[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2712-2714]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1039]

General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices; Draft Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``General Wellness: Policy
for Low Risk Devices.'' FDA is issuing this draft guidance to provide
clarity to industry and FDA staff on the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health's (CDRH's) compliance policy for low risk products
that promote a healthy lifestyle (general wellness products). This
draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the

final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written
comments on the draft guidance by April 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices'' to the Office of the
Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bakul Patel, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5449, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance to provide clarity to industry
and FDA staff on CDRH's compliance policy for low-risk products that
promote a healthy lifestyle (general wellness products). CDRH does not
intend to examine low-risk general wellness products, as discussed in
this guidance, to determine whether they are devices within the meaning
of section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)), or, if they are devices, whether they comply
with the FD&C Act's regulatory requirements for devices. This guidance
does not apply to products regulated by other FDA Centers (e.g., drugs,
biologics, dietary supplements, foods, or cosmetics) or to combination
products, including those regulated by CDRH. By clarifying CDRH's
policy on general wellness products, we hope to improve the
predictability, consistency, and transparency on CDRH's regulation of
these products.
    For purposes of the guidance, CDRH defines ``general wellness
products'' as products which meet the following factors: (1) Are
intended for only general wellness use, as defined in this guidance and
(2) present a very low risk to users' safety. General wellness products
can include exercise equipment, audio recordings, mobile apps, video
games, and other products that are typically available from retail
establishments (including online retailers and distributors that offer
mobile apps to be directly downloaded), when consistent with the two
factors above.
    The scope of the guidance is limited to certain products that have
either: (1) An intended use that relates to maintaining or encouraging
a general state of health or a healthy activity or (2) an intended use
that associates the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce
the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions. For the
first category of general wellness products, the intended use do not
include any reference or connection to diseases or conditions and only
relate to weight management, physical fitness, relaxation or stress
management, mental acuity, self-esteem, sleep management, or sexual
function. For the second category of general wellness products, the
product is intended to promote, track, and/or encourage choice(s),
which, as part of a healthy lifestyle, may either help to reduce the
risk of, or help living well with, chronic diseases or conditions where
it is well understood that the healthy lifestyle choice(s) may reduce
the risk or impact of a chronic disease or condition.
    The general wellness policy does not extend to devices that present
inherent risks to a user's safety. The guidance sets out factors we
will consider to identify a device as low risk. If the product is
invasive, involves an intervention or technology that may pose a risk
to a user's safety if device controls are not applied (such as risks
from lasers, radiation exposure, or implants), raises novel questions
of usability, or raises questions of biocompatibility, then the device
is not covered by this guidance.
    We welcome comments on all aspects of this draft guidance. We are
particularly interested in comments regarding CDRH's proposed list of
general wellness intended uses that relate to maintaining or
encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity. Please
comment on the current list as well as other intended uses regarding
sustaining or offering general improvement to conditions and functions
associated with a general state of health that do not make any
reference to diseases or conditions that CDRH should consider including
in the list.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's proposed approach on general
wellness products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search
capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at
http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic
copy of ``General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices'' may send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 1830 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 (registration and listing
and premarket notification (510(k))) have been approved under OMB
control numbers 0910-0625 and 0910-0120, respectively; the collections
of information in 21 CFR part 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 (labeling) have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 820 (good manufacturing practice
requirements as set forth in the quality system regulation) have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 803 (medical device reporting (MDR)
requirements) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of

Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one
set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 12, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00756 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17786-17788]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1102; Notice No. 25-20-03-SC]

Special Conditions: Qantas Airways Limited, Boeing Model 737-800
Airplane; Personal Electronic-Device Straps Installed on Seat Backs

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model
737-800 airplane. This airplane, as modified by Qantas Airways Limited
(Qantas), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. This design feature is personal
electronic-device (PED) retention straps installed on the backs of
passenger seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2019-1102 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On June 12, 2019, Qantas applied for a supplemental type
certificate to install PED retention straps on passenger seat backs in
Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes. The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane is a
twin-engine transport airplane with seating for 189 passengers, and a
maximum takeoff weight of 174,200 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Qantas must show that the Boeing Model 737-800 series
airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No.
A16WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, as modified by Qantas, will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
    Personal electronic-device (PED) retention straps installed on the
backs of passenger seats.

