[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26453-26457]
[DOCID:fr09my08-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57775; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Relating to
Options Supervision Requirements

May 5, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 18, 2007, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') and amended on April 17, 2008 \3\ the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by FINRA. This order provides notice of the
proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1 and approves the
proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2007-035 replaced and superseded
the original rule filing filed on December 18, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend NASD Rule 1022 (Categories of Principal
Registration), NASD Rule 2220 (Options Communications with the Public)
and NASD Rule 2860 (Options) to eliminate the requirement for separate
designations of Senior Registered Options Principal (``SROP'') and
Compliance Registered Options Principal (``CROP'') and require a member
to integrate the responsibility for supervision of its public customer
options business into its overall supervisory and compliance program.

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
1022. Categories of Principal Registration
    (a) through (e) No Change.
    (f) Limited Principal--Registered Options and Security Futures
    (1) Every member of [the Association]NASD that is engaged in, or
that intends to engage in transactions in security futures or [put or
call] options with the public shall have at least one Registered
Options and Security Futures Principal who shall have satisfied the
requirements of this subparagraph. [As to options transactions, each
member shall also designate a Senior Registered Options Principal and a
Compliance Registered Options Principal in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 2860(b)(20) and identify such persons to the
Association.] Every person engaged in the supervision of options and
security futures sales practices, including a person designated
pursuant to Rule 3010(a)(2) [the management of the day-to-day options
or security futures activities of a member] shall [also] be registered
as a Registered Options and Security Futures Principal.
    (2) through (5) No Change.
    (g) through (h) No Change.
2220. Options Communications with the Public
    (a) No Change.
    (b) Approval by [Compliance]a Registered Options and Security
Futures Principal and Recordkeeping
    All advertisements, sales literature (except completed worksheets),
and educational material issued by a member or member organization
pertaining to options shall be approved in advance by [the Compliance
Registered Options Principal or designee]a Registered Options and
Security Futures Principal designated by the member's written
supervisory procedures. Copies thereof, together with the names of the
persons who prepared the material, the names of the persons who
approved the material and, in the case of sales literature, the source
of any recommendations contained therein, shall be retained by the
member or member organization and be kept at an easily accessible place
for examination by [the Association]NASD for a period of three years.
    (c) through (d) No Change.
2860. Options
    (a) No Change.
    (b) Requirements
    (1) through (15) No Change.
    (16) Opening of Accounts
    (A) through (D) No Change.
    (E) Uncovered Short Option Contracts
    Each member transacting business with the public in writing
uncovered short option contracts shall develop, implement and maintain
specific written procedures governing the conduct of such business
which shall include, at least, the following:
    (i) through (ii) No Change.
    (iii) Designation of [the Senior Registered Options Principal and/
or Compliance Registered Options Principal] a specific Registered
Options and Security Futures Principal(s) as [the person] responsible
for approving customer accounts that do not meet the specific criteria
and standards for writing uncovered short option transactions and for
maintaining written records of the reasons for every account so
approved;
    (iv) through (v) No Change.
    (17) No Change.
    (18) Discretionary Accounts
(A) Authorization and Approval
    (i) No Change.
    (ii) [The Senior Registered Options Principal]Each firm shall
designate specific Registered Options and Security Futures Principals
to review discretionary accounts. A Registered Options and Security
Futures Principal other than the Registered Options and Security
Futures Principal who accepted the account shall review the acceptance
of each discretionary account to determine that the Registered Options
and Security Futures Principal accepting the account had a reasonable
basis for believing that the customer was able to understand and bear
the risk of the strategies or transactions proposed, and shall maintain
a record of the basis for such determination. [Each discretionary order
shall be approved and initialed on the day entered by the branch office
manager or other Registered Options Principal, provided that if the
branch office manager is not a Registered Options Principal, such
approval shall be confirmed within a reasonable time by a Registered
Options Principal. Each] Every discretionary order shall be identified
as discretionary on the order at the time of entry. Discretionary
accounts shall receive frequent appropriate supervisory review by [the
Compliance Registered Options Principal]a Registered Options and
Security Futures Principal who is not exercising the discretionary
authority. The provisions of this subparagraph (18) shall not apply to
discretion as to the price at which or the time when an order given by
a customer for the purchase or sale of a definite number of option
contracts in a specified security shall be executed, except that the
authority to exercise time and price discretion will be considered to
be in effect only until the end of the business day on which the
customer granted such discretion, absent specific, written contrary
indication signed and dated by the customer. This limitation shall not
apply to time and price discretion exercised in an institutional
account, as defined in Rule 3110(c)(4), pursuant to valid Good-Till-
Cancelled instructions issued on a ``not held'' basis. Any exercise of
time and price discretion must be reflected on the order ticket.
    (iii) Any member that does not utilize computerized surveillance
tools for the frequent and appropriate review of discretionary activity
must establish and implement procedures to require specific Registered
Options and Security Futures Principals who have been designated to
review discretionary accounts to approve and initial each discretionary
order on the day entered.
    (B) through (C) No Change.
    (19) No Change.
    (20) Supervision of Accounts
    (A) Duty to Supervise[; Senior Registered Options Principal]
    [Every member shall develop and implement a written program
providing for the diligent supervision of all of its customer accounts,
and all orders in such accounts, to the extent such accounts and orders
relate to options contracts, by a general partner (in the case of a
partnership) or officer (in the case of a corporation) of the member
who is a Registered Options Principal and who has been specifically
identified to the Association as the member's Senior Registered Options
Principal. A Senior Registered Options Principal, in meeting his
responsibilities for supervision of customer accounts and orders, may
delegate to qualified employees (including other Registered Options
Principals) responsibility and authority for supervision and control of
each branch office handling transactions in option contracts, provided
that the Senior Registered Options Principal shall have overall
authority and responsibility for establishing appropriate procedures of
supervision and control over such employees. Every such member shall
also develop and implement specific written procedures concerning the
manner of supervision of customer accounts maintaining uncovered short
option positions and specifically providing for frequent supervisory
review of such accounts.]Each member that conducts a public customer
options business shall ensure that its written supervisory

