[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12632-12633]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04351]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-473, OMB Control No. 3235-0530]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 32a-4

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a 31(a)(2)) (``Act'') requires that the selection of a registered
management investment company's or registered face-amount certificate
company's (collectively, ``funds'') independent public accountant be
submitted to shareholders for ratification or rejection. Rule 32a-4
under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.32a-4) exempts a fund from
this requirement if, among other things, the fund has an audit
committee consisting entirely of independent directors. The rule
permits continuing oversight of a fund's accounting and auditing
processes by an independent audit committee in place of a shareholder
vote.
    Among other things, in order to rely on rule 32a-4, a fund's board
of directors must adopt an audit committee charter and must preserve
that charter, and any modifications to the charter, permanently in an
easily accessible place. The purpose of these conditions is to ensure
that Commission staff will be able to monitor the duties and
responsibilities of an audit committee of a fund relying on the rule.
    Commission staff estimates that on average the board of directors
takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff
has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on

the board,\1\ total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours.
Combined with an estimated \1/2\ hour of paralegal time to prepare the
charter for board review, the staff estimates a total one-time
collection of information burden of 2\1/2\ hours for each fund. Once a
board adopts an audit committee charter, the charter is preserved as
part of the fund's records. Commission staff estimates that there is no
annual hourly burden associated with preserving the charter in
accordance with this rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on staff experience and on
discussions with a representative of an entity that surveys funds
and calculates fund board statistics based on responses to its
surveys.
    \2\ This estimate is based on staff experience and discussions
with funds regarding the hour burden related to maintenance of the
charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because virtually all existing funds have now adopted audit
committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information
burden associated with adopting audit committee charters is limited to
the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff
estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 90 new funds each
year,\3\ and that all of these funds will adopt an audit committee
charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff
estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with adopting
an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 is approximately225
hours.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This estimate is based on the average number of
notifications of registration on Form N-8A filed from2017 2019.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (2.5
burden hours for establishing charter x 90 new funds = 225 burden
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on
rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring
outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that
those costs average approximately $1,500 per fund. \5\ As noted above,
Commission staff estimates that approximately 90 new funds each year
will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4.
Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden
associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately
$135,000.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Costs may vary based on the individual needs of each fund.
However, based on the staff's experience and conversations with
outside counsel that prepare these charters, legal fees related to
the preparation and adoption of an audit committee charter usually
average $1500 or less. The Commission also understands that model
audit committee charters are available, which reduces the costs
associated with drafting a charter.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: ($1500
cost of adopting charter x 90 newly established funds = $135,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. The collections of information required by rule 32a-4
are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is
seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 27, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04351 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74705-74707]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30272]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68403; File No. SR-OCC-2012-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Accommodate Certain
Physically-Settled Options on U.S. Treasury Securities

December 11, 2012.
    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 November 30, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC proposes to accommodate certain physical-settled options on the
U.S. Treasury securities.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to accommodate the
clearing of physically-settled options on certain U.S. Treasury notes
and U.S. Treasury bonds (``Treasury Options'') proposed to be traded by
NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``PHLX''). OCC's current By-Laws and Rules
(collectively, the ``Rules'') accommodate options on Treasury
securities, but the options on Treasury securities contemplated by the
Rules are no longer traded and are different from the Treasury Options
that PHLX intends to trade in certain respects. Accordingly, OCC
proposes to amend the Rules, as described below, to accommodate such
Treasury Options as well as to streamline Chapter XIV of its rulebook
by re-numbering certain rules and deleting unused and ``reserved''
rules.
    The PHLX Treasury Options are limited to European-style options on
Treasury notes and bonds with a unit of trading of $10,000. OCC
therefore proposes to remove provisions and references within Chapter
XIV of the Rules to American-style options on Treasury securities,
Treasury bills as an eligible underlying interest for options on
Treasury securities, and ``mini options'' on Treasury securities. In
addition, OCC proposes to remove from the Rules the defined term
``adjusted exercise price,'' which related only to options on Treasury
bills and consequently is no longer needed, and update other
definitions within the Rules to reflect the limiting of the underlying
interests for Treasury Options to Treasury bonds and notes.
Furthermore, OCC does not plan to permit escrow deposits to be made in
connection with the clearing of Treasury Options and proposes to remove
related provisions in Section 2 of Article XIII.
    OCC generally will apply current expiration date exercise
procedures to Treasury Options, and will require delivery settlement
for exercised and assigned Treasury Options to be effected on a broker-
to-broker basis through the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC''). Clearing members interested in Treasury Options have
advised that it would be operationally more efficient for them if
delivery settlement were effected in this manner. As not all OCC
clearing members are participants of the Government Securities Division
(``GSD'') of FICC, the proposed rules would permit clearing members to
designate, with proper advance notice to OCC, a representative that is
a GSD participant who would be responsible for inputting trade
information into FICC's systems for delivery settlement purposes. The
proposed rules make it clear, however, OCC would have no obligation to
such designated representative and contain the agreement of the
designating clearing member to be bound by, and to hold OCC harmless
against any claims based on, the designated representative's actions or
delays in acting or failures to act.
    On the expiration date for a Treasury Option, OCC will produce an
exercise and assignment report identifying the delivering and receiving
clearing members and other relevant delivery information. Clearing
members that are obligated to purchase or sell Treasury securities as a
result of the exercise or assignment of positions in Treasury Options
will be required to submit the terms of such trades to FICC's real time
trade matching system. If the trade information submitted by the
delivering and receiving clearing member matches within FICC's system,
FICC becomes obligated to guarantee settlement of the trade pursuant to
FICC's rules, at the point in time at which FICC makes available to the
delivering and receiving clearing members a report indicating the trade
has been compared and OCC's obligation to guarantee delivery settlement
will be terminated. Delivery settlement through FICC includes delivery
of the underlying securities against payment of the aggregate purchase
price increased by the amount of accrued interest. If a trade does not
match, the delivering and receiving OCC clearing members will be
required to notify OCC within such time as OCC may specify of such
failure on the first business day after the expiration date. If no such
notification is made within the deadline, pursuant to proposed Rule
1403(d), OCC's obligation to guarantee settlement will be extinguished
as of