Discussion

    In recent years, PEDs have been known to cause smoke and fires
inside the fuselage due to the PED falling into areas of the cabin
where it cannot be retrieved. The installation of a PED retention strap
is intended to reduce the possibly of smoke or fire in flight due to
PED loss throughout the cabin.
    The addition of a PED strap on the backs of passenger seats will be
a functional design feature to enable passengers to view their own
device without losing them throughout the cabin. The PED strap's
practical use is envisaged particularly during the meal service where
meal tray space is limited.
    Tablet devices and related PED designs are continually evolving, so
it is challenging to find a suitable method of retention. These special
conditions address the design and integration of a PED strap installed
onto the back of the headrest cover of the B/E Aerospace Millennium (J
class) and B/E Aerospace Innovator II (Y class) seats. The PED strap
will allow passengers to view a tablet device without having to hold
the device during the inflight phase. The PED strap must not be used
during taxi, takeoff, and landing. The PED strap is also subject to
certain load limits to ensure the strap can accommodate different PED
sizes.
    The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, as modified by Qantas. Should Qantas
apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any
other model included on Type Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part
of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes, as
modified by Qantas.
    1. The PED strap must meet the requirements of Sec.  3.1 (Abuse
Loads) of SAE International Aerospace Recommended Practice ``Aircraft
Seat Design Guidance and Clarifications'' document no. ARP5526C.
    2. The limitations section of the airplane flight manual must
prohibit use of PED straps during taxi, takeoff, and landing phases of
flight. Operational procedures may be used to achieve this.
    3. A means must be provided to limit the use of the PED strap to
passenger tablets and related PEDs. Placards may be used to achieve
this.
    4. The PED strap must be designed to support a 2.2-pound (1.0 Kg)
PED.
    5. Placards indicating the 2.2-pound (1.0 Kg) load limit of the PED
straps must be conspicuously posted.
    6. The PED straps must not impede egress, including in emergency-
exit passageways.
    7. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) must be
incorporated into the design, including wear and stretch limitations,
to ensure that strap wear is detected.
    a. PED straps must be inspected every 4,000 flight hours to ensure
that strap retraction and PED retention are maintained.
    b. The strap must not protrude beyond the dress cover by more than
1 inch (2.54 cm) to ensure that passengers do not use the strap as a
handle.
    c. Defective head-rest covers must be changed in accordance with B/
E Aerospace component maintenance manual (CMM) 25-20-82 (Millennium J

Class Seats) and CMM 25-21-42 (Innovator II Y Class Seats). Reference:
Qantas Engineering Controlled Report C7246--B738 +6Y Reconfiguration
2015--Instruction for Continued Airworthiness.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 20, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06362 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 51258-51260]
[DOCID:fr19au10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 11, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1403-001.
    Applicants: Stephentown Regulation Services LLC.
    Description: Stephentown Regulation Services LLC submits redlined
and clean versions of their market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2189-000.
    Applicants: NASDAQ OMX Commodities Clearing-Delivery, LLC.
    Description: NASDAQ OMX Commodities Clearing-Delivery LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.12: Market-

Based Rate Tariff in Compliance with Order No. 714 to be effective 8/
10/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2190-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: FPL Tariff No. 1 Baseline Filing to be effective 8/10/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2191-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35: 2010-08-10 ISO Request for Tariff Waiver
re Request Window for Economic Projects.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2192-000.
    Applicants: Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC .
    Description: Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC
submits tariff filing per 35.12: Constellation Energy Commodities Group
Maine Baseline MBR Tariff to be effective 8/10/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2193-000.
    Applicants: H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc.
    Description: H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. submits tariff filing
per 35.12: HQUS Baseline to be effective 8/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2194-000.
    Applicants: Luminant Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Luminant Energy Company LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Luminant Energy Company LLC MBR Baseline to be effective 8/11/
2010.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2195-000.
    Applicants: Driftwood, LLC.
    Description: Driftwood LLC submits the Petition for Acceptance of
Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authorization, Rate Schedule FERC
No. 1.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2196-000.
    Applicants: Lakewood Cogeneration Limited Partnership.
    Description: Lakewood Cogeneration Limited Partnership submits
tariff filing per 35.12: Lakewood Cogeneration Limited Partnership MBR
Baseline to be effective 8/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2197-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin Corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35: 20100811--Baseline Filing to be effective
8/11/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100811-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 01, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES10-53-000.
    Applicants: PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC, PATH
Allegheny Maryland Transmission Commission.
    Description: PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC, et al.,
Amendment to Section 204 Application.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH10-17-000.
    Applicants: Continental Energy Systems LLC.
    Description: Notice of Material Change in Facts for FERC-65A
Exemption and FERC-65B Waiver of Continental Energy Systems LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100810-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 31, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RD10-14-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: First Quarter 2010 Compliance Filing of the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation in Response to Paragraph 629
of Order No. 693.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100601-5214.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 20, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20506 Filed 8-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 216-217]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57041; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change to Permit Issuers of Index-
Linked Securities to Submit a Letter From the Issuer's Authorized
Executive Officer Rather Than Provide a Certified Copy of the
Resolution Adopted By the Issuers' Board of Directors, When the Issuers
Are Voluntarily Delisting the Securities From the Exchange and
Transferring the Listing to Another National Securities Exchange

December 26, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On October 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend section 806.02 of the NYSE Listed Company
Manual. The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register
on November 26, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56812 (November 19,
2007), 72 FR 66012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend section 806.02 of the Exchange's
Listed Company Manual to amend the voluntary delisting procedures by an
issuer of an index-linked security. Currently, any issuer that seeks to
voluntarily delist a security from the Exchange must provide the
Exchange with a certified copy of the resolution adopted by the
issuer's board of directors authorizing such delisting and comply with
all of the requirements of Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's proposal, issuers of index-linked securities
would no longer be required to provide a certified copy of the
resolution adopted by the issuers' board of directors, when these
issuers are voluntarily delisting the securities from the Exchange and
transferring the listing of the securities to another national
securities exchange. Rather, an issuer who voluntarily delists