system policies and procedures pursuant to Rules 3010, 3012, and 3013
adequately address the member's public customer options business.
    [(B) Compliance Registered Options Principal]
    [Every member shall designate and specifically identify to the
Association a Compliance Registered Options Principal (CROP), who may
be the Senior Registered Options Principal, who shall have no sales
functions and who shall be responsible to review and to propose
appropriate action to secure the member's compliance with securities
laws and regulations and Association Rules in respect of its options
business. The CROP shall regularly furnish reports directly to the
Compliance officer (if the CROP is not himself the Compliance officer)
and to other senior management of the member. The requirement that the
CROP have no sales functions shall not apply to a member that has
received less than $1,000,000 in gross commissions on options business
for either of the preceding two fiscal years or that currently has ten
or fewer registered representatives.]
[(C)](B) Branch Offices
    No branch office of a member shall transact an options business
unless the principal supervisor of such branch office accepting options
transactions has been qualified as either a Registered Options and
Security Futures Principal or a Limited Principal--General Securities
Sales Supervisor; provided that this requirement shall not apply to
branch offices in which no more than three registered representatives
are located, so long as the options activities of such branch offices
are appropriately supervised by either a Registered Options and
Security Futures Principal or a Limited Principal--General Securities
Sales Supervisor.
[(D)](C) Headquarters Review of Accounts
    Each member shall maintain at the principal supervisory office
having jurisdiction over the office servicing customer accounts, or
have readily accessible and promptly retrievable, information to permit
review of each customer's options account on a timely basis to
determine:
    (i) The compatibility of options transactions with investment
objectives and with the types of transactions for which the account was
approved;
    (ii) The size and frequency of options transactions;
    (iii) Commission activity in the account;
    (iv) Profit or loss in the account;
    (v) Undue concentration in any options class or classes, and
    (vi) Compliance with the provisions of Regulation T of the Federal
Reserve Board.
    (21) through (24) No Change.
    (c) No Change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing to amend its options rules to integrate the
responsibility for supervision of a member's public customer options
business into its overall supervisory and compliance program. The
proposed rule change is substantively similar to recent amendments to
the rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), which were
approved by the Commission.\4\ As part of these changes, FINRA proposes
to eliminate the requirement that a firm must designate a SROP and CROP
to be responsible for the overall supervision and compliance programs,
respectively, for a member's public customer options activities. FINRA
believes that the supervisory and compliance function of a member's
public customer options activities would be better integrated into the
matrix of a firm's overall supervisory and compliance functions rather
than separately vested in a SROP and CROP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56971 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72804 (December 21, 2007) (Approval Order for File No.
SR-CBOE-2007-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA does not believe that eliminating the SROP and CROP
requirements would lead to a reduction in supervision, as firms have an
obligation to designate an appropriately registered principal(s) to
supervise their public customer options activities pursuant to NASD
Rule 3010(a)(2).\5\ The proposed rule change would provide firms
greater flexibility to incorporate supervision into existing, firm-wide
supervisory structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD Rule 3010(a)(2) requires that members designate ``an
appropriately registered principal(s) with authority to carry out
the supervisory responsibilities of the member for each type of
business in which it engages for which registration as a broker/
dealer is required.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend NASD Rule 1022 (Categories of
Principal Registration) to delete the reference to the SROP and CROP
and clarify that if a person is engaged in the supervision of options
and security futures sales practices, including a person designated
pursuant to NASD Rule 3010(a)(2), then such person must be registered
as a Registered Options and Security Futures Principal (``ROSFP'').
    The proposed rule change also makes a few technical changes. All
references to ``Registered Options Principal'' would be changed to
``Registered Options and Security Futures Principal'' to reflect the
change in title when rules governing security futures were adopted.\6\
All references to ``the Association'' would be changed to ``NASD'' for
ease of reference while the rules continue to be part of the legacy
NASD rulebook until such time as the legacy NASD and incorporated NYSE
rules are consolidated into the FINRA rule book when all references to
``NASD'' will be changed to ``FINRA.'' Finally, all references to ``put
and call'' would be deleted before options and ``options'' will mean
all types of options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46663 (October 15,
2002), 67 FR 64944 (October 22, 2002) (Approval Order for File No.
SR-NASD-2002-040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend NASD Rule 2220(b) (Options
Communications with the Public) to delete the reference to the CROP and
instead require that all advertisements, sales literature (except
completed worksheets), and educational material issued by a member or
member organization pertaining to options be approved in advance by a
ROSFP designated by the member's written supervisory procedures.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would amend NASD Rule 2860
(Options) in several respects. First, paragraph (b)(16)(E)(iii) would
be amended to delete the reference to the SROP and CROP and require
that a specific ROSFP(s) be designated to be responsible for approving
customer accounts that do not meet the specific criteria and standards
for writing uncovered short option transactions and for maintaining
written records of the reasons for every account so approved. The
proposed rule change would allow