such deadline, regardless of whether or not settlement was actually
completed.
    In the event OCC is given timely notification of a failure to match
on the first business day after the expiration date, the clearing
members would be required to attempt to resolve the failure such that
settlement could occur through FICC by a deadline specified by OCC on
the second business day following the expiration date. If the failure
is not resolved and the trade has not matched by the deadline on the
second business day after the expiration date, the delivering and
receiving OCC clearing members will be required to notify OCC within
such time as OCC may specify of such failure. If no such notification
is made within the deadline, pursuant to proposed Rule 1404(a), OCC's
obligation to guarantee settlement will be extinguished as of such
deadline, regardless of whether or not settlement was actually
completed.
    If OCC receives timely notification, pursuant to proposed Rule
1404(a), that the second submission attempt at FICC failed to result in
a match, OCC will assess and pay damages, if any, incurred by the
Delivering or Receiving Clearing Member, as applicable, in connection
with the failure to match. OCC will also be authorized to debit the
amount of such damages from the account of the Delivering or Receiving
Clearing Members, as applicable.
    Under proposed Rule 1404, in the event the non-defaulting clearing
member buys or sells the underlying Treasury security, the non-
defaulting clearing member will be required to promptly notify OCC of
the price paid or received, as applicable, and OCC will take this
information into account in assessing damages. However, OCC will not be
bound to accept these prices in assessing damages, and will be able to
make an independent determination of damages. Proposed Rule 1404
provides that OCC's determination of damages would be at OCC's sole
discretion, final and binding on all parties. Such ``failure to match''
procedures will limit OCC's liability in the event of a default by one
of its clearing members. Proposed Rules 1401, 1402, 1403 and 1404
reflect the settlement process described above.
    OCC will collect and hold margin from clearing members with
Treasury Option delivery or receipt obligations until the exercise
settlement date, unless OCC receives notification of a failure to
match, in which case OCC will continue to hold margin until either the
trade is deemed settled or damages have been assessed and paid to the
non-defaulting clearing member.
    Proposed Rule 1405 would clarify that OCC may pursue disciplinary
action against clearing members who fail to discharge the delivery,
payment, and notification obligations as set forth in proposed Rules
1403 and 1404.
    In addition to the above changes relating to the terms of and
settlement process for Treasury Options, OCC proposes revisions to
Section 5 of Article XIII of the By-Laws regarding the handling of
shortages of Treasury Securities. These revisions would provide OCC
with broader discretion in determining whether a shortage exists and
simplify the procedures to be used in this situation.
    The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are consistent with
the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), because they are designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and the protection of investors and the public interest.
They accomplish this purpose by, among other things, updating OCC's
existing rule provisions to accommodate Treasury Options, as proposed
for trading by PHLX, and implementing a settlement process designed to
minimize the risks of settlement failures for investors. In addition,
the proposed changes facilitate the establishment of linked and
coordinated facilities for clearance and settlement of transactions in
securities options by utilizing the existing infrastructure of two
clearing agencies to create an operationally efficient exercise
settlement process for Treasury Options, proposed for trading by PHLX.
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC,
including any rules proposed to be amended.

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

    OCC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. 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 Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
    send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number
SR-OCC-2012-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2012-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and
on OCC's Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_12_23.pdf.
    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-OCC-2012-23 and should be submitted on or before January
7, 2013.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30272 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9688]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the interregional transmission planning activities of the
Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

SPP Seams FERC Order 1000 Task Force Meeting--February 5, 2013

    The above-referenced meeting will be a teleconference and is open
to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.spp.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER09-35-001, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-36-001, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-548-001, ITC Great Plains, LLC
Docket No. ER09-659-002, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-4105-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34-001, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1401-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1402-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1415-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1460-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1586-000 et al., Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1610-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1772-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2366-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-2-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-60-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., et al.
Docket No. ER12-2387-000 et al., Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-366-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-367-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 288-
6738 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 4, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02931 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 76273]
[DOCID:fr23de05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. EC06-36-000]

Exelon Corporation, Exelon Ventures Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., PECO
Energy Company, Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

December 15, 2005
    Take notice that on December 7, 2005, Exelon Corporation, Exelon
Ventures Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison
Company of Indiana, Inc. PECO Energy Company and Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (collectively, Applicants) pursuant to section 203 of the
Federal Power Act tendered for filing an Application for Authorization
of the Acquisition of Securities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 28, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7750 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


April 24, 2003 Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8( e)

EPA ICR No.: 0794.10 OMB Control No.: 2070 0046 1( b) Short Characterization Section 8( e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) states, " any person who manufactures, [ imports,] processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the [ EPA] Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information." ( See Attachment 1.)

During the time spanning January 1977 through May 2002, EPA has received approximately 15,150 initial section 8( e) submissions covering a large number of chemical substances and mixtures and a wide range of chemical toxicity/ exposure information. This includes approximately 10,500 submissions EPA received as a result of the Compliance Audit Program described in section 2( a) below. Although EPA's receipt of section 8( e) information does not necessarily trigger immediate regulatory action under TSCA or other authorities administered by EPA, all section 8( e) submissions receive screening level evaluations by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) to identify priorities for further Agency action and appropriate referrals to other programs.

OPPT routinely disseminates section 8( e) data received to EPA's Program and Regional Offices and other Federal agencies ( e. g., NIOSH, OSHA, CPSC, FDA, NTP) to provide information about newly discovered chemical hazards/ risks; public outreach/ information access programs are also in place for section 8( e) data received by EPA. Beginning in 2001, OPPT has made these referrals primarily through e mails of biweekly tables summarizing all new submissions.