an index-linked security, listed on the Exchange pursuant to sections
703.19 or 703.22 of the Listed Company Manual, in connection with the
transfer of the listing of the security to another national securities
exchange, would need to provide to the Exchange a letter signed by an
authorized executive officer of the issuer setting forth the reasons
for the delisting. The issuer of an index-linked security is required
to comply with all other aspects of section 806.02 of the Listed
Company Manual and Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Act, which requires, among
other things, that issuers comply with all applicable laws in effect in
the state in which they are incorporated.
    In addition, the Exchange is deleting obsolete rule text from
section 806.02 of the Listed Company Manual.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving the proposed rule change, as
amended, the Commission considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that requiring a letter from an authorized
executive officer instead of a certified copy of the resolutions
adopted by the issuer's board of directors is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 12d2-2 under the Act \7\ and notes that the
proposal is similar to the voluntary withdrawal procedures for dually-
listed issuers on NYSE Arca, Inc.\8\ Replacing the board certification
requirement with a letter from an authorized executive officer may ease
the burden on issuers of index-linked securities who wish to transfer
the listing to another national securities exchange. The Commission
notes that the security would continue to be listed and traded on a
national securities exchange.\9\ Further, the Commission notes that
requiring a letter from an authorized executive officer would ensure
the issuer properly made the delisting decision and complied with
applicable laws in effect in its jurisdiction, consistent with investor
protection and the public interest. The Exchange further represented
that the issuers informed the Exchange that under the laws of their
place of incorporation, no board of directors resolutions are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2.
    \8\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.4(b).
    \9\ In its filing, the Exchange represented that it does not
plan to list any more index-linked securities and the issuers of all
listed index-linked securities have agreed to the Exchange's request
to transfer the listing to NYSE Arca, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that since the securities would list and trade
on another national securities exchange, transparent last sale
information will continue to be disseminated on the securities on an
uninterrupted basis. It would also ensure the other protections for
trading a security on a national securities exchange remain, such as
the periodic reporting obligations under the Act.
    Finally, the Commission finds deletion of the obsolete language is
consistent with the requirements of the Act. The language to be deleted
is no longer in effect since the Commission approved NYSE rules to
comply with the July 2005 amendments to Rule 12d2-2 under the Act.
    Based on the above reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-99) is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25446 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47875-47876]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15717]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-11135-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for
Review and Comment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the EPA's
preliminary or continuing work plans for the following chemicals:
Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acid (CPPA); Killed, non-viable
Streptomyces acidiscabies strain RL-110T cells and spent fermentation
media; penflufen; propionic acid; straight chain lepidopteran
pheromones; and Streptomyces strain K61. With this document, the EPA is
opening the public comment period for registration review for these
chemicals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is the EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain
information that will assist the public in understanding the

types of information and issues that the agency may consider during
registration reviews. As part of the registration review process, the
Agency has completed preliminary or continuing workplans for all
pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. EPA initiates a registration
review by establishing a public docket for a pesticide registration
review case. The docket contains a Preliminary Work Plan (PWP)
summarizing information EPA has on the pesticide and the anticipated
path forward. A continuing work plan (CWP) allows for the registration
review process to continue for cases that have not completed the first
round of registration review and need additional data to complete the
review. Through this program, the EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    The EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals
listed in Table 1 in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.50, this notice announces the availability
of the EPA's preliminary or continuing work plans for the pesticides
shown in Table 1 and opens a 60-day public comment period on the work
plans.

 Table 1--Preliminary and Continuing Work Plans Being Made Available for
                             Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical review
  Registration review case name                           manager and
           and number                Docket ID No.          contact
                                                          information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy     EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-07  Hector Andres
 Acid (CPPA), Case Number 6320.    93.                 Maldonado,
                                                       [email protected], (202)
                                                       566-1373.
Killed, non-viable Streptomyces   EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-07  Monica Thapa,
 acidiscabies strain RL-110T       79.                 [email protected]
 cells and spent fermentation                          gov, (202) 566-
 media, Case Number 6523.                              1543.
Penflufen, Case Number 7065.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-02  Anna Senninger,
                                   23.                 [email protected], (202) 566-
                                                       2216.
Propionic Acid, Case Number 4078  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-00  Quinn Gavin,
                                   24.                 [email protected], (202) 566-
                                                       2284.
Straight Chain, Lepidopteran      EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-01  Bibiana Oe,
 Pheromones, Case Number 8200.     02.                 [email protected], (202) 566-
                                                       1538.
Streptomyces strain K61, Case     EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-08  Monica Thapa,
 Number 6066.                      32.                 [email protected], (202) 566-
                                                       1543.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Docket Content

    The registration review docket contains information that the agency
may consider in the course of the registration review. The agency may
include information from its files including, but not limited to, the
following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary (and for
some cases a continuing) work plan for anticipated data and assessment
needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During
this public comment period, the agency is asking that interested
persons identify any additional information they believe the agency
should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides.
The agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is
specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.50(b) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all preliminary registration
review work plans. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary changes to a pesticide's workplan. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES and must be received by the
EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of
the docket for the pesticides included in Table 1 in Unit IV. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The final registration review work plan will explain the
effect that any comments had on the final work plan and provide the
agency's response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-15717 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72554-72558]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1313; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-080-AD;
Amendment 39-17651; AD 2013-22-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV and GV-SP airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of two independent types of failure of the fuel
boost pump with overheat damage found on the internal components and
external housing on one of the failure types, and fuel leakage on the
other. This AD requires inspecting to determine if fuel boost pumps
having a certain part number are installed, replacing the fuel boost
pumps having a certain part number, and revising the airplane
maintenance program to include revised instructions for continued
airworthiness. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leakage in
combination with a capacitor clearance issue, which could result in an
uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