members the flexibility to assign this responsibility, which currently
rests with the SROP and/or CROP, to a specific ROSFP(s).
    Second, the proposed rule change would amend paragraph (b)(18) and
the treatment of options discretionary accounts. Specifically, under
the proposed rule change, each firm would be required to designate
specific ROSFPs to review discretionary accounts.\7\ A ROSFP other than
the ROSFP who accepted the account would review the acceptance of each
discretionary account to determine that the ROSFP accepting the account
had a reasonable basis for believing that the customer was able to
understand and bear the risk of the strategies or transactions proposed
and must maintain a record of the basis for such determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the existing rule, the SROP must review the acceptance
of each discretionary account and the CROP must perform frequency
supervisory review of such accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would eliminate the
requirement in paragraph (b)(18) that discretionary options orders be
approved and initialed on the day of entry by the branch office manager
or authorized Registered Options Principal (``ROP'') or confirmed
within a reasonable time by a ROP if the branch office manager is not a
ROP, if a firm uses computerized surveillance tools. Under the proposed
rule change, discretionary orders would be required to receive frequent
appropriate supervisory review by a ROSFP who is not exercising
discretionary authority (instead of a CROP) and be reviewed in
accordance with a member's written supervisory procedures. The proposed
rule change would ensure that supervisory responsibilities are assigned
to specific ROSFP-qualified individuals, thereby enhancing the quality
of supervision.
    Firms that do not use computerized surveillance tools for the
frequent and appropriate review of discretionary activity would be
required to establish and implement procedures to require ROSFPs who
have been designated to review discretionary accounts to approve and
initial each discretionary order on the day entered. FINRA believes
that any member that does not use computerized tools for the frequent
and adequate surveillance of options discretionary account activity
should continue to be required to perform the daily manual review of
discretionary orders.
    Paragraph (b)(18) also would be revised to limit the duration of
the time and price discretionary authority to the end of the business
day on which the customer granted such discretion, absent specific
written contrary indication signed and dated by the customer. The
limitation would not apply to time and price discretion exercised in an
institutional account, as defined in NASD Rule 3110(c)(4), pursuant to
valid Good-Till-Cancelled instructions issued on a ``not held'' basis.
The proposed rule change would require any exercise of time and price
discretion to be reflected on the order ticket. The proposed rule
change mirrors the limitations to discretionary authority provided in
NASD Rule 2510(d). FINRA believes that it is appropriate to have
consistent treatment of discretionary orders for options as for all
other securities.
    Third, the proposed rule change would amend paragraph (b)(20) to
delete references to a supervision process involving a SROP and CROP,
and instead would require each member that conducts a public customer
options business to ensure that its written supervisory system policies
and procedures pursuant to NASD Rules 3010, 3012, and 3013 adequately
address the member's public customer options business. Although the
proposed rule change would eliminate entirely the positions and titles
of the SROP and CROP, a member would still be required pursuant to NASD
Rule 3010(a)(2) to designate ``an appropriately registered principal(s)
with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities of the
member for each type of business in which it engages for which
registration as a broker/dealer is required,'' which would include
designating a ROSFP to supervise a member's public customer options
activities.
    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 30 days
following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the supervisory and compliance
function of a member's public customer options activities would be
better integrated into the matrix of a firm's overall supervisory and
compliance functions rather than separately vested in a SROP and CROP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2007-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-035. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in

the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-035 and should be submitted
on or before May 30, 2008.

IV. Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\9\ In particular, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would help to better integrate the supervisory and
compliance functions of a firm's public customer options activities
into the firm's overall supervisory and compliance functions, thereby
eliminating any uncertainty about where supervisory responsibility
lies. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing of the amendment in the Federal Register. The proposed
rule change is substantially similar to recent CBOE rule amendments
concerning options supervision, which were approved by the
Commission.\11\ The Commission believes that approving the proposed
rule change will simplify firms' compliance, and is consistent with the
public interest and the investor protection goals of the Act. Finally,
the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to approve the
proposed rule change as soon as possible to expedite its
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56971 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72804 (December 21, 2007) (Approval Order for File No.
SR-CBOE-2007-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes good cause exists, consistent
with Sections 15A(b)(6) and 19(b) of the Act,\12\ to approve the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6), and 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2007-035), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10339 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8867-8869]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. FDA-2015-F-4317]

Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Improving
Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental
Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and James Huff; Filing of
Food Additive Petition; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the notice of filing that appeared in the Federal
Register of January 4, 2016. In the notice, FDA requested comments on a
filed food additive petition (FAP 5A4810), submitted by the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Improving Kids' Environment,
Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group,
Environmental Defense Fund, and James Huff, proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to no longer authorize the use of seven
listed synthetic flavoring food additives and to establish zero
tolerances for the additives. We are taking this action in response to
a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time
to submit comments.