EPA's proactive implementation of section 8( e) of TSCA has resulted in heightened corporate awareness of the potential risks of injury posed by exposure to chemical substances. This increased corporate awareness has led to a wide variety of voluntarily initiated risk reduction/ pollution prevention actions designed to protect human health and the environment. Page 2 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection TSCA section 8( e) continues to be an important and useful tool for early warning and identification of potential substantial risk situations allowing EPA and others to focus their limited resources on chemicals or mixtures of highest concern. Not collecting section 8( e) information would prevent the Agency and others from learning quickly about new substantial risks posed by exposure to chemical substances/ mixtures and would not allow adequate assessment and, if need be, taking action to effectively eliminate or reduce such risks in a timely manner.

The statutory authority for this information collection is section 8( e) of TSCA ( U. S. Public Law 94 469; 90 Stat. 2029; 15 U. S. C. 2607( e)). No formal rule making by the Agency was required to implement section 8( e) in that section 8( e) was a self activating reporting provision of TSCA that became immediately effective on January 1, 1977 ( the effective date of the Act). However, in order to facilitate compliance with section 8( e), EPA clarified the kinds of information that constitute substantial risk information, specified the types of information exempt from the reporting requirements, and outlined standard reporting procedures, in published proposed guidance ( 42 FR 45362; September 9, 1977). After holding several public meetings and considering the public comments on the proposed section 8( e) guidance, the Agency published its final " Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy; Notification of Substantial Risk" ( 43 FR 11110; March 16, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the " Policy Statement"). The section 8( e) Policy Statement continues to reflect EPA's position regarding the section 8( e) reporting requirements. However, EPA is in the process of revising a part of the Policy Statement dealing with environmental exposure reporting as noted below. In 1991, EPA published a " Section 8( e) Reporting Guide."

In February of 1991, the Agency initiated a voluntary section 8( e) " Compliance Audit Program" ( CAP). This compliance program, which was initiated as the result of several section 8( e) enforcement cases that suggested that many companies were not complying with the section 8( e) reporting requirements, was designed to 1) achieve EPA's goal of obtaining any outstanding section 8( e) data, and 2) provide maximum encouragement to companies to voluntarily audit their files for section 8( e) reportable information. The section 8( e) CAP involved consent agreements/ orders pursuant to section 15 of TSCA, stipulated monetary penalties and an overall penalty ceiling. A total of 123 companies elected to participate voluntarily in the Agency's section 8( e) CAP activity. The CAP was terminated on May 15, 1996 and settlements with CAP participants were announced on October 15, 1996.

In implementing the section 8( e) CAP, EPA determined that there was a need to suspend and refine those portions of the 1978 section 8( e) Policy Statement that deal specifically with the reportability of exposure information concerning the release of toxic chemicals to and the detection of toxic chemicals in environmental media. On July 13, 1993 ( 58 FR 37735) EPA published proposed guidance regarding the detection of toxic chemicals in environmental media. EPA received comments from 49 companies and industry associations. Based on the submitted comments and a number of meetings with industry representatives, EPA revised the proposed Page 3 guidance and made it available for additional public comment through a notice in the Federal Register published on March 20, 1995 ( 60 FR 14756). In response, EPA received an additional 22 comments. While the comments offered additional refinements to the revised guidance, their basic tenor was that industry was in support of the changes.

EPA has collaborated with industry on a question and answer document that would be available in advance of the effective date of the revised guidance when published. The plan is to make the guidance prospective in nature and to have it become effective a number of months after publication so that industry can familiarize themselves with it and have the benefit of the completed question and answer document that will provide a wide range of possible reporting situations as examples. Until the final guidance is effective, however, the section 8( e) statutory language must be used by all subject persons to determine the section 8( e) reportability of obtained information on chemical releases and detections.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data Since 1977, the Agency and members of the chemical industry have devoted significant efforts in fulfilling their respective responsibilities under section 8( e). Since January 1, 1977, about 15,150 initial section 8( e) notices ( includes CAP and non CAP submissions) covering a broad range of toxicity and exposure related data on a wide variety of chemicals have been received by the Agency and given priority evaluation and follow up attention.

All incoming section 8( e) submissions are reviewed by EPA shortly after receipt. The initial processing of section 8( e) submissions includes a screening level evaluation of the submitted data. Such evaluations are not risk assessments, nor do they include other toxicity data that may be available on the chemical or exposure related information. The results of screening level evaluations are intended for priority setting to select cases for more detailed assessment.

EPA utilizes section 8( e) submission information for hazard/ risk identification purposes primarily in the initial stages of the TSCA Existing Chemical Program ( ECP). Section 8( e) data are also used in ongoing EPA health and exposure assessments of both existing and new chemicals, in the SIDS international testing program, in the High Production Volume ( HPV) Challenge Program, and in support of regulation development under TSCA, e. g., development of chemical testing rules under section 4 of TSCA, as well as regulation development under other authorities administered by the Agency. In addition, section 8( e) submissions have been the basis for a number of chemical advisories developed by OPPT to communicate potential health risks and the need for exposure controls.

Regardless of the type of section 8( e) follow up action/ activity undertaken, all reported information is made available for use by other EPA Program and Regional Offices, other Federal agencies and other parties ( e. g., chemical industry, trade unions, environmental groups, general public, international community) who may be interested in the subject chemical or mixture. Other EPA Offices and Federal agencies routinely utilize section 8( e) data in implementing their regulatory programs. The principal vehicle for making the information widely available is the Page 4 TSCATS database ( see 4( b)), which is in the process of expanding to include information from related data bases. Also, the TSCA section 8( e) web page, available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ tsca8e/, includes all published section 8( e) guidance and full text copies of all new section 8( e) submissions.

EPA's proactive implementation of section 8( e) has also resulted in heightened corporate awareness of the potential risk of injury posed by exposure to chemical substances. This increased corporate awareness has led to a variety of voluntary corporate actions that are designed to protect human health and/ or the environment. Many companies have reported to EPA that the following types of risk reduction/ pollution prevention measures were initiated in direct response to the submitted chemical toxicity and/ or exposure data:

Notification of workers, customers and others;

Revision of product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets;

Modification of manufacturing, processing, and/ or handling;

Ceasing production/ use either temporarily or permanently; and/ or

Initiation of additional toxicity or exposure studies to further define potential risks.