DATES: This AD is effective January 7, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 7,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For Gulfstream, Triumph Aerostructures, and General Electric
(GE) Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O.
Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 912-965-
3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2012-1313; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document
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: Darby Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2012 (77 FR
75908). The NPRM proposed to require doing an inspection to determine
if fuel boost pumps having a certain part number (P/N) are installed,
replacing the fuel boost pumps having a certain part number, and
revising the airplane maintenance program to include revised
instructions for continued airworthiness.
    This AD was prompted by reports of two independent types of failure
of the fuel boost pump with overheat damage found on the internal
components and external housing on one of the failure types, and fuel
leakage on the other. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leakage in
combination with a capacitor clearance issue, which could result in an
uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (77
FR 75908, December 26, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise the Precipitating Event

    Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) requested that the
precipitating event in the SUMMARY section of the NPRM (77 FR 75908,
December 26, 2012) be revised to provide clarity not provided elsewhere
in the NPRM--namely, although two distinct failure types have been
reported, there have been no reports of any fuel pump exhibiting both
failure types.
    We agree with Gulfstream's request. We agree that the failures in
service were separate events and no single pump was found with both
failure modes present. We have changed the SUMMARY section and
paragraph (e) of this final rule to include language suggested by the
commenter emphasizing the independent nature of the failure modes.

Request To Revise the Statement of Requirements

    Gulfstream requested that the statement of requirements in the
SUMMARY section of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012) be
revised. Gulfstream proposed to revise the wording to read, ``This
proposed AD would require doing an inspection to determine if fuel
boost pumps having a certain part number are installed, replacing the
fuel boost pumps having a certain part number with a later part number,
and revising the airplane maintenance program to include revised
instructions for continued airworthiness for airplanes with the later
pump part number installed.'' Gulfstream stated that the rewording
increases the content clarity in the NPRM.
    We disagree with Gulfstream's request to refer to ``later part
numbers'' because this language lacks clarity. This final rule requires
specific part number replacements. Therefore, we would need to use
specific part numbers to identify replacement parts. In addition, the
intent of the SUMMARY section is to provide a brief explanation of the
unsafe condition and corrective actions; therefore, we do not find it
appropriate to include details regarding specific part numbers. We have
not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise the Discussion Paragraph of the NPRM (77 FR 75908,
December 26, 2012)

    Gulfstream requested that the Discussion paragraph of the NPRM (77
FR 75908, December 26, 2012) be revised. Gulfstream proposed revising
the wording to add, ``Additionally, on one other fuel pump component, a

damaged o-ring between the `wet' and `dry' cavities of the boost pump
resulted in fuel ingress into the dry cavity and outside of the fuel
pump via the electrical pigtail.'' Gulfstream stated that the rewording
clarifies that the component referred to is a fuel pump, and that there
is one recorded incident; also additional information related to the
discovery of the incident is provided.
    We agree that the wording suggested by Gulfstream clarifies the
Discussion paragraph of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012),
which was drawn entirely from paragraph I.B. ``Reason,'' of Gulfstream
V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012; and Gulfstream G550
Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012. However, that portion of
the Discussion paragraph is not carried over into this final rule;
therefore, no change is necessary to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    Gulfstream requested that the unsafe condition identified in the
NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012) be revised. Gulfstream proposed
to revise the wording to read, ``If not corrected, the issue of the
fuel leakage in combination with the capacitor clearance issue could
result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.'' Gulfstream stated
that the revised description is consistent with the field experience of
independent failure types.
    We agree with Gulfstream's request since the rewording provides
more clarity of the unsafe condition. We have revised the SUMMARY
section, the Discussion paragraph, and paragraph (e) of this final rule
to state that fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance
issue could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

Request To Change the Title of Certain Service Information

    Gulfstream requested that we change the title of certain service
information in the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012). Gulfstream
stated that the correct title for the Gulfstream service information
should be referred to as ``customer bulletins.'' Gulfstream also stated
that the Model GV-SP airplanes include G500 and G550 airplane types, so
a G500 Customer Bulletin reference should be added.
    We acknowledge Gulfstream's request to correct citations for
certain service information. We agree that the referenced bulletins
should be referred to as ``customer'' bulletins; we have revised
document citations throughout this final rule accordingly. However,
although we agree that G500 and G550 airplanes are both included in the
Model GV-SP designation, we do not agree to add a reference to a
customer bulletin for G500 airplanes because doing so violates Office
of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials
``incorporated by reference'' in rules. (See 1 CFR 51.1(f).) In general
terms, we may not include elements in a document citation that are not
clearly specified on the document. Therefore, although we agree that
Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012, also
applies to G500 airplanes, we do not agree to revise the document
citation in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Differences Between the Proposed AD and the
Service Information Paragraph of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26,
2012)

