kohlberg Capital attract and retain talented
professionals, help align the interests of Kohlberg Capital's employees
with those of its shareholders, and in turn help produce a better
return to Kohlberg Capital's shareholders.

Applicant's Conditions

    Applicant agrees that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Plan will be authorized by Kohlberg Capital's shareholders.
    2. Each issuance of Restricted Stock to an Employee will be
approved by the required majority, as defined in section 57(o) of the
Act, of Kohlberg Capital's directors on the basis that such issuance is
in the best interest of Kohlberg Capital and its shareholders.
    3. The amount of voting securities that would result from the
exercise of all of Kohlberg Capital's outstanding warrants, options,
and rights, together with any Restricted Stock issued pursuant to the
Plan at the time of

issuance shall not exceed 25% of the outstanding voting securities of
Kohlberg Capital, except that if the amount of voting securities that
would result from the exercise of all of Kohlberg Capital's outstanding
warrants, options, and rights issued to Kohlberg Capital's directors,
officers, and employees, together with any Restricted Stock issued
pursuant to the Plan, would exceed 15% of the outstanding voting
securities of Kohlberg Capital, then the total amount of voting
securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding
warrants, options, and rights, together with any Restricted Stock
issued pursuant to the Plan, at the time of issuance shall not exceed
20% of the outstanding voting securities of Kohlberg Capital.
    4. The maximum amount of shares of Restricted Stock that may be
issued under the Plan will be 10% of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Kohlberg Capital on the effective date of the Plan plus 10% of
the number of shares of Kohlberg Capital's common stock issued or
delivered by Kohlberg Capital (other than pursuant to compensation
plans) during the term of the Plan.
    5. The Board will review the Plan at least annually. In addition,
the Board will review periodically the potential impact that the
issuance of Restricted Stock under the Plan could have on Kohlberg
Capital's earnings and NAV per share, such review to take place prior
to any decisions to grant Restricted Stock under the Plan, but in no
event less frequently than annually. Adequate procedures and records
will be maintained to permit such review. The Board will be authorized
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the grant of Restricted Stock
under the Plan would not have an effect contrary to the interests of
Kohlberg Capital's shareholders. This authority will include the
authority to prevent or limit the granting of additional Restricted
Stock under the Plan. All records maintained pursuant to this condition
will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3845 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28014]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-725B-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725B); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review; Extension

    On March 31, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice in Docket No.
IC11-725B-001 (FR Doc. 2011-8248, published on April 7, 2011 at 76 FR
19333) which established a public comment period that was set to end on
May 9, 2011. This notice extends the comment period deadline to and
including June 23, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11236 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Current TSCA Activities Related to Brominated Flame Retardants April 29, 2003 Ken Moss, USEPA moss. kenneth@ epa. gov Background

Environmental studies indicate presence of certain brominated FRs ( BFRs) in biota,

including human breast milk and serum

polybrominated diphenyl ethers ( PBDEs) and ( to a lesser extent) tetrabromobisphenol A ( TBBPA) and hexabromocyclododecane ( HBCD)

Need to distinguish among hazards, risk, uses of these BFRs

Existing hazard and exposure information is incomplete

Balance fire safety and environmental quality BFR Human Health Concerns  Neurodevelopmental toxicity, endocrine disruption, cancer, immunotoxicity, liver effects, disruption of thyroid hormone levels, and developmental toxicity concerns identified, but significance is uncertain.

 Concerns tend to be higher for the lower brominated PBDE mixtures. Addressing Information Needs  Understand how these chemicals are getting into human tissue  Research and testing on health and environmental effects, environmental chemistry, environmental fate  Evaluation of substitutes TSCA Approaches  New Chemicals Program  Significant New Use Rules  Voluntary Programs TSCA New Chemicals Program  Section 5 of TSCA  Manufacturer or importer of a new chemical substance must submit a " premanufacture notice" ( PMN) to EPA 90 days before the date of intended start of production or import of the subject chemical. New Chemicals Program ( cont'd)

 Designed to prevent health and/ or environmental risks before they occur  Regulatory decisions are often made in the absence of data

Hazard and exposure screening models

Structure Activity Relationships  Over 40,000 PMNs and PMN exemption notices have been reviewed since 1979.