3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication There is no other source of data that can be used in place of the data submitted to EPA under the section 8( e) statutory reporting requirement. The " substantial risk" information required to be reported to EPA is unpublished information not already known to the Agency. In addition, information need not be submitted under section 8( e) if the information has been reported already to EPA pursuant to another mandatory information reporting requirement of TSCA or some other authority administered or delegated to the States by EPA. In conjunction with the section 8( e) Policy Statement refinement activities, the Agency expanded and clarified the types of information that need not be reported under section 8( e). This is expected to result in some additional reduction of the overall respondent reporting burden for section 8( e).

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB Prior to submission for renewal of this ICR, EPA provided a 60 day public notice and comment period that ended on October 18, 2002 ( See Attachment 2). EPA received two comments during the comment period from Kokopelli Chemists, Inc., and the American Chemistry Council ( see Attachment 3). The EPA memorandum in Attachment 4 addresses these comments. In general, the commenters sought the status of the Agency's revised TSCA section 8( e) reporting guidance that is pending, which EPA expects to issue shortly. Page 5 3( c) Consultations EPA personnel have participated in numerous public meetings and other forums to discuss the section 8( e) Policy Statement and the Agency's implementation of section 8( e). Large EPAsponsored public meetings at which section 8( e) was a primary topic of discussion were held in 1978, 1986, 1987, 1990 and 1992 with chemical industry representatives and other interested parties in attendance. EPA staff have also participated in more than 30 industry sponsored meetings at which section 8( e) of TSCA was the major or primary topic of discussion. Section 8( e) topics have also been included in a number of " Living With TSCA" conferences held since April 1994. In April 2003, this conference was called " Living with TSCA and International Chemical Controls."

EPA staff has also met on numerous occasions with members of the chemical industry to discuss section 8( e) in the context of the section 8( e) Compliance Audit Program. Further, EPA analyzed and responded to numerous public comments received as the result of the July 13, 1993 proposed refinements to several portions of the Agency's 1978 section 8( e) Policy Statement and to comments received in response to the March 20, 1995 reopening of the public record, and has collaborated with industry in preparing the associated question and answer document.

EPA proposed amendments to the section 8( e) policy statement in 1993 and again in 1995. The proposed amendments dealt specifically with clarifications on reporting requirements for occurrences of environmental exposure or contamination. As a condition of the previous ICR renewal, OMB instructed EPA to change the reporting period to 30 calendar days instead of 15 working days, or explain why a more stringent reporting period is necessary. EPA is planning to adopt the change in the reporting period that will be contained in the section 8( e) policy guidance changes that EPA is currently working to finalize. EPA is further planning to consolidate all section 8( e) guidance, including these proposed amendments, into a single document. It may be in the form of a consolidated guidance document or a rule requiring proposed and final Federal Register notices. If the outcome of either product results in any change to existing reporting requirements, EPA will amend the section 8( e) ICR.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection As stated previously, section 8( e) continues to be an extremely important and useful EPA tool for early identification of potential substantial risk situations and allows the Agency as well as others to focus their resources on those chemicals or mixtures of highest concern. The consequences of EPA's not receiving section 8( e) data immediately following receipt by a respondent are serious. The Agency would be prevented from learning about and publicizing new information about substantial risks of health or environmental injury posed by exposure to chemical substances and/ or mixtures. Further, EPA would not be in a position to adequately assess and, if necessary, take action to effectively eliminate or reduce such risks in an expeditious manner. Page 6 3( e) General Guidelines The required reporting that takes place under section 8( e) does not appear to exceed the Paperwork Reduction Act imposed guidelines that are found at 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality Any person submitting a notice to EPA under section 8( e) may assert a claim of business confidentiality covering all or part of the information that is contained in the notice. Any information covered by a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth at 40 CFR Part 2. If no confidentiality claim accompanies a section 8( e) notice at the time it is submitted to EPA, the notice is placed in an open file that is available to the public without further notice to the submitting organization. The Agency has established and actively implements well publicized standard procedures for the handling and safe guarding of information claimed as TSCA Confidential Business Information ( TSCA CBI).

3( g) Sensitive Questions Under section 8( e), EPA does not seek submission of information with regard to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered to be of a private nature.

4 RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes A statutory section 8( e) reporting obligation can be incurred by any person who manufactures, imports, processes or distributes a TSCA covered chemical substance or mixture. EPA's section 8( e) Policy Statement defines the term " person" broadly to include " any natural person, corporation, firm, company, joint venture, partnership, sole proprietorship, association, or any other business entity, any State or political subdivision thereof, any municipality, any interstate body and any department, agency, instrumentality of the Federal Government." Although this definition is quite broad in terms of subject persons, section 8( e) reporting obligations are most typically incurred by companies engaged in activities classified by NAICS Codes 325  Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacturers and 32411 Petroleum Refining.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items There is no required " form" on which section 8( e) information must be submitted to EPA; however, the section 8( e) Policy Statement requires all respondents to ensure that a written section 8( e) notice: Page 7

is sent to EPA by a method verifying the Agency's receipt;

states that it is being submitted under section 8( e) of TSCA;

contains the name, address, job title, phone number and signature of the person reporting, and the name and address of the establishment with which the person is associated;

identifies the chemical substance( s) or mixture including, if known, the Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) Registry Number( s);

summarizes adverse health/ environmental effects being reported including a description of the nature and extent of the risk; and

contains the specific source/ summary of the supporting data.

EPA is in the process of implementing optional electronic reporting of section 8( e) submissions to increase processing efficiency for both the Agency and the regulated community. Although a subsequent reduction in burden may be appropriate, EPA has not yet attempted to calculate a reduction for this ICR.