DATES: We are extending the comment period on the notice of filing of a
food additive petition published on January 4, 2016 (81 FR 42). Submit
either electronic or written comments by May 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-F-4317 for ``Center for Science in the Public Interest,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Consumers
Union, Improving Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental Health,
Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and James
Huff, Filing of Food Additive Petition.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 4, 2016
(81 FR 42), we published a notice of filing of a food additive petition
(FAP 5A4810) submitted by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety,
Consumers Union, Improving Kids' Environment, Center for Environmental
Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, and
James Huff, c/o Mr. Thomas Neltner, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20009. The notice also invited comments on the
petition. The petition proposes to amend 21 CFR 172.515, Synthetic
flavoring substances and adjuvants, to no longer provide for the use of
seven listed synthetic flavoring food additives and to establish zero
tolerances for these additives. Specifically, the petitioners contend
that new data establish that these substances are carcinogenic and are,
therefore, not safe for use in food pursuant to the Delaney Clause
(section 409(c)(3)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A))), which provides that no food additive shall be
deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man
or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the
evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or
animal.
    The seven food additives which are the subject of the petition are:
     Benzophenone (also known as diphenylketone) (CAS No. 119-
61-9);
     Ethyl acrylate (CAS No. 140-88-5);
     Eugenyl methyl ether (also known as 4-allylveratrole or
methyl eugenol) (CAS No. 93-15-2);
     Myrcene (also known as 7-methyl-3-methylene-1,6-octadiene)
(CAS No. 123-35-3);
     Pulegone (also known as p-menth-4(8)-en-3-one) (CAS No.
89-82-7);
     Pyridine (CAS No. 110-86-1); and

     Styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5).
    We have received a request for a 60-day extension of the comment
period for the petition. The request conveyed concern that the current
60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to collect and
provide data and information and develop a meaningful and thoughtful
response to the assertions set forth in the petition.
    We have considered the request and are extending the comment period
for the petition for an additional 60 days, until May 3, 2016. We
believe that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on
these important issues.

    Dated: February 18, 2016.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2016-03708 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71180-71181]
[DOCID:fr25no05-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52785; File No. SR-DTC-2005-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a Systems Enhancement for the Processing of Information in
Its Restricted Deposit Service

November 16, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 11, 2005, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change and on
November 16, 2005, amended the proposed rule change described in Items
I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by DTC.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would effect a systems enhancement in
DTC's Restricted Deposit Service (``RDS'') to permit users to transmit
restricted stock information directly to DTC rather than manually
entering the information.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    RDS allows DTC participants to use the depository to handle the
removal of restrictions on securities. DTC provides negotiability and
documentation review of deposited restricted securities, images and
delivers them to transfer agents, and arranges for their prompt
transfer into unrestricted securities. Restricted securities generally
are securities purchased in private placements directly from an issuer
before the company is public. They may also be stock acquired through a
corporate reorganization or acquisition, in return for services, or
from an original shareholder.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41891 (September 20,
1999), 64 FR 52115 (September 27, 1999) [File No. SR-DTC-99-101].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a participant seeking to initiate use of RDS will
transmit restricted securities deposit information to DTC through the
Restricted Deposit Service by Participant function (``RDSP'') of DTC's
Participant Terminal System. Until now the transmission of such
information has required the participant to manually input data
directly into RDSP; however, participants often have already input such
information into other applications and thus transmitting the
information to RDSP requires duplication of effort.
    With this filing, DTC proposes to enhance this process to permit
participants to transfer such information directly from another
application containing the information to RDSP. The application used
for transmission of information to RDSP would either be one selected by
DTC or at the election of the participant another application so long
as such application meets technical requirements as determined by DTC.
    The proposed change is consistent with section 17A of the Act \4\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect a mechanism for the
prompt and accurate clearance ad settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to section

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \6\ thereunder
because the proposed rule effects a change in an existing service of
DTC that (i) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities
or funds in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is
responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective
rights or obligations of DTC or persons using the service. At any time
within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 249.19b-4(f)(4)
    \7\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on the date on which the last amendment to the proposed
rule change was filed with the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-DTC-2005-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2005-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's
Web site at https://login.dtcc.com/dtcorg/. All comments received will

be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2005-17 and should be submitted on
or before December 16, 2005.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6470 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


           WM Responses to Covanta & Peter Anderson Comments on                           Methane Oxidation Provision

Covanta Comment:

The Rule's current defaults allow landfills to assume collection efficiencies of up to 95% and then apply a soil oxidation factor of 10%. The EPA is now proposing to increase the soil oxidation factor up to 35% in certain circumstances. In stark contrast, the U.S. EPA's own Office of Research and Development, after a multi‐site two‐year study of measured methane emissions from landfills found that "the data collected does not support the use of collection efficiency values of 90% or greater as has been published in other studies."  Instead, the recent EPA Report found total abatement efficiencies of 38  -  88%, including the effects of soil oxidation of methane in landfill cover soils. The effects of soil oxidation are inherently covered, because the EPA study looked at methane concentrations above the landfill surface. This technique cannot distinguish between methane not emitted and methane oxidized in cover soils.