    Gulfstream requested clarification of the Differences Between the
Proposed AD and the Service Information paragraph of the NPRM (77 FR
75908, December 26, 2012) to highlight that the proposed 36-month
compliance time will result in a slightly later completion date than
the compliance time specified in referenced Gulfstream customer
bulletins, and that the compliance time in the proposed AD takes
precedence over that of the referenced Gulfstream customer bulletins.
Gulfstream stated that it acknowledges a difference in compliance time,
but stated that the NPRM does not provide an explanation on the effect
on the completion date.
    We partially agree with Gulfstream's request. We agree that this AD
has a slightly different compliance time than that provided in the
service information. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we
considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal
maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the actions in this
AD, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. We arrived at
the compliance time with the manufacturer's concurrence. In addition,
the Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information
paragraph of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012) is not restated
in this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Part Numbers

    Gulfstream requested that the part numbers in the NPRM (77 FR
75908, December 26, 2012) be clarified. Gulfstream stated that the word
``Gulfstream'' should be added in front of P/N 1159SCP500-5 and P/N
1159SCP500-7 since the fuel pumps also contain GE part numbers.
    We agree with Gulfstream's request. When referencing P/N
1159SCP500-5 and P/N 1159SCP500-7, we have added the word
``Gulfstream'' in front of the part number in paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this AD.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    Gulfstream requested that we change the compliance time in
paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012). Gulfstream
proposed to revise the compliance time for the replacement of the fuel
boost pump from ``before further flight'' to ``within 36 months after
the effective date of this AD.''
    Gulfstream stated that approximately 2,250 fuel pumps having
Gulfstream P/N 11598SCP500-5 require an upgrade to Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7. Gulfstream stated that there are a limited number of
``seed'' fuel pumps to support this effort. Gulfstream stated that the
Gulfstream-managed program matches customer airplane availability with
supplier shop loading and seed unit availability, which allows for an
upgrade of all affected fuel boost pumps within a 42-month committed
timeframe without undue burden onto operators in terms of aircraft
downtime and missed trips. In addition, Gulfstream stated that a risk
assessment was presented to the FAA in 2010 that supported a change-out
interval of 48 months through a Gulfstream-managed program starting in
October 2011. Gulfstream stated that, based on the risk assessment,
Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012 (for Model GV
airplanes); and Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11,
2012 (for Model GV-SP airplanes); were issued to recommend replacement
of certain fuel pumps within 42 months since issuance of the service
information.
    Gulfstream stated that its proposed change to the compliance time
is consistent with the risk assessment, the intent of the managed
program, and the wording of the Gulfstream and supplier service
information. Gulfstream stated that, in contrast, the requirement to
change out Gulfstream P/N 11598SCP500-5 before the next flight is
unnecessary according to the Gulfstream risk assessment, and has the
potential to severely affect the Gulfstream-managed program, since
needed planning information will not be available to Gulfstream.
    We agree with Gulfstream's request to revise the compliance time in
paragraph (h) of this final rule to 36 months for the reasons provided
by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Leak Check Inspection

    Gulfstream requested we revise paragraph (i)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR
75908, December 26, 2012) to require the initial inspection before 500
flight hours have elapsed since installation of the Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7 pump, or before further flight if 500 flight hours have
elapsed since installation of the Gulfstream 1159SCP500-7 pump and an
initial fuel leak inspection has not been accomplished.
    Gulfstream stated that the inspection referred to in paragraph (g)
of the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012) determines the part number
of the fuel boost pump; therefore, a requirement for a leak check
inspection before further flight is inconsistent with the FAA-accepted
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and is only required if the
initial inspection interval of 500 flight hours has been exceeded since
installation of the Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 standard pump and an
initial leak check inspection has not been accomplished.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that
mandating the leak check inspection at the same time as the part number
inspection could cause the leak check to be done before 500 flight
hours has elapsed since the installation of the Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7 pump, because the Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 installation
might have just recently been done. However, we disagree with changing
the AD in this regard because the simplicity of the leak check, in
addition to the airplane already being under inspection in the area,
places minimal burden on the operator. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Revise Parts Installation Prohibition

    Gulfstream requested we revise paragraph (k) of the NPRM (77 FR
75908, December 26, 2012) to prohibit replacing a fuel boost pump
having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 with a fuel boost pump having
Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5. Gulfstream stated that this is to allow a
fuel boost pump having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 to be replaced by a
fuel boost pump of the same part number within 36 months after the
effective date of the AD, if a Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump is not
available, and to require that any Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 pumps
installed for that reason must be replaced with a Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7 pump within 36 months after the effective date of the AD.
    Gulfstream stated that its risk assessment supports a replacement
at intervals of 48 months from April 2012, and remains unaffected if a
Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 pump is replaced with a Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-5 pump, since the total number of Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-
5 pumps in service at any time is unchanged. Gulfstream stated that its
request is intended to avoid a situation where an airplane is grounded
because a Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 pump requires replacement for
cause and a Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7 pump is unavailable, but a
Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 is available.
    We disagree with Gulfstream's request to revise paragraph (k) of
this AD. In cases where a part is known to be unairworthy, such as when
it creates an unsafe condition, we might determine that, as of the
effective date of the AD, such a part is not allowed to be installed on
an airplane. ``Parts Installation Prohibition'' paragraphs (like
paragraph (k) of this AD) are intended to prevent an operator from
knowingly installing an unairworthy part on an airplane.
    We based the compliance time of 36 months specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD on a risk assessment of the Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation Model GV and GV-SP fleet performed in August 2010. The risk
assessment did not consider the possibility that additional fuel boost
pumps with Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 would be introduced into the
fleet during the 36-month compliance time. Therefore, we determined
that the ``Parts Installation Prohibition'' paragraph must prohibit
installation of the affected part as of the effective date of this AD.
We have not changed this AD in this regard. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we may approve requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 75908, December 26, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 357 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on
                  Action                              Labor cost            Parts cost    Cost per       U.S.
                                                                                product     operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to determine if a certain part   1 work-hour x $85 per hour =            $0          $85      $30,345
 number is installed.                        $85.
Maintenance program revision..............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =             0           85       30,345
                                             $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                On-Condition Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                     Action                                   Labor cost               Parts cost      product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.....................................  24 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $7,600        $9,640
                                                   $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-22-19 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-17651;
Docket No. FAA-2012-1313; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-080-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 7, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GV
and GV-SP airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2822, Fuel boost
pump.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two independent types of
failure of the fuel boost pump with overheat damage found on the
internal components and external housing on one of the failure
types, and fuel leakage on the other. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fuel leakage in combination with a capacitor clearance
issue, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the wheel well.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine the Part Number (P/N)