( ii) Respondent Activities The overall purpose of section 8( e) reporting is to ensure that new information that reasonably supports a conclusion that a chemical substance or mixture presents a " substantial risk" of injury to health or the environment is brought to EPA's attention immediately upon discovery and not just upon request by the Agency. It should be noted again that section 8( e) applies to all chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors and applies also to that information that a subject person possesses or about which that person has knowledge. Although compliance with section 8( e) does not require subject persons to search for information or to make extraordinary efforts to acquire information, section 8( e) does apply to information that is " obtained" ( i. e., information that a person possesses or about which that person knows). Following a review of existing information and a decision that such information is of the type required under section 8( e), respondents must notify EPA in writing immediately. EPA's section 8( e) Policy Statement defines the term " immediately" in the context of written section 8( e) reports to mean within 15 working days ( proposed to be changed to 30 calendar days) of the date on which the information was obtained; the immediate reporting of an emergency incident of environmental contamination by a toxic substance is defined as a phone report to EPA as soon as a person knows about the incident.

5 INFORMATION COLLECTION  EPA ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities As explained in additional detail in the next sections, the Agency's section 8( e) activities involve answering general and specific section 8( e) related questions, computerized section 8( e) information tracking ( including data extraction, entry and quality assurance/ control), microfilming, confidential ( restricted access) and non confidential ( public access) section 8( e) Page 8 information filing, initial evaluation of submitted section 8( e) information ( including review of TSCA Confidential Business Information ( CBI) substantiations), and the dissemination of section 8( e) related information on the Internet and in response to specific requests.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management A Document Control Number is used by EPA to identify section 8( e) submissions and takes the following form: 8EHQ 0000. Internal EPA tracking of section 8( e) notice information is handled via non confidential and confidential computerized data bases.

In order to assure that the public sector is kept appraised about new adverse chemicalrelated health effects and exposure information, the Agency provides public access to and actively disseminates non confidential section 8( e) submission information in many ways. Some examples of EPA's longstanding public access/ outreach activities follow.

Non confidential section 8( e) initial and follow up/ supplemental submissions, status reports, submission summaries, and EPA follow up letters can be viewed/ copied in the TSCA public docket located at EPA Headquarters. Non confidential section 8( e) related documents can also be obtained by writing to EPA's Freedom of Information Office.

Relevant non confidential information from section 8( e) notices is routinely entered into TSCATS ( Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions), a publicly available computerized data base that serves as an on line index of unpublished health and safety studies submitted to EPA under or in conjunction with TSCA. The submitted studies themselves are stored/ available on microfiche. Persons wishing to obtain access to TSCATS can contact either the National Library of Medicine ( NLM) in Rockville, MD, or Chemical Information Systems, Inc. ( CIS) in Baltimore, MD. The microfiche copies of the studies that are referenced in the TSCATS database can be obtained from either CIS or the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS) in Springfield, VA. EPA makes full electronic copies of all new section 8( e) submissions, as well as the section 8( e) policy guidance, available to the public through the section 8( e) web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ tsca8e.

Under established Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) procedures as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) information gathering " Switchboard" project, EPA responds to many international requests for unpublished health and safety data on chemicals of concern to OECD members.

As stated previously, EPA routinely notifies other Federal agencies about incoming section 8( e) information via biweekly tabular reports of new section 8( e) submissions and by specific referrals. As the direct result of these public outreach activities, several of these other agencies actively publicize the information even further. For example, the National Library of Medicine ( NLM) at the National Institutes of Health makes section 8( e) information available via its publicly available computerized Hazardous Substances Data Base ( HSDB). In addition, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH) cites section 8( e) notices in the printed and on line computerized versions of the " Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Page 9 Substances" ( RTECS).

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The statutory obligation to report information under section 8( e) of TSCA applies to all manufacturers, importers, processors, and/ or distributors of TSCA covered chemical substances and mixtures. The statutory language of section 8( e) itself does not allow for any reporting exemption or burden minimization based on the size or earnings of a respondent. However, the practical effect is that nearly all reporting is done by large and medium size companies. This is mainly because only the larger companies have the financial wherewithal to conduct toxicity testing that comprises most section 8( e) reporting. Since there is no routine reporting nor recordkeeping provisions for section 8( e), the true burden on most small entities is practically nonexistent.

5( d) Collection Schedule Considering that section 8( e) notices are received by the Agency on an ad hoc basis and only when the triggering event occurs, there is no collection schedule per se. Respondents are required to comply with section 8( e) immediately ( within 30 days accepted under our Policy) when they come into possession of or know about section 8( e) reportable information. If section 8( e) information was not made available to EPA within this timeframe, the Agency's ability to learn about, publicize, effectively assess, and respond appropriately to newly discovered chemicalrelated risks would be severely impeded if not completely thwarted.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION For the 1999 ICR renewal, EPA used the data on the submission of initial section 8( e) notices. The number of initial notices used was 267. This was based on the number of initial submissions received in FY 1997 1999 ( 801/ 3= 267). This ICR renewal uses the same approach by averaging the number of initial submissions for the last three fiscal years ( FY 2000 2002). The average number of annual submissions for the last three fiscal years is 218 initial notices per year ( FY 2000 227, FY 2001 224, and FY 2002 202 prorated). Consequently, for this analysis, EPA used an average of 218 initial annual submissions and a multiplier of 0.50 for followup supplemental submissions/ year ( 0.50 x 218 = 109) for a total of 327 annual submissions.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The following discussion provides the basis for the Agency's upper bound estimate of approximately 6,431 total hours of annual reporting burden for respondents in complying with section 8( e).

EPA believes that in a large company it should take no more than 25 hours to judge and concur on the section 8( e) applicability of obtained information plus 2 additional hours to prepare/ submit the necessary information. Using the estimate of 218 initial section 8( e) notices Page 10 per year, the total number of hours required for initial section 8( e) reporting would be 5,886 hours ( 218 x 27 hours = 5,886 hours). The submission of follow up/ supplemental information by a large company in response to EPA questions based on an initial section 8( e) submission, or as a result of further investigation/ evaluation by the company, is estimated to be 5 hours per notice, assuming 3 hours to assemble the required information, 1 hour to prepare the submission, and 1 hour for review. EPA's experience over the last three fiscal years is that approximately 0.50 section 8( e) follow up/ supplemental submissions are received on a yearly basis per initial submission for an additional reporting burden of 545 hours ( 218 x 0.50 = 109 x 5 = 545 hours).