Response:

The Covanta comments cite the January 2012 report, Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, EPA/600/R-11/033 calling it a multi-site, two-year study.  The study did not, nor was it designed to measure methane oxidation at the three subject landfills.  Instead, the report purports to be a comprehensive study of the use of optical remote sensing using OTM-10 to measure landfill-wide methane emissions and evaluate methane abatement efficiency.  In fact, this report summarizes the results of very limited field research designed to measure methane from a portion of three landfills, all of which were located in a single climate zone.

The field research comprised only five methane measurement campaigns performed at the three landfills during the Spring and late Fall for Sites A and C, and a single, two-week period during Summer for Site B.  Not only is the scope of the field research extremely limited, but also the report provides neither a robust survey of the scientific literature, nor a survey of the extensive field research that has been conducted in varying climate zones and seasons.  In fact, the report's list of references is limited to four papers by one scientist (Hashmonay) and eleven EPA reports, seven of which were authored by the project manager of this subject report.

The commenter is chastising the Agency for not incorporating the findings of a single, three landfill study that did not even attempt to measure methane oxidation, while the Agency instead used a far more robust and pertinent data set to underpin its rulemaking.   The EPA based its proposed revision of the methane oxidation factor on the findings of more than 90 peer-reviewed field and laboratory studies of methane oxidation in various types of landfill covers and in a wide variety of climate zones.

The commenter cites a report that makes no conclusions about methane oxidation.  Rather, from five measurement campaigns at three southeastern landfills, the report develops a range of methane abatement efficiencies (38% - 88%), and concludes, based on this limited field work that "the data collected does not support the use of collection efficiency values of 90 percent or greater as has been published in other studies."  The data set is so limited and so lacking in representativeness, that it really supports no conclusions about methane abatement at all.  Furthermore, the study ignores the results of OTM-10 research conducted at a far larger universe of landfills (20 landfills located in all U.S. climate zones) and which has undergone peer review prior to publication in the scientific literature.

Covanta Comment:

Since the abatement efficiencies published in the EPA Report consider the effects of soil oxidation, higher assumed soil oxidation rates, as the EPA has proposed, would require lower collection efficiency defaults in order to remain consistent with the EPA's own work.

Response:

The EPA report in no way attempted to evaluate or measure soil methane oxidation.  The study merely assumed the default 10% methane oxidation factor.  Furthermore, the measurements of surface methane above the landfill surfaces were fraught with technical errors that biased the emission measurements.  The EPA study contractor placed the open path tunable diode laser and reflectors either adjacent to or downwind of the landfill gas collection wells (documented in the report's photographs).  This improper placement of the methane measurement plane could lead to inaccurate surface readings because the measurement plane was placed too close to the most probable sources of methane, thus biasing the readings.  The researchers also failed to quantify properly methane emissions from nearby adjacent sources (e.g., the hog farm adjacent to Landfill B), which may have contributed to the  methane emissions attributed to the landfill.  Without resolving these serious technical issues, EPA can neither validate the data from this study, nor use the study to make conclusions about methane abatement efficiencies at the subject landfills or any other landfills.  The report cannot be used to draw inferences regarding methane oxidation values.

Peter Anderson Comment:

"...oxidation only occurs in landfill covers that are comprised only of soil (with the necessary depth, porosity, temperature and microbes), and not through composite covers that include a low-permeable geomembrane."

Response:

The commenter's statement is factually wrong.  The data underpinning the EPA's rulemaking relied upon evaluations of methane oxidation at 90 landfills, looking at oxidation in sandy, clay and mixed soil covers, as well as in organic covers composed of composted yard waste.  Compost covers have been shown to be highly effective in oxidizing methane.  Furthermore, composite covers with a low-permeable membrane in addition to a soil cover are highly effective in mitigating methane emissions and they are being applied in the U.S. as final cover and in several countries in Europe for that purpose.  The geomembrane significantly retards diffusion of methane from the waste layers up to the soil layer.  As a result, there is no or negligible methane to be oxidized in the soil layer.The methane is well contained in the waste layer, where it can be collected by the landfill gas collection system.  Landfills with composite final covers have been shown to have very low methane emissions as measured using the OTM-10 method.

Peter Anderson Comment:

"...in order to have an effective oxidizing cover, the landfill must sacrifice significant collection capacity in the active gas system. How significant? The available field data using vertical radial plume mapping suggests almost a 300% difference. "

The commenter's statement is incorrect.  Effective oxidation requires a lower flow velocity of methane up through the cover soil to ensure that the oxidative capacity of the cover is not overwhelmed by too much methane.  Lower methane flow can occur due to effective landfill gas capture by the gas collection system, or because the landfill is not producing a high volume of landfill gas because it is an older site or is located in a dry climate, which inhibits methane formation.  Thus, effective landfill gas collection results in low methane loading to the cover which in turn results in higher oxidation percentages, approaching 100 percent, .  The best way to insure a high percentage of methane oxidation is with a good gas collection system (Chanton et al., 2011a,b).

