[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49255-49257]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4797; File No. 803-00238]

Stephens Inc.

October 18, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and Rule 206(4)-5(e).

Applicant: Stephens Inc. (``Applicant'' or ``Adviser'').

Relevant Sections of the Act: Exemption requested under section 206A of
the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission issue an
order under section 206A of the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) exempting it
from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act to permit Applicant to receive
compensation from certain government entities for investment advisory
services provided to the government entities within the two-year period
following a contribution by a covered associate of the Applicant to an
official of the government entities.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 20, 2016, and an
amended and restated application was filed on June 21, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on November 13, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request
notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant: Stephens Inc., 111 Center
Street, Little Rock, AR 72201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, or Holly
Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551- 6825 (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a financial services firm established in Little
Rock, Arkansas and registered with the Commission as an investment
adviser under the Act. Applicant provides discretionary investment
advisory services to a wide variety of investors.
    2. The individual who made the campaign contribution that triggered
the two-year compensation ban (the ``Contribution'') is J. Bradford
Eichler (the ``Contributor''). The Contributor is an Executive Vice
President of the Applicant and is the head of Investment Banking for
the firm. The Contributor's role focuses on oversight of the Adviser's
corporate finance division. Applicant submits that, because the
Contributor is and at the time of the contribution was, an executive
officer of the Adviser, he is, and at all relevant times was, a covered
associate.
    3. Three of the Adviser's clients are government entities of the
City of Little Rock (the ``Clients''). Client A and Client B are city
pension funds and Client C is a fund maintained by the city for certain
expenses. The Clients are government entities as defined in Rule
206(4)-5(f)(5)(i).
    4. The recipient of the Contribution was Capi Peck (the
``Official''), who, at the time of the Contribution, was seeking the
office of director on the Little Rock Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors appoints a board member of Client A, appoints a city official
with authority to hire an investment manager for Client B and has
ultimate investment authority over Client C. Due to her position as a
director, the Official is an ``official'' of the Clients as defined in
Rule 206(4)-5(f)(6)(ii). As of the date of the application, the
Official has not participated in the appointment of anyone with
authority on Client A or Client B's decision to select an investment
adviser, nor has she participated in a decision affecting Client C's
investment with the Adviser.
    5. The Contribution that triggered rule 206(4)-5's prohibition on
compensation under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) was made online on October 17,
2016 for the amount of $1,000. Applicant submits that the Contribution
was not motivated by any desire to influence the award of investment
advisory business. Applicant represents that the Contributor does live
in Little Rock and has a longstanding friendship with the Official. The
Contributor has known the Official for approximately 30 years and known
her ex-husband and business partner for approximately 35 years. The
Contributor and the official's ex-husband also have a shared interest
in competitive swimming. The Contributor lived with them for a long
time during college, worked at their restaurant and has maintained
close relationships. His decision to make the Contribution was
spontaneous and motivated by his longstanding friendship with the
Official. Applicant submits that although the Contributor and the
Official are friends, they have not discussed the Adviser's advisory
business or the potential investments by the Clients. The Contributor
did not seek or coordinate any other contribution for the Official.
Applicant represents that the Contributor did not have any intention to
seek, and no action was taken by the Contributor or the Applicant to
obtain, any direct or indirect influence from the Official or any other
person.
    6. The Adviser has been doing business with Little Rock, its home
city,