Therefore, the total estimate of section 8( e) notices ( initial plus follow up/ supplemental submissions) received is about 327 notices per year with an estimated hourly respondent reporting burden of 6,431 hours per year ( 5,886 hours + 545 hours = 6,431 hours).

INITIAL SUBMISSIONS SUBTOTAL Burden Item Hours/ Respondent Respondents/ Year Hours/ Year a1 25 218 5,450 b2 2 218 436 5,886 1 Reflects managerial/ technical review, data evaluation, decision making and concurrence processes to determine the section 8( e) reportability and crafting the usually 1 2 page section 8( e) notification letter. 2 This item reflects general clerical work ( typing, copying, and sending the section 8( e) notice).

Considering that the respondent's decision making/ concurrence activities for determining section 8( e) applicability/ reportability has already taken place for the initial submission, the activities surrounding the submission of follow up/ supplemental information related to the initial submission are viewed by the Agency as being more simple in nature and are reflected as being less burdensome as follows:

FOLLOW UP/ SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS SUBTOTAL Burden Item Hours/ Respondent Respondents/ Year Hours/ Year a1 4 109 436 b2 1 109 109 545 1 This item involves managerial and technical review, concurrence and letter writing activities in submitting a follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) notice. 2 This item reflects the typing, copying and transmittal of a follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) notice.

Based on the figures presented in the preceding charts, the total respondent burden ( in hours/ year) for submitting an initial and follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submission to EPA is as follows: Page 11 TOTAL HOURLY BURDEN/ YEAR Initial Follow Up/ Supplemental Total Submissions + Submissions = Hours/ Year 5,886 hours/ year + 545 hours/ year = 6,431 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs EPA estimates that a respondent incurs costs of up to $ 105/ hour in labor costs in submitting information to EPA under section 8( e). ( This hourly cost takes into account the involvement of the respondent's managerial, technical and clerical personnel and takes into account standard labor wage rates ( including fringe benefits) using 2002 information; these wage rates are consistent with those used in economic analyses performed for other section 8 recordkeeping/ reporting activities.). The hourly labor wage rates used in the computations are as follows:

Hourly Labor Rates Labor Category 2002 Hourly Rate Managerial $ 105 Technical $ 77 Secretarial $ 31 It should be noted that section 8( e) reporting does not involve operating/ maintenance or capital costs to the respondent; however, it does involve non burden costs associated with mailing the submission to EPA. Respondents most likely will use return receipt, certified mail, priority mail, or other postage options that potentially incur additional cost beyond regular postage; EPA's postage cost estimates of $ 10.00 per submission are based on an average of the costs of using these various options. Based on the total estimated annual reporting burden of 6,431 hours and a total of 327 submissions, the upper bound yearly cost for respondents ( using the mangerial hourly labor rates) is estimated to be as follows:

Total Annual Cost Burden Hours/ Labor Costs ( 6,431 x $ 105) = $ 675,255 Postal Costs ( 327 x $ 10.00) = $ 3,270 TOTAL COST = $ 678,525 6( c) Estimating EPA Burden and Costs Based on reasonable costs estimated for reports received by EPA as the result of general section 8 rule making activities, EPA estimates an average cost of $ 85  $ 155 for the Agency to process, copy, file, and initially review and/ or answer questions with regard to each section 8( e) Page 12 submission. Therefore, EPA estimates its total yearly cost for these activities involving approximately 327 incoming section 8( e) notices ( 218 initial plus 109 follow up/ supplemental notices/ year) to range from $ 27,795  $ 50,685 per year as follows:

EPA BURDEN/ COSTS Initial/ Follow Up/ Supplemental Cost of EPA Total Submissions per Year x Processing/ Review = Cost/ Year 327 submissions/ year x $ 85$ 155/ Submission = $ 27,795$ 50,685/ year 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( i) Respondents' Annual Burden Hours and Costs The following table illustrates the calculations of the total annual burden hours and costs ( including non/ burden mailing costs) for the respondents:

Respondents' Annual Burden Hours and Costs Section 8( e) Notice Submissions Average Annual Submissions Burden Hours Costs ($)

@ Total @ Total Initial 218 27 5,886a Follow up/ Supplemental 109 5 545a Total Burden 6,431 $ 105 $ 675,225b Mailing Costs ( non burden costs) 327 $ 10 $ 3,270 c Total Costs d $ 678,525 a Submissions x per response burden (( 218x27) & ( 109x5)) b Burden hours x labor rate ( 6,431x105) c Annual submissions x average mailing costs ( 327x10) d Total Burden Hour Costs + Total Non Burden Hour Costs ( 675225+ 3270)

Total Respondent Burden Hours = 6,431 hours Total Respondent Costs = $ 678,525 ( ii) EPA's Annual Burden/ Cost ( Upper bound Estimate)

Initial Section 8( e) Notices 218 notices x $ 155/ notice = $ 33,790 Follow up/ Supplemental Section 8( e) Notices Page 13 109 notices x $ 155/ notice = $ 16,895 EPA's Total Annual Upper bound Estimated Burden/ Cost 327 notices x $ 155/ notice = $ 50,685 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden The estimate in respondent reporting burden hours associated with this ICR totals 6,431 hours, as compared with 8,209 total hours contained in the most recent approval of the ICR. This decrease in burden hours results from an overall decrease in section 8( e) reporting, primarily from a reduction in the number of follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) notices received. In previous ICR renewals, EPA used an historical average of 2.2 follow up notices per each initial submission. This figure was based on EPA's experience and system for reviewing section 8( e) notices in place pre 1990. During that time EPA received fewer than 100 initial notices per year and was able to perform a much more detailed review of each notice received. The consequence of that review was that there was much more interaction with the submitting companies generating numerous follow up notices and information submittals. However, during and since the CAP, because of the increase in initial notices submitted, EPA has contacted submitters for additional information only on those initial notices that are identified during the preliminary screening evaluation as needing additional information from the submitters. Consequently, the number of follow up notices has fallen due to the changed nature of EPA's review of initial notices. Over the last three fiscal years, EPA has received 341 follow up notices versus 653 initial notices, or approximately 0.5 follow up notices per initial notice.