Chemical Review/ Search Strategy ( CRSS)

Meeting

Day 8 12

Structure Activity Team ( SAT) Meeting

Day 9 13

Exposure/ Release Profile developed

Day 10 19

Focus Meeting

Day 15 20

Standard Review

Day 21 85 90 day Review Process Regulatory Actions   Drop   Drop with Concern Letter   Significant New Use Rule ( SNUR)

  Section 5( e) Consent Order   5( e) Ban Pending Upfront Testing   Section 5( f) Action   Standard Review Factors that EPA Considers in Taking Regulatory Action under TSCA  Magnitude and Type of Hazard  Type of Human/ Environmental Exposure  Substitutes ( Relative Risks)

 Benefits ( Environmental/ Human Health)

 Other Uses ( Increased Risks?)

 Regulatory History ( Consistency in Risk Management Decisions) PentaBDE Substitutes Activity in the New Chemicals Program  Aluminum based, Phosphates and Brominated Aromatics  No discrete chemical structural categorywide decisions  Uses: in flexible and rigid foam,

 Not much evidence of risk screening prior to submission Factors to consider when submitting PentaBDE substitutes

Migration from foam

Relative toxicity and risks to existing product

PBT potential

Environmental fate/ pathways ( breakdown products)

Life cycle analysis ( e. g., municipal incineration generate dioxins/ furans or lower brominated compounds? Recyclability of foam?) Chemical Risk Screening Resources  P2 Framework www. epa. gov/ oppt/ p2framework/

 PBT Profiler   www. pbtprofiler. net  Sustainable Futures www. epa. gov/ oppt/ newchems/ sustainablefutures. htm EPA's P2 Framework

A set of computer models that predict hazards and exposures of chemicals using structure activity relationships ( SARs), exposure assessment models and databases, and standard ( default) scenarios.

Models have been developed over a 20 year period by EPA and others in the scientific and technical community to screen new chemicals in the presence of limited data. P2 Framework Models

Once released, will the chemical go to air,

water, soil, sediment?

How long will the chemical stay in media?

Will the chemical present a hazard?

Could this be a PBT?

Who will be exposed and for how long? PCKOCWIN HENRYWIN ECOSAR BCFWIN BIOWIN STPWIN OncoLogic ChemSTEER AOPWIN MPBPVP WSKOWWIN HYDROWIN KOWWIN E FAST PBT Profiler P, B & T Criteria > 2 d > 2 d < 2 d 2 d Air Air > 180 d > 180 d > 60 d 60 d < 60 d < 60 d Water, soil, sediment Water, soil, sediment Persistent Persistent Not Persistent Not Persistent Persistence ersistence > 5,000 5,000 > 1,000 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 Fish BCF Fish BCF Bioaccumulative Bioaccumulative Not Not Bioaccumulative Bioaccumulative Bioaccumulation ioaccumulation < 0.1 mg/ L < 0.1 mg/ L 0.1 0.1 10 10 mg/ L mg/ L > 10 mg/ L > 10 mg/ L Or No Effects at Or No Effects at Saturation Saturation Fish Fish ChV ChV ( EPA New Chemical ( EPA New Chemical Program Criteria)

Program Criteria) Toxic Toxic Not Toxic Not Toxic Toxicity oxicity Results   PBT Criteria Exceeded Flame Retardants:

Continuum of PBT Concern Non halogenated Aluminum or Phosphate based compounds Halogenated Aromatics Lower Higher Design for low persistence, low bioaccumulation, low toxicity and reactive versus additive where possible Significant New Use Rule ( SNUR)

 EPA's authority to issue SNURs comes from TSCA section 5( a).

 SNURs require manufacturers, importers,

or processors to notify EPA 90 days in advance of commercialization of a chemical for a significant new use.

 If necessary, EPA can take action to limit or prohibit use. CPSC Flammability Standard  SNUR would complement a national flammability standard for residential,

upholstered furniture ( RUF) under consideration by CPSC.

 Although standard would not prescribe the use of FR chemicals, it could result in new uses of certain FR chemicals in outer fabric of RUF. CPSC Standard ( cont'd)

A SNUR could ensure that no inappropriate chemicals are used to meet standard.

SNUR could cover any or all of the 16 FR chemicals ( including HBCD and DecaBDE) or categories of chemicals identified by CPSC and evaluated by National Academy of Sciences as likely to be used to flame retard fabrics on RUF. Voluntary Efforts to Address BFR Data Needs

EPA's Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP)

PBDEs are 3 of the 23 chemicals selected.

Selection of all chemicals based on biomonitoring data showing presence in human tissues/ fluids, and monitoring data indicating presence in food, drinking water or indoor air.

EPA High Production Volume ( HPV) Challenge Program  HBCD and TBBPA

EPA Region 9 conference on BFRs and electronics, September, 2002. VCCEP Peer Consultation on PBDEs

Forum for stakeholder groups to exchange scientific views on sponsor's assessments   balanced participation.