since its founding in 1933. The investments were all made before the
date of the Contribution and before the Official took office. The
Clients current accounts were initiated between 2006 and 2014.
Applicant represents that none of the Clients have materially increased
the amounts of assets managed by the Adviser, initiated new investment
mandates, or opened new accounts with the Adviser since the
Contribution was made. Neither the Contributor nor anyone whom he
supervises was in any way involved in soliciting the Clients with
respect to any business.
    7. The Adviser became aware of the Contribution on November 16,
2016 when the Contributor remembered that, pursuant to the Adviser's
pay-to-play policy (the ``Policy''), he was required to obtain pre-
approval for his political contributions and, at his initiative,
contacted the Adviser's general counsel to inform him about the
Contribution. The Contributor requested a refund of the full $1,000
that day and received the refund on November 18, 2016. The Adviser
established an escrow account on December 5, 2016 into which it has
been depositing an amount equal to the compensation received with
respect to the Clients' investments since the date of the Contribution,
October 17, 2016. Applicant submits that all management fees earned
with respect to Clients' investments since the date of the Contribution
have been placed in escrow and will continue to be placed in escrow
pending the outcome of this application.
    8. The Policy was adopted on March 3, 2011. The Applicant submits
that all contributions by the Adviser's managing members, executive
officers and other ``covered associates,'' as well as those who could
in the future become covered associates, to any person who was at the
time of the contribution an incumbent, candidate or successful
candidate for an elective office of a government entity must be
precleared. There is no de minimis exception from the pre-clearance
requirement. Under the existing Policy, the Adviser circulated
reminders of the need to preclear. Employees subject to the Policy must
certify quarterly their contributions. In addition, annual employee
audit questionnaires ask about the employee's political contributions,
the Adviser does internet searches for contributions and verifies the
results of the quarterly certifications with its preclearance records.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act prohibits a registered
investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for
compensation to a government entity within two years after a
contribution to an official of a government entity is made by the
investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.
Each of the Clients is a ``government entity,'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(5), the Contributor is a ``covered associate'' as defined
in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Official is an ``official'' as defined
in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6).
    2. Section 206A of the Act authorizes the Commission to
``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . .
. from any provision or provisions of [the Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of [the Act].''
    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may conditionally
or unconditionally grant an exemption to an investment adviser from the
prohibition under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors
listed below, among others:
    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act;
    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) Before the contribution
resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule;
and (ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in
such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution;
and (iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) Has taken all
available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the
contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of
the contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive
measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a
covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser,
or was seeking such employment;
    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the
prohibition;
    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and
    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the
contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the
facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
    4. Applicant requests an order pursuant to section 206A and rule
206(4)-5(e), exempting it from the two-year prohibition on compensation
imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment advisory
services provided to the Clients within the two-year period following
the Contribution.
    5. Applicant submits that the exemption is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicant further submits that the other factors
set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an
exemption to the Applicant to avoid consequences disproportionate to
the violation.
    6. Applicant contends that given the nature of the Contribution,
and the lack of any evidence that the Adviser or the Contributor
intended to, or actually did, interfere with any client's merit-based
process for the selection or retention of advisory services, the
Clients' interests are best served by allowing the Adviser and its
Clients to continue their relationship uninterrupted. Applicant states
that causing the Adviser to serve without compensation for a two- year
period could result in a financial loss of approximately $1 million or
1000 times the amount of the Contribution. Applicant suggests that the
policy underlying rule 206(4)-5 is served by ensuring that no improper
influence is exercised over investment decisions by governmental
entities as a result of campaign contributions and not by withholding
compensation as a result of unintentional violations.
    7. Applicant represents that the Policy was adopted and published
in March 2011, well before the Contribution was made. Applicant further
represents that, at all times, the Policy has conformed to the
requirements of rule 206(4)-5 and has been more rigorous than rule
206(4)-5's requirements as the Adviser does internet testing as part of
its annual audit process and requires covered associates to certify
their compliance with the Policy and disclose all contributions
quarterly.
    8. Applicant asserts that at no time did any employee or covered
associate of the Adviser other than the Contributor have any knowledge
that the Contribution had been made before its discovery by the Adviser
in November 2016 when the Contributor self-reported the Contribution to
the Adviser.
    9. Applicant asserts that after learning of the Contribution, the
Adviser caused

the Contributor to immediately obtain a full refund of the
Contribution. Applicant submits that the Adviser reviewed its Policy
and concluded that it was adequate for preventing impermissible
contributions.
    10. Applicant states that after learning of the Contribution, it
confirmed that the although the Contributor's job would not ordinarily
cause him to interact with the Clients, after learning of the
Contribution, the Adviser, out of an abundance of caution, instructed
him not to solicit or otherwise communicate with the Clients for two
years following the date of the Contribution.
    11. Applicant asserts that the Clients' decisions to invest with
the Adviser occurred long before the Contribution was made, in October
2016. Furthermore, no investments were made in the month-long period
between the date of the Contribution and the day it was refunded.
Applicant states that, at the time of the Contribution and at the time
of the investments by the Clients, the Official has not had any role in
the Clients' investment decisions. Applicant also submits that the
apparent intent in making the Contribution was not to influence the
selection or retention of the Adviser. Applicant represents that the
Contributor and the Official have a long standing friendship as the
Contributor worked at the Official's restaurant and lived with the
Official and her ex-husband when he was in college. Applicant finally
states that it was because of that relationship, and not any desire to
influence the award of investment advisory business that the
Contributor made the Contribution to the Official's campaign.
    12. Applicant submits that neither the Adviser nor the Contributor
sought to interfere with the Clients' merit-based selection process for
advisory services, nor did they seek to negotiate higher fees or
greater ancillary benefits than would be achieved in arms' length
transactions. Applicant further submits that there was no violation of
the Adviser's fiduciary duty to deal fairly or disclose material
conflicts given the absence of any intent or action by the Adviser or
the Contributor to influence the selection process. Applicant contends
that in the case of the Contribution, the imposition of the two-year
prohibition on compensation does not achieve rule 206(4)-5's purposes
and would result in consequences disproportionate to the mistake that
was made.