EPA's technical background document describing the Agency's review of the scientific data on landfill methane oxidation reiterates this conclusion and states, "As methane generated in the landfill flows up through a landfill's cover soil, a fraction of that methane will be oxidized or metabolized by methanotrophic bacteria near the soil surface. The relative amount of methane removed from the landfill gas stream as the gas passes through the soil surface layer is termed the fraction oxidized or oxidation fraction.  The fraction oxidized depends on a number of factors including:

   * The flow velocity of landfill gas, or the methane flux, through the soil surface (higher    flux rates result in lower residence times in the aerobic soil layer and less oxidation);    * The porosity of the soil layer (greater porosity leads to more air ingress and a thicker aerobic soil layer, which leads to more oxidation);    * The number and types of microorganisms in the surface soil layer; and    * The soil surface temperature and moisture, which may increase or inhibit microbial activity."

The study by Waste Management cited by the commenter summarized the results of several years of field research conducted at 20 landfills across the U.S. measuring landfill emissions using EPA's OTM-10 method.  The study did not measure or address landfill gas collection efficiency, but measured methane flux above the surface of the landfills.  The study involved landfills with gas collection, but energy generation was not a consistent feature of all the sites studied.

Peter Anderson Comment:

Of paramount concern, of course, continues to be the controlling fact that the entire oxidation case ignores the reality that the minor gains claimed are dwarfed by the enormous increase in gas that escapes since gas collection is ineffectual without a geomembrane, as shown by Waste Management's own study referred to earlier. The gains are relatively minor because even 35% oxidation only applies to the 5% or 25% of the gas generation that is not captured. The single most effective way to reduce fugitive emissions has nothing to do with oxidation, but with the installation of a composite cover, including a geomembrane, which defeats oxidation.

Response:

The field and laboratory data for 90 landfills, which were evaluated by EPA in developing this rulemaking, simply do not support Mr. Anderson's assertion.  Successful methane emissions control at landfills is a combination of effective gas collection systems, which mitigate methane flow from the waste upwards to the cover, as well as properly maintained covers.  The covers need not be final covers, nor do they need to be composite covers with a geomembrane component to achieve oxidation rates well above the EPA default of 10 percent.  Final covers, particularly composite covers, are not used except at inactive, closed landfills or in closed, inactive landfill cells.  While composite final covers with geomembrane layers are very effective at mitigating methane emissions, it is very clear from the 90 studies of landfill cover oxidation in the scientific literature that intermediate soil and organic covers achieve high rates of methane oxidation.  The results of these peer-reviewed studies of landfill methane oxidation are as follows:

   1. Clay cover: The scientific literature evaluated by EPA included 31 studies of oxidation in clay covers.  The mean fraction of methane oxidized was 30 percent, while the median fraction oxidized was 29 percent.        2. Sandy soils cover: The literature included 16 studies of methane oxidation in sandy soil covers with the mean oxidation value being 54 percent, while the median value was 50 percent methane oxidized.            3. "Other" covers: The literature included 30 studies in "other" cover soils with the mean oxidation at 36 percent and the median fraction oxidized at 30 percent.

   4. Organic covers: The literature included 12 studies of methane oxidation in organic (compost) covers with the mean oxidation at 38 percent and the median fraction oxidized at 37 percent.            5. The overall mean oxidation value across all of the studies was 38 percent while the overall median oxidation fraction was 33 percent.

EPA also examined methane oxidation as a function of methane loading to the cover layer of the landfill.  Recent studies show that the percent oxidation is an inverse function of the rate of emission (Stern et al.,2007; Rachor et al., 2011; Chanton et al., 2011a,b).  At lower emission rates, the methanotrophs in the soil cover can consume a larger portion of the methane delivered to them, potentially oxidizing 95 to 100 percent (Humer and Lechner, 1999, 2001a, Huber-Humer 2008; Powelson et al., 2006, 2007; Kjeldsen et al., 1997).  As flux rates increase, the percent oxidation decreases and the methanotrophs can become saturated with methane.  Thus, as methane emission increases, percent oxidation decreases (Powelson et al., 2006, 2007).  These studies underscore that effective landfill gas collection works in concert with landfill cover to mitigate fugitive emissions.  The success of geomembrane covers relates to their ability to trap landfill emissions, but other types of soil covers have been shown to oxidize methane at percentages far greater than EPA's default factor of 10 percent.

Peter Anderson Comment:

The decay rate that the rule provides for recirculating landfills is k=0.057. There are two fatal problems with using a k value that low. First, the rule indicates that k=0.057 is also to be used for dry tomb landfills in areas with 40 inches or more of annual precipitation, but was not calculated to be, and was never intended to reflect, the significantly greater moisture levels inside landfills that recirculate leachate, and, in consequence, experience twice the subsidence and presumably twice the gas generation.  Second, the agency's own hornbook for input values to the first order decay model, AP-42, specifically states that the k value for landfills that recirculate leachate, which it abbreviates as "wet landfills," is 0.3, or 5.3x greater.