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect
the fuel boost pumps to determine whether Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-
5 is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012,
including the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD (for Model GV airplanes); or Gulfstream G550
Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11, 2012, including the service
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD
(for Model GV-SP airplanes). A review of airplane maintenance
records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number
of the fuel boost pumps can be conclusively determined from that
review.
    (1) Triumph Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-
JG0162, dated August 30, 2011.
    (2) GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15, 2011.

(h) Replacement

    If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals a
fuel boost pump with Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5: Within 36 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the fuel boost pump
with a serviceable pump having Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-7, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream V
Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012, including the service
information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD
(for Model GV airplanes); or Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122,
dated April 11, 2012, including the service information specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD (for Model GV-SP airplanes).
    (1) Triumph Aerostructures Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-
JG0162, dated August 30, 2011.
    (2) GE Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated February 15, 2011.

(i) Maintenance Program Revision

    Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
revise the airplane maintenance program to include Gulfstream
Document GV-GER-0003, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fuel
Boost Pump with Leak Check Port, dated November 24, 2010.
    (1) For airplanes on which fuel boost pump Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-5 has been replaced in accordance with paragraph (h) of
this AD: The initial compliance time for the inspection is within
500 flight hours after doing the replacement specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD reveals that a fuel boost pump with Gulfstream P/N
1159SCP500-7 has been installed: After revising the airplane
maintenance program, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, the
initial inspection is required before further flight after doing the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
fuel boost pump having

Gulfstream P/N 1159SCP500-5 on any airplane.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Darby Mirocha,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA,
Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:
(404) 474-5573; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(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.
    (i) Gulfstream V Customer Bulletin 197, dated April 11, 2012.
    (ii) Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 122, dated April 11,
2012.
    (iii) Triumph Service Bulletin SB-TAGV/GVSP-28-JG0162, dated
August 30, 2011.
    (iv) General Electric Service Bulletin 31760-28-100, dated
February 15, 2011.
    (v) Gulfstream Document GV-GER-0003, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, Fuel Boost Pump with Leak Check Port, dated November
24, 2010.
    (3) For Gulfstream, Triumph Aerostructures, and General Electric
Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O.
Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 912-
965-3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 25, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-28860 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68902-68904]
[DOCID:fr06de07-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    NAR Exemptive Request; OMB Control No. 3235-XXXX; SEC File No.
270-573.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for pre-approval of an exemptive request
by the National Association of Realtors[reg] (``NAR'') pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act'').

Background

    NAR has requested an exemption pursuant to Sections 15(a)(2) and
36(a) of the Exchange Act from the broker-dealer registration
requirements of Section 15(a)(1) and the reporting and other
requirements of the Exchange Act (other than Sections 15(b)(4) and
15(b)(6)), and the rules and regulations thereunder, that apply to a
broker or dealer that is not registered with the Commission. Subject to
the conditions specified in NAR's application (``Application''), the
requested exemption would allow any licensed real estate agent or
broker who is predominantly engaged in and has substantial experience
in the sale of commercial real estate (``Commercial Real Estate
Professional'') and the real estate brokerage firm with which he or she
is licensed (``Real Estate Firm'') (collectively, a ``RE Participant'')
to receive a real estate advisory fee (``Real Estate Advisory Fee'')
from a purchaser of an undivided tenant-in-common interest in real
property (``TIC Interest'') that is offered and sold together with
other arrangements that cause it to be deemed to be a security under
the federal securities laws (``TIC Security'').
    Under NAR's exemptive request, a Real Estate Advisory Fee could be
paid by the purchaser directly or on behalf of the purchaser by the
sponsor or issuer of the TIC Security, which could, thereby, reduce the
commission or other compensation received by a registered broker-dealer
involved in the TIC Security transaction. The Real Estate Advisory Fee
generally would be paid to the Real Estate Firm with which the
Commercial Real Estate Professional is licensed. The Firm would
distribute all or a previously agreed upon percentage of the Real
Estate Advisory Fee to the Commercial Real Estate Professional that
signed a buyer's agent agreement with the client and to any other
Commercial Real Estate Professional or Real Estate Firm that was added
to the agreement with the consent of the client.