Applicant's Conditions

    The Applicant agrees that any order of the Commission granting the
requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Contributor will be prohibited from discussing the business
of the Adviser with any ``government entity'' client for which the
Official is an ``official,'' each as defined in Rule 206(4)-5(f), until
October 18, 2018.
    2. The Contributor will receive a written notification of this
condition and will provide a quarterly certificate of compliance until
October 18, 2018. Copies of the certifications will be maintained and
preserved in an easily accessible place for a period of not less than
five years, the first two years in an appropriate office of the
Adviser, and be available for inspection by the staff of the
Commission.
    3. The Adviser will conduct testing reasonably designed to prevent
violations of the conditions of the Order and maintain records
regarding such testing, which will be maintained and preserved in an
easily accessible place for a period of not less than five years, the
first two years in an appropriate office of the Adviser, and be
available for inspection by the staff of the Commission.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22955 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10319-10321]
[DOCID:fr10mr09-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59490; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Incorporated NYSE Rules 12 (``Business
Day'') and 282 (Buy-in Procedures) and To Delete Incorporated NYSE Rule
177 (Delivery Time--``Cash'' Contracts) Relating to the Elimination of
NYSE Members' Ability To Enter Orders on the NYSE With Settlement
Instructions of ``Cash,'' ``Next Day'' and ``Seller's Option''

March 3, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 20, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Incorporated NYSE Rules 12 (``Business
Day'') and 282 (Buy-in Procedures), and to delete Incorporated NYSE
Rule 177 (Delivery Time--``Cash'' Contracts) \4\ to conform to the
proposed rule change by the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') to
its versions of Rules 12, 177 and 282.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 59446 (February 25,
2009) (File No. SR-NYSE-2009-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing changes to Incorporated NYSE Rules 12,\6\ 177
\7\ and 282 \8\ to conform these rules to recent amendments made by
NYSE. The NYSE's amendments remove references to certain settlement
instructions that are no longer compatible with the NYSE's electronic
market. These include instructions to settle on ``cash,'' ``next day''
or ``seller's option'' basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Incorporated NYSE Rule 12 defines the term ``business day.''
    \7\ Incorporated NYSE Rule 177 states the delivery time for
``cash'' contracts.
    \8\ Incorporated NYSE Rule 282 sets forth buy-in procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described by the NYSE in its filing,\9\ in the NYSE's current
environment, orders received by NYSE systems that are marketable upon
entry are eligible to be immediately and automatically executed.
According to the NYSE, order types and settlement instructions that
require manual intervention pose significant

impediments to the efficient functioning of the NYSE's market. In
addition, the NYSE states that the ability to have market participants'
orders executed in the most efficient manner necessitates the
elimination of cash, next day and seller's option as valid settlement
instructions for orders submitted to the NYSE. It adds that because
these instructions result in the orders printing to paper, the manual
intervention required in the processing of these orders puts the orders
at the very real risk of ``missing the market'' as a result of the
current speed of order execution in the NYSE market. Under the NYSE
filing, references to cash, next day and seller's option were deleted
from NYSE Rules 12 (``Business Day'') and 282 (Buy-in Procedures) as
valid settlement instructions for orders submitted to the NYSE. In
addition, the NYSE eliminated NYSE Rule 177 (Delivery Time--``Cash''
Contracts).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3 [sic]. The Commission notes that the
correct cross-reference is to note 5.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these changes, FINRA is proposing to make conforming changes
to Incorporated NYSE Rules 12, 177 and 282 to ensure consistency with
NYSE's versions of Rules 12, 177 and 282.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act, NASD, NYSE,
and NYSE Regulation, Inc. entered into an agreement (``Agreement'')
to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are Dual Members by
allocating certain regulatory responsibilities for selected NYSE
rules from NYSE Regulation to FINRA. The Agreement includes a list
of all those rules (``Common Rules'') for which FINRA has assumed
examination, enforcement and surveillance responsibilities under the
Agreement relating to compliance by Dual Members to the extent that
such responsibilities involve member firm regulation. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August
1, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring
Effective a Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities).
The Common Rules are the same NYSE rules that FINRA has incorporated
into its rulebook. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56147
(July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to
Incorporate Certain NYSE Rules Relating to Member Firm Conduct; File
No. SR-NASD-2007-054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to reduce the risk of customers missing the
market and possibly receiving inferior priced executions because of
legacy NYSE settlement instructions and to maintain consistency with
the NYSE's amendments to its Rules 12, 177 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition, and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative until 30 days after the date of filing.\15\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. FINRA has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change may become operative on March 13, 2009, the same date that
NYSE's amendments are implemented. The Commission believes that
allowing the proposed rule change to become operative on March 13, 2009
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that FINRA is merely revising its rules to conform
to a proposed rule change by the NYSE that will be operative on March
13, 2009,\17\ which will allow FINRA's Incorporated NYSE Rules to
maintain their status as Common Rules under the Agreement. Accordingly,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on
March 13, 2009.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii) In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59446 (Feb. 25,
2009) (File No. SR-NYSE-2009-17).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
the proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-007 and should be submitted on or before
March 31, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4965 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13298-13299]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2013-0014]