Response:

The AP-42 chapter for MSW landfills to which Mr. Anderson refers is in draft form, and has not yet been finalized by the EPA.  Furthermore, the Agency recommends against using the draft chapter, as it will undergo significant revision before it is finalized due to a large volume of new data obtained since the draft chapter was written.  The definition of "wet" landfills on Page 2.4-6 of the draft chapter states, "wet landfills are defined as landfills which add large amounts of water to the waste."  This definition has no practical application because it is unclear what volume constitutes a "large" amount of water.  It appears that the imprecision in this definition reflects the imprecision in the definition of "wet" used in the Reinhart study upon which the new k value is based.  It is widely accepted that the first order decay constant k used in the LandGEM model should vary as a function of the moisture content of the waste because it has been observed that increasing the waste moisture content leads to an enhanced rate of methanogenesis.  One problem in relying on the Reinhart report to support a new k factor, is that no analysis of the influence of the waste moisture content, the amount of water added, or annual precipitation on the modeled k was performed.  The study classified sites simply as wet or dry without any documented criteria.  Without knowledge of how wet or dry the sites were, it is not possible to determine under what conditions an enhanced k value would apply.

There are additional sources of data on gas production from full-scale operating bioreactor landfills that the EPA should consider in developing a new k factor:

   1. A report detailing research on the CRADA project at the Outer Loop landfill uses longitudinal landfill gas studies ranging over several years to develop k values based on site-specific determination of Lo (USEPA, 2006).  These data are also presented and evaluated in paper by Tolaymat, et al. 2010 which indicated a k for bioreactor test cells of 0.11 yr-1 using a site specific Lo of 54.8 m3 Mg-1.

   2. A report on the performance of bioreactor landfills in North America, funded by the EPA's Office of Research and Development contains information on the development of k values from several full-scale bioreactor landfills and shows lower k values than the 0.3 yr-1 value proposed in the draft AP-42 chapter.


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6604-6605]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety And Health Administration

[Docket No. NACOSH 2007-1]

National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(NACOSH); Request for Nominations to Serve on NACOSH

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations to serve on NACOSH.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health (OSHA) requests nominations for membership on NACOSH.

DATES: Nominations for NACOSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent or
received) by March 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations for NACOSH, identified by OSHA
Docket No. NACOSH 2007-1, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit nominations, including attachments,
electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for submitting
nominations.
    Facsimile: If your nomination, including attachments, is not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit three copies of your nominations to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). 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.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All nominations for NACOSH must include the Agency
name and docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No.
NACOSH 2007-1). All submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice, including personal information provided, will be posted without
change at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. Because of security-related

procedures, submitting nominations by regular mail may result in a
significant delay in their receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket
Office, at the address above, for information about security procedures
for submitting nominations by hand delivery, express delivery, and
messenger or courier service. For additional information on submitting
nominations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
    Docket: To read or download submissions, go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.
 All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions,

including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Crawford, OSHA, Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Room N-3641, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1932; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health invites interested parties to submit
nominations for membership on NACOSH. The Committee is authorized by
section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act) (29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration
of the OSH Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory body and operates in
compliance with provisions in the OSH Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued pursuant to
those laws (29 CFR 1912a, 41 CFR part 101-6 and 102-3).
    NACOSH is comprised of 12 members, all of whom the Secretary of
Labor appoints, and nominations will be accepted for seven vacancies
(29 CFR 1912a.2). The composition of the committee and categories of
new members to be appointed are as follows:
     Four public representatives. Two will be appointed;
     Two management representatives. One will be appointed;
     Two labor representatives. Two will be appointed;
     Two representatives representing occupational safety
professions. One will be appointed; and,

     Two representing occupational health professions. One
health representative will be appointed.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 1912a.2, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) will designate for appointment by the Secretary of Labor
one of the public representatives and the representative from the
occupational health professions. Therefore, OSHA will provide to HHS
all nominations, including supporting materials, for those membership
categories.
    NACOSH members serve for staggered of two year terms, unless the
member becomes unable to serve, resigns, ceases to be qualified to
serve because he or she no longer meets the relevant representational
requirements, or is removed by the Secretary of Labor. If a vacancy
occurs before a term expires, the Secretary may appoint for the
remainder of the unexpired term a new member who represents the same
interest as the predecessor. The committee meets at least two times a
year (Sec.  1912a.4).
    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more
qualified persons for membership. Nominations must include the
nominee's name, occupation or current position, and contact
information. The nomination also must identify the category that the
candidate is qualified to represent, and include a resume of the
nominee's background, experience, and qualifications. In addition, the
nomination must state that the nominee is aware of the nomination and
is willing to serve on NACOSH for a two-year term.
    NACOSH members will be selected upon the basis of their experience
and competence in the field of occupational safety and health (Sec.
1912a.2). The information received through this nomination process, in
addition to other relevant sources of information, will assist the
Secretary of Labor in appointing members to serve on NACOSH. In
selecting NACOSH members, the Secretary of Labor will consider
individuals nominated in response to this Federal Register notice, as
well as other qualified individuals. OSHA will publish the new NACOSH
membership list in the Federal Register.