Proposed Collections of Information

    The requested exemption would contain five collections of
information. First, the requested exemption would require a RE
Participant to deliver a copy of the executed buyer's agent agreement
to the registered broker-dealer acting as a placement agent (``Lead
Placement Agent''). The purpose of the first collection is to assist in
implementing the requested exemption and monitoring for compliance with
the exemption's conditions. The proposed delivery requirement is
designed to ensure that the Lead Placement Agent has a copy of the
buyer's agent agreement in order to comply with its recordkeeping
obligations discussed below, which would facilitate monitoring for
compliance. Without this collection of information, the Commission and
applicable self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') would be unable to
monitor the Lead Placement Agent's compliance.
    Second, the requested exemption would require any Commercial Real
Estate Professional that is to receive, directly or indirectly, a
portion of a Real Estate Advisory Fee to not be subject to any
``statutory disqualification,'' as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the
Exchange Act (other than subparagraph (E) of that section), and to
deliver a representation in writing to that effect to the Lead
Placement Agent at closing. The purpose of the second collection is to
ensure that the Lead Placement Agent has a copy of the statutory
disqualification representation in order to comply with its
recordkeeping obligations, which would facilitate monitoring for
compliance with the conditions of the requested exemption. Without this
collection of information, the Commission and applicable SRO would be
unable to monitor the Lead Placement Agent's compliance.
    Third, the requested exemption would require broker-dealers that
sell the TIC Securities as participating brokers (``Selling Broker-
Dealers'') to deliver a representation in writing that the Selling
Broker-Dealer performed a suitability analysis to the Lead Placement
Agent at closing, or, if the Selling Broker-Dealer is the Lead
Placement Agent, to make such a representation in writing at closing.
The purpose of the third collection is to ensure that the Lead
Placement Agent has a copy of the suitability analysis in order to
comply with its recordkeeping obligations, which would facilitate
monitoring compliance with the conditions of the requested exemption.
Without this collection of information, the Commission and applicable
SRO would be unable to monitor the Lead Placement Agent's compliance
and would be unable to ensure that the Selling Broker-Dealer had
conducted an appropriate suitability analysis.
    Fourth, the requested exemption would require a Selling Broker-
Dealer that determines that a TIC Security transaction is not suitable
to obtain a written affirmation that the customer wants to proceed with
the TIC Security transaction notwithstanding the Selling Broker-
Dealer's determination. It also would require the Selling Broker-Dealer
to deliver the written affirmation to the Lead Placement Agent at
closing or, if the Selling Broker-Dealer is the Lead Placement Agent,
to maintain the written affirmation consistent with the record
retention provisions of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4. The purpose of the
fourth collection is to ensure that the customer is informed if a
Selling Broker-Dealer determines a transaction is not suitable, and, if
the customer wants to proceed with the transaction, that the customer
has made such a decision in light of the broker-dealer's determination.
In addition, the proposed delivery requirement is designed to ensure
that the Lead Placement Agent has a copy of the customer affirmation in
order to comply with its recordkeeping obligations, which would
facilitate monitoring for compliance with the conditions of the
requested exemption. Without this collection of information, the
Commission and applicable SRO would be unable to monitor the Lead
Placement Agent's compliance and would be unable to ensure that the
Selling Broker-Dealer had conducted a suitability analysis and informed
the client of this determination.
    Fifth, the requested exemption would require the Lead Placement
Agent to maintain a copy of each of the documents that is to be made
and/or

delivered at closing, as discussed above (i.e., the buyer's agent
agreement, the statutory disqualification representations, the
suitability representation, and, if applicable, the customer's written
affirmation), and the relevant part of the real estate closing
documents that evidences the amount of the Real Estate Advisory Fee
paid to any RE Participant involved in the TIC Security transaction.
The purpose of the fifth collection is to facilitate monitoring for
compliance with the conditions of the requested exemption by compelling
the Lead Placement Agent to maintain records of all documents that are
required to be delivered at closing. Without this collection of
information, the Commission and applicable SRO would be unable to
monitor the Lead Placement Agent's compliance.

Estimate of Respondent Reporting Burden

a. Delivery of the Buyer's Agent Agreement to the Lead Placement Agent

    The Commission estimates that approximately 800 RE Participants
would rely on the requested exemption and each RE Participant would on
average deliver to the Lead Placement Agent a copy of an executed
buyer's agent agreement 6.63 times \1\ a year. Based on these
estimates, the Commission estimates that this requirement would result
in approximately 5,304 disclosures \2\ per year. The Commission also
estimates that a RE Participant would spend approximately five minutes
per disclosure to the Lead Placement Agent. Thus, the estimated total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this requirement is 442
hours \3\ for the RE Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission is estimating approximately 5,304 TIC
Security transactions would occur under the requested exemption.
Accordingly, 5,304 TIC Security transactions/800 RE Participants =
6.63. For purposes of this Statement, the Commission has rounded all
of its calculations to two decimal places.
    \2\ 6.63 x 800 = 5,304.
    \3\ 5,304 TIC Security transactions x five minutes per
transaction = 26,520/60 = 442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Delivery of Statutory Disqualification