Notice of Retrospective Review of the Americans With Disabilities
Act Regulations for Over-the-Road Bus Operators; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DOT is seeking comments to help conduct a review of some
of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) implementing regulations for over-the-road bus (OTRB) operators.
The DOT will review regulations specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section. Your comments will assist DOT with making
decisions to modify or retain certain requirements found in these ADA
regulations.

DATES: Please send your comments by April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to
assist in our review of 49 CFR part 37 subpart H to the Office of
General Counsel. Mail or hand deliver comments to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590; submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov; or fax comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, or labor union). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Regulation and Enforcement (C-50), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
493-0308 (telephone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 28, 1998, the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT or the Department) issued final regulations, in
response to the ADA (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. 225 and
611), which required the accessibility of new over-the-road buses
(OTRBs) and accessible OTRB service. An OTRB is defined as ``a bus
characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage
compartment.'' 49 CFR 37.3. The regulations require commercial OTRB
operators to ensure that passengers with disabilities have access to
OTRB transportation. The DOT is required by 49 CFR 37.215 to review
various requirements within the ADA regulations for OTRB operators.
These requirements include the following: the purchase and lease
requirements of new OTRBs by operators of fixed-route systems (Sec.
37.183), the fleet accessibility requirements for OTRB fixed-route
systems of large operators (Sec.  37.185), the interline service
requirements (Sec.  37.187), the service requirement for OTRB demand-
responsive systems (Sec.  37.189), the special provision for small
mixed-service operators (Sec.  37.191), and the interim service
requirements for fixed-route operators (Sec.  37.193(a)). We are not
reviewing any other requirements in the ADA regulations for OTRB
operators at this time.
    As part of this review, DOT is required to consider certain
factors, including the percentage of accessible OTRBs in the fleets of
OTRB operators, the success of such operators at meeting the requests
of passengers with disabilities for accessible OTRBs in a timely
manner, ridership of OTRBs by passengers with disabilities, volume of
complaints by passengers with disabilities, and the cost and service
impacts of these requirements. After the review, DOT will decide
whether it is appropriate to revise the part 37 ADA regulations for
OTRB operators or retain the current regulations without change. The
DOT will publish a notice, after the review is complete, that announces
our decision and our justification.
    To this end, DOT requests comments and information so the
Department can better review such ADA regulations and make an informed
decision on whether to initiate a rulemaking to propose revisions to
any of the regulations involving OTRBs and, if so, how to develop a
notice of proposed rulemaking. Specifically, comments about OTRB fleet
accessibility, fulfillment of accessible OTRB service requests, and
ridership and volume of complaints by passengers with disabilities,
would be helpful. The DOT welcomes comments from the public, including
OTRB operators and individuals with disabilities, on any aspect of this
notice. The Department is particularly interested in comments from OTRB
operators, both large and small, on the following:
    1. The accessibility of your OTRB fleet. How many OTRBs do you own?
Of the OTRBs that you own, how many are accessible? How many OTRBs are
term-leased longer than 30 days? Of the OTRBs that are term-leased, how
many are accessible? Have you been successful at meeting the requests
of passengers with disabilities for accessible OTRBs in a timely
manner, and what challenges continue to exist in meeting these
requests?
    2. Accessibility arrangements. If your company does not own or
lease an accessible OTRB, what arrangements have you made to meet the
requirements to provide accessible transportation? For example, has
your company made arrangements with another company that operates an
accessible OTRB to provide accessible OTRB service on behalf of your
company when a 48-hour advance notice request for accessible OTRB
service is received?
    3. Received requests. Within the previous 12 months, have you
received any of the following inquiries, requests, or complaints, and,
if so, how many?
     Inquiries regarding whether your company owns or leases an
accessible OTRB,
     Inquiries regarding whether your company can provide
accessible OTRB service,
     Requests for accessible OTRB service that were received
with a minimum of 48-hour advance notice and satisfied according to the
requested provisions,
     Number of passengers with disabilities who have used your
company's accessible OTRB service, and
     Complaints regarding denial of accessible OTRB service to
an individual with a disability.

    4. Costs and Service Impacts. What are your company's costs of
providing accessible OTRB service? Please provide specific cost data
broken down into various cost categories (e.g., maintenance). What
effect does accessible transportation compliance have on your overall
operation?
    5. Other Comments. The