Public Participation--Submission of Nominations and Access to Docket

    You may submit nominations (1) electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov
, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by

facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments and
other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number
for this Federal Register notice (OSHA Docket No. NACOSH 2007-1). You
may supplement electronic nominations by uploading document files
electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit three
copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The
additional materials must clearly identify your electronic nomination
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
nomination.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. 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 (877) 889-
5627).
    Submissions are posted without change at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birth dates. Although all submissions are listed in the http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.
 All submissions, including copyrighted material,

are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at 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.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by section 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656), 29 CFR 1912a, and Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of February, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7-2239 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2042-2045]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0514; Product Identifier 2016-NM-206-AD; Amendment
39-19148; AD 2018-01-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus 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) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision of
certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which require
more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 20, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
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 protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0514.

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-
0514; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus 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). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017
(82 FR 25552) (``the NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0218, dated November 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus 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). The
MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A300-600 aeroplanes,
which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in
the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
document(s). These instructions have been identified as mandatory
actions for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0124 (later revised)
[which includes actions for Airbus A300-600 airplanes; those actions
are included in FAA AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957,
August 19, 2014) (``AD 2013-13-13'')], requiring the actions
described in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI)
Document at issue 13 and Temporary Revision (TR) 13.1.
    Since EASA AD 2014-0124R1 was issued, Airbus replaced A300-600
ALI Document issue 13, with A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01 and then
published the A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2,
to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations.
    A300-600 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 also includes ALI 571067 and
ALI 571068, superseding Service Bulletin A300-53-6154, which is
referenced in EASA AD 2006-0257 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-
22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236, October 24, 2007) (``AD
2007-22-05'')].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains part of
the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1, which will be superseded,
and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300-
600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and ALS
Part 2 Variation 1.2 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the
ALS' in this [EASA] AD), and supersedes EASA AD 2006-0257. The
remaining requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1 are retained in AD
2016-0217, applicable to A310 aeroplanes, published at the same time
as this [EASA] AD.

    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-
0514.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response. FedEx generally supported the NPRM.

Request To Provide an Additional Compliance Time Grace Period

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance time
specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM be revised to add an additional
grace period. UPS pointed out that there are several new or revised
tasks with relatively low compliance time thresholds that would lead to
short lead times on accomplishing those tasks after the effective date
of the AD. UPS referenced the compliance time required in AD

2013-13-13 as an example of the type of grace period it envisions,
which specifies that a compliance time, in flight cycles (FC), that is
after the publication date of the applicable service information should
be considered as after the effective date of that AD. UPS suggested
that where the compliance time in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness
Limitation Items (DT--ALI),'' Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015,
specifies ``within 2000 FC from Jun 11/15,'' the proposed AD should
specify that phrase as ``within 2000 FC from the effective date of this
AD.'' UPS anticipated submitting a request for an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) if the additional grace period is not added.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to add an additional
grace period. We have reviewed the compliance times specified in the
service information and have determined that the compliance times
specified and grace periods provided in both the service information
and in paragraph (g) of this AD are sufficient to allow compliance.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we will
also consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance
time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new
compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Allow AMOCs Previously Approved for AD 2013-13-13

    FedEx requested that AMOCs for AD 2013-13-13 be applicable to this
AD. No further justification was provided.
    We agree to allow AMOCs that were previously approved for AD 2013-
13-13 as AMOCs for this AD. We have revised paragraph (j)(1) of this AD
and added paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) to this AD to add that
provision.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    FedEx requested that the cost information be revised to include the
costs of additional actions such as AD tracking and planning, changing
work cards and the maintenance program, getting local FAA approvals,
and aircraft down time. FedEx proposed that the cost for U.S. operators
would exceed $500,000.
    We agree to revise the cost information. Based on the information
provided by FedEx, we have revised the estimated work-hours from 1
work-hour to 90 work-hours. We recognize that revising the maintenance
or inspection program to incorporate changes in multiple tasks or a new
revision level of a section of an ALS document would take more time
than a change in a single task. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking
actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as
the time necessary for planning or time necessitated by other
administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary
significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:
     Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--ALI),''
Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
     Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--ALI),''
Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
     Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--ALI),''
Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.
    The service information describes airworthiness limitations
applicable to the DT ALIs. These documents are distinct because they
contain unique tasks. 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.

Costs of Compliance

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

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost              Parts cost          product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.....  90 work-hours x $85 per   None...............          $7,650        $979,200
                                    hour = $7,650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-01-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-19148; Docket No. FAA-2017-0514;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-206-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 20, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236,
October 24, 2007) (``AD 2007-22-05'') and AD 2013-13-13, Amendment
39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (``AD 2013-13-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness
limitation item (ALI) documents, which require more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in
principal structural elements, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in the service information identified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. The initial
compliance times for doing the tasks are at the time specified in
the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (1) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
    (2) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
    (3) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions, or
intervals, are approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all of
the requirements of AD 2007-22-05 and AD 2013-13-13 for that
airplane only.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-13-13 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(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 Airworthiness Directive 2016-0218, dated November 2,
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-2017-0514.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
    (ii) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
    (iii) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--
ALI),'' Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.
    (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 protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on

the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 2017.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-00110 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P