In addition, EPA has separately identified mailing costs for the first time in this ICR, i. e., mailing costs of $ 10 per 327 submissions, or $ 3,270 ( adjustment).

6( f) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 27 hours per initial section 8( e) submission and 5 hours per follow up/ supplemental section 8( e) submission. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appears above. In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Page 14 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT 2002 0035, which is available for public viewing in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West Room B102, 13301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search", then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include OMB Control No. 2070 0046 in any correspondence.

ATTACHMENTS:

[ NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, an electronic copy of the attachment is available in the electronic version of the public docket available through EDOCKET at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Once in the system, select " quick search," then indicate that you'd like to search by Docket and key in the following docket ID number: OPPT 2002 0035. Search the docket index for the document by the title provided below. If you have any difficulties, please contact the technical person listed in the Federal Register notice announcing the submission of this ICR to OMB for review and approval.]

Attachment Document # 1 The Statute: Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8( e), 15 U. S. C. 2607( e) [ The electronic copy for this attachment is available as part of the electronic copy of the ICR's Supporting Statement.]

# 2 Federal Register Notice that sought public comment pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). August 22, 2002 ( 67 FR 54416). Document ID No. OPPT 2002 0035 0001.

# 3 Public Comments Received During Public Notice and Comment Period [ Available only in paper in the public docket.]

# 3 EPA Response to Public Comments [ The electronic copy for this attachment is available as part of the electronic copy of the ICR's Supporting Statement.] ATTACHMENT 1 The Statute: Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8( e) 15 U. S. C. 2607( e)

[ The electronic copy for this attachment is available as part of the electronic copy of the ICR's Supporting Statement.] Sec. 2607. Reporting and retention of information * * *

( e) Notice to Administrator of substantial risks Any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information. ATTACHMENT 2 Federal Register Notice that sought public comment pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d) August 22, 2002 ( 67 FR 54416)

Document ID No. OPPT 2002 0035 0001 ATTACHMENT 3 Public Comments Received During Public Notice and Comment Period [ Available only in paper in the public docket.] ATTACHMENT 4 EPA Response to Public Comments Received on this ICR [ The electronic copy for this attachment is available as part of the electronic copy of the ICR's Supporting Statement.] December 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Public Comments on Section 8( e) ICR Renewal FROM: Oscar Hernandez, Director / s/ Rick Assessment Division ( 7403M)

TO: Angela Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( 7101M)

In response to the Federal Register Notice ( 67 FR 54416, August 22, 2002) announcing the renewal of the Information Collection Request ( ICR) for Section 8( e) of TSCA ( ICR No. 0794.10, OMB No. 2070 0046), the Agency received comments from two persons. The comments are summarized below followed by RAD's response.

1. Kokopelli Chemists, Inc.

Comment: The definition of " substantial risk" needs to be defined as: actual or imminent serious endangerment to human health or the environment.

Response: We believe the proposed definition would set too high a threshold for reporting and by extension would introduce a more extensive exposure component into Section 8( e) reporting than currently exists. The current definition strikes an appropriate balance between the seriousness of an effect and exposure, ice., the more serious the effect the less one should weigh exposure. The proposed definition could have the result of a company not reporting a serious effect because, in their estimation, they adequately control exposure. The same exposure controls may not occur at other manufacturing or use facilities resulting in significant exposure to a hazardous chemical. RAD believes the current definition has served the purposes of Section 8( e) without any significant degree of over reporting.

Comment: " Trigger point" guidance should be developed regarding toxicology and ecotoxicity endpoints for Section 8( e) reporting.

Response: In the 1991 Reporting Guide and in responses to industry inquiries, EPA has provided such " trigger point" guidance. RAD will continue to ensure that all the guidance is available on the Section 8( e) Web site page. Also, in the revised reporting guidance for environmental contamination/ release, we provided additional " trigger point" guidance in the form of Agency established benchmark levels such as RfDs and RfCs. However, some effects, such as mammalian systemic effects, are generally not amenable to such bright lines due to the combination of effects seen at different dose levels and their severity. Where possible, we will provide as much " trigger point" guidance as possible. Comment: The Agency should issue its guidance for the environmental exposure aspects of TSCA 8( e) reporting.

Response: This guidance is in the process of being finalized.

2. American Chemistry Council ( ACC)

Comment: The burden estimate in the ICR is too low because it does not include any consideration of the time for internal training of personnel and the time spent reviewing information that may not ultimately be reported.

Response: The Section 8( e) reporting requirements as outlined in the Section 8( e) Policy Statement have been in effect since 1978. The Agency has provided guidance over the years at numerous TSCA training conferences and has recently made the guidance available via the Web. Since the guidance has not materially changed since its issuance, we do not believe that a separate accounting for training is necessary in this case, as opposed to other Agency actions where up front training is necessary due to new requirements. In addition, our experience over the years is that for many companies we communicate with the same regulatory staff, so we are at a loss as to how to estimate a " training" burden in this regard. Our understanding is that companies have established very routine procedures for Section 8( e) reporting that would obviate the need for the scope of training that ACC articulates.

Regarding the costs of reviewing studies that are not ultimately submitted, we would have a difficult time providing such an estimate since we do not have empirical data in this regard. The comment from Kokopelli Chemists, Inc. indicates that many companies have developed internal reporting criteria that should significantly reduce the number of studies reviewed that are not subsequently submitted to the Agency under Section 8( e).

In conclusion, based on the discussion above, we do not believe changes to the proposed ICR are warranted.

cc: Charles Auer Richard Hefter Ron Carlson


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25940-25943]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD;
Amendment 39-18912; AD 2017-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-14, for
certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 98-13-14
required repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes of the aft
fuselage, and corrective action if necessary. This new AD continues to
require the actions in AD 98-13-14, with revised inspection compliance
times. This AD was prompted by identification of cracks in the fastener
holes of the former junction of the aft fuselage, which occurred during
a fatigue test; and a determination that certain compliance times
specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 11, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 11,
2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July
30, 1998 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7262.