April 2 3 ( decaBDE) and June 3 5 ( octa and pentaBDE) in Cincinnati.

Outcomes  Are data sufficient to adequately characterize the risks of the chemical to children?

Risk communication and ( if necessary) risk management. Next Steps

VCCEP Peer Consultations/ Reports

National Toxicology Program to conduct chronic/ subchronic studies on commercial pentaBDE mixture, as well as the major individual chemicals present in the mixture.

Update EPA Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) assessments on PBDEs

Development of SNUR for FRs used on RUF Next Steps ( cont'd)

Completion of HPV Challenge Program commitments for HBCD and TBBPA

Continuing coordination with OECD on BFRs

Ongoing substitutes analysis/ risk screening in the new chemicals program, dialogue with manufacturers and users

April 29 30, EPA Region 9, San Francisco:

Conference on BFRs in flexible polyurethane foam; Design for Environment Alternative Flame Retardants project.


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35129]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11068-011]

Orange Cove Irrigation District; Friant Power Authority; Notice
of Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

June 13, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.: 11068-011.
    c. Date Filed: April 2, 2008.
    d. Applicants: Orange Cove Irrigation District (transferor) and
Friant Power Authority (Transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Project: Fishwater Release Project is
located on the San Joaquin River in Fresno and Madera Counties,
California.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Applicant Contacts: For the transferor: Harvey Bailey, Orange
Cove Irrigation District, P.O. Box 308, Orange Cove, CA 93646-0308.
    For the transferee: Harvey Bailey, Orange Cove Irrigation District,
P.O. Box 308, Orange Cove, CA 93646-0308 and William R. Carlisle,
Friant Power Authority, P.O. Box 279, Delano, CA 93216.
    h. FERC Contact: Robert Bell at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: July 14, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project
Number on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: Applicants seek Commission approval
to transfer the license for the Fishwater Release Project from Orange
Cove Irrigation District, to Orange Cove Irrigation District and Friant
Power Authority, in light of an April 7, 2006 conveyance of project
property.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
(P-11068) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
g above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants'
representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13948 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41696-41697]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0987]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Quantitative Testing as Used by the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Tobacco Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on quantitative testing as used by the Food
and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate and other forms of information technology.

Quantitative Testing as Used by the Food and Drug Administration Center
for Tobacco Products (OMB Control Number 0910--NEW)

    In order to conduct educational and public information programs
relating to tobacco use as authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the
Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)), FDA's
Center for Tobacco Products will create and use a variety of media to
inform and educate the public, tobacco retailers, and health
professionals about the risks of tobacco use, how to quit using tobacco
products, and FDA's role in regulating tobacco.

    To ensure that such health communication messages have the highest
potential to be received, understood, and are accepted by those for
whom they are intended, FDA's Center for Tobacco Products will conduct
research and studies relating to the control and prevention of disease.
In conducting such research, FDA will employ formative pretests.
Formative pretests are conducted on a small scale, and their focus is
on developing and assessing the likely effectiveness of communications
with specific target audiences. This type of research involves (1)
assessing audience knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and other
characteristics for the purpose of determining the need for and
developing health messages, communication strategies, and public
information programs; and (2) pretesting these health messages,
strategies, and program components while they are in developmental form
to assess audience comprehension, reactions, and perceptions.
    Formative pretesting is a staple of best practices in
communications research. Obtaining feedback from intended audiences
during the development of messages and materials is crucial for the
success of every communication program. The purpose of obtaining
information from formative pretesting is that it allows FDA to improve
materials and strategies while revisions are still affordable and
possible. Formative pretesting can also avoid potentially expensive and
dangerous unintended outcomes caused by audiences' interpreting
messages in a way that was not intended by the drafters. By maximizing
the effectiveness of messages and strategies for reaching targeted
audiences, the frequency with which tobacco communication messages need
to be modified should be greatly reduced.
    The information collected will serve the primary purpose of
providing FDA information about the perceived effectiveness of
messages, advertisements, and materials in reaching and successfully
communicating with their intended audiences. Quantitative testing
messages and other materials with a sample of the target audience will
allow FDA to refine messages, advertisements, and materials, including
questionnaires or images, directed at consumers while they are still in
the developmental stage.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of
                    Activity                         Number of      responses per     Total annual      Average burden per  response       Total hours
                                                    respondents       respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Administered Surveys.......................          30,300                1           30,300   0.33 (20 minutes).................           9,999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The number of respondents to be included in each new survey will
vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested
and the target audience.

    Dated: July 14, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014-16795 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P