    The Commission estimates that approximately 800 Commercial Real
Estate Professionals would rely on the requested exemption and each
Commercial Real Estate Professional would on average deliver the
written statutory disqualification representation 6.63 times \4\ a
year. Based on these estimates, the Commission anticipates that this
requirement would result in 5,304 disclosures \5\ per year. The
Commission estimates that approximately 95 percent of Commercial Real
Estate Professionals would spend approximately five minutes for each
representation to the Lead Placement Agent. The Commission also
estimates that approximately five percent of Commercial Real Estate
Professionals would spend approximately 30 minutes for their first
representation to the Lead Placement Agent, and five minutes for each
of the 5.63 subsequent representations. Thus, the estimated total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for these requirements is
458.67 hours \6\ for Commercial Real Estate Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 5,304 TIC Security transactions/800 Commercial Real Estate
Professionals = 6.63.
    \5\ 6.63 x 800 = 5,304.
    \6\ 800 x .95 x 6.63 x 5 = 25,194/60 = 419.90 total burden hours
for 95 percent of the Commercial Real Estate Professionals. 800 x
.05 x 1 x 30 = 1,200/60 = 20 hours for the first representation by
five percent of the Commercial Real Estate Professionals. 800 x .05
x 5.63 x 5 = 1,126/60 = 18.77 hours for the second and third
representations by five percent of the Commercial Real Estate
Professionals. Thus total burden hours would be 419.90 + 20 + 18.77
= 458.67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Suitability Determination by the Selling Broker-Dealer

    The Commission estimates that approximately 150 Selling Broker-
Dealers would either deliver or make a representation at closing and
each Selling Broker-Dealer would on average deliver or make such a
representation 33.59 times \7\ a year. The Commission also estimates
that a Selling Broker-Dealer would spend approximately five minutes on
each disclosure. Thus, the estimated total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this requirement is 419.90 hours \8\ for
Selling Broker-Dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission estimates that there would be approximately
5,304 TIC Security transactions a year. Thus, a Selling Broker-
Dealer would make or deliver approximately ((5,304 x .95)/150) =
33.59 determinations.
    \8\ (5,304 x .95) x five minutes per transaction = 25,194/60 =
419.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Customer Affirmation by the Selling Broker-Dealer

    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 150 Selling
Broker-Dealers that are potential respondents, those Selling Broker-
Dealers would obtain and then deliver or maintain a written affirmation
from 265.20 customers who are clients \9\ of Commercial Real Estate
Participants a year, and each Selling Broker-Dealer would on average
obtain and then deliver or maintain such an affirmation 1.77 \10\ times
a year. The Commission also estimates that a customer would spend
approximately 30 minutes on each disclosure and the Selling Broker-
Dealer would spend approximately 35 minutes on each disclosure. Thus,
the estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
proposed requirement is an aggregate of 132.60 hours for customers \11\
and 154.70 hours for the Selling Broker-Dealers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission estimates that approximately five percent of
all proposed TIC Security transactions would be determined to be not
suitable. 5,304 x .05 = 265.20.
    \10\ The Commission estimates that there would be approximately
5,304 TIC Security transactions under the requested exemption. The
Commission estimates that Selling Broker-Dealers would obtain and
then deliver or maintain the customer affirmation in five percent of
all transactions under the requested exemption. Thus, a Selling
Broker-Dealer would obtain approximately ((5,304 x .05)/150) = 1.77
affirmations a year.
    \11\ 265.20 TIC Security transactions (5,304 x .05) x 30 minutes
per transaction = 7956/60 = 132.60.
    \12\ 265.20 TIC Security transactions (5,304 x .05) x 35 minutes
per transaction = 9282/60 = 154.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Recordkeeping by the Lead Placement Agent

    The Commission estimates that approximately 45 Lead Placement
Agents would act pursuant to the requested exemption. On average, a
Lead Placement Agent would maintain copies of the relevant documents
for approximately 117.87 TIC Security transactions \13\ a year. The
Commission also estimates that a Lead Placement Agent would spend 10
minutes per closing to maintain a copy of these documents. Thus, the
estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
requirement is 884 hours.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 5,304 TIC Security transactions/45 Lead Placement Agents =
117.87.
    \14\ 5,304 TIC Security transactions x 10 minutes = 53,040/60 =
884.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Aggregated Burdens for Entering Data into ROCIS.

    For purposes of entering the above collections into the OMB ROCIS
system, the burdens discussed above have been summarized and aggregated
as follows. There are approximately 995 total respondents.\15\ There
are approximately 21 responses for each respondent.\16\ There are
approximately 20,895 total responses.\17\ Thus, there are approximately
.11 hours per response

for each respondent.\18\ There are approximately 2,298 total burden
hours for all respondents.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 800 + 150 + 45 = 995.
    \16\ 20,895 (total responses)/995 (total respondents) = 21.
Although total responses should be 21,216 ((800 x 6.63) + (800 x
6.63) + (150 x 33.59) + (150 x 1.77) + (45 x 117.87)), the number
has been reduced to 20,895 to ensure consistency with the other
data, specifically the 21 responses per respondent and .11 hours per
respondent, being entered into ROCIS.
    \17\ 995 (total respondents) x 21 (responses per respondent) =
20,895.
    \18\ 2,359 (total burden hours)/20,895 (total respondents) =
0.11.
    \19\ 20,895 (total responses) x .11 (hours per respondent) =
2,298.45. For purposes of entering this number into ROCIS, it has
been rounded to 2,298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: November 29, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23607 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P