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-2016-
7262; 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 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 to supersede AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June
25, 1998) (``AD 98-13-14''). AD 98-13-14 applied to certain Airbus
Model A320 series airplanes (Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes).
Since we issued AD 98-13-14, an evaluation by the DAH indicates that
the former junction of the aft fuselage is subject to fatigue damage.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 (81 FR
40210). The NPRM was prompted by the identification of four cracks in
the fastener holes in the area of the former junction at frame (FR) 68
between stringers 4 and 5 (left- and right-hand sides), which occurred
during a fatigue test, and a determination that certain compliance
times specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. The NPRM proposed to
continue to require the actions in AD 98-13-14, with revised inspection
compliance times. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks from
occurring or propagating in certain structures, which could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''); to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a fatigue test campaign, four cracks were identified in
the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between
stringers 4 and 5.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction
g[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'aviation civile] France issued * * * [an
AD, which corresponds to FAA AD 98-13-14] to require repetitive
inspections and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of an
applicable repair solution.
    That [DGAC] AD also provided modification of FR 68 [cold working
of fastener and tooling holes] in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1090 as optional terminating action.
    Following new analyses, the thresholds and inspection intervals
have been reviewed and adjusted.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 96-298-093(B)R2 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/F-1996-298R2], which is superseded, and
requires those actions within the new thresholds and intervals.
    This [EASA] AD was republished to correct a typographical error
in the Reason.

    Repairs include doing applicable related investigative actions
(i.e., rotating probe inspection of the hole to make sure the crack is
removed and eddy current inspection of the cold expanded holes). 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-2016-
7262.

Comments

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

Request To Update Service Information

    Airbus requested that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089,
Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016, be referred to in the final rule. This
service information replaces a certain nondestructive test manual (NTM)
task, removes an eddy current inspection for a certain service bulletin
task, and updates the service bulletin airplane effectivity.
    We agree with the request and have revised paragraphs (h) and (i)
of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision
04, dated June 1, 2016. We have also added paragraph (k)(1)(iii) to
this AD to provide credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089,
Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015.

Additional Changes to the NPRM

    We have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD to remove
references to the revision level and date of the service information
that must be used for determining the compliance time, because
operators might have used other versions for their most recent
inspection. The number of affected U.S. registered airplanes has also
been changed from 10 to 4. The total cost to operators has been changed
accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including 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 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 Airbus service information:
     Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1,
2016. This service information describes procedures for a special
detailed rototest inspection for fatigue cracking of the frame junction
holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and
left-hand former junctions at FR 68, and repair, including doing
applicable related investigative actions.
     Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December
22, 1998. This service information describes procedures for modifying
the airplane (cold working of fastener and tooling holes).
    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 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial and repetitive             8 work-hours x $85             $0  $680 per inspection   $2,720 per
 inspections [retained from AD 98-  per hour = $680 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
 13-14].                            inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                        Labor cost          Parts cost      product
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair...............................  52 work-hours x $85 per        $3,800          $8,220
                                        hour = $4,420.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998), and adding
the following new AD:

2017-11-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-18912; Docket No. FAA-2016-7262;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 11, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556,
June 25, 1998) (``AD 98-13-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231
airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers
(S/Ns) 0001 through 0123 inclusive, except those that have embodied
Airbus Modifications 21780 and 21781 in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by identification of four cracks in the
fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between
stringers 4 and 5, which occurred during a fatigue test, and a
determination that certain compliance times specified in AD 98-13-14
must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks
from occurring or propagating in certain structures, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Repair, With Additional Methods
of Approving Repairs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
98-13-14, with additional methods of approving repairs. For Model
A320 series airplanes, as listed in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-
53-1089 and A320-53-1090, both dated November 22, 1995: Prior to the
accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight
cycles after July 30, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-13-14),
whichever occurs later, perform a rotating probe inspection for
fatigue cracking of the fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling
hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at
FR 68, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, dated November 22, 1995.
Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD
terminates the actions required by this paragraph.
    (1) If no crack is detected, accomplish either paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
20,000 flight cycles; or
    (ii) Prior to further flight following the accomplishment of the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, cold work the
fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole of the right- and
left-hand former junctions at FR 68, as applicable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995. Accomplishment of this cold
working constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.
    (2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA).

(h) New Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Accomplish a
special detailed rototest inspection for fatigue cracking of the
frame junction holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable,
of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600
flight hours, whichever occurs first, until a repair required by
paragraph (i) of this AD is done or a modification specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Accomplishing an inspection
required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) Within 28,700 flight cycles or 57,400 flight hours since
airplane first flight, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, since the most recent inspection done as specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1089.

    (3) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, without exceeding
20,000 flight cycles since the most recent inspection done as
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1089.

(i) New Repair Requirement

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair, including
doing all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1, 2016. Do all applicable
related investigative actions before further flight. Repair of an
airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated June 1,
2016, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) New Optional Modification

    Modification of an airplane, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090,
Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998, constitutes terminating action
for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD, provided the modification is accomplished before further
flight after accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h)
of this AD and no cracks were detected.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the service information
identified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or (k)(1)(iii) of
this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 01, dated
June 4, 1998.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 02, dated
February 3, 2003.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated
March 18, 2015.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information identified
in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22,
1995, which was incorporated by reference in AD 98-13-14, Amendment
39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 1, dated
June 10, 1998, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18,
2015; 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-2016-7262.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

(n) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 11, 2017.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 04, dated
June 1, 2016.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated
December 22, 1998. Pages 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of this document
are identified as Revision 1, dated June 10, 1998; and pages 3, 4,
5, and 6 of this document are identified as Revision 02, dated
December 22, 1998.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 30, 1998, AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June
25, 1998).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, dated November 22,
1995.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22,
1995.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) 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 May 23, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11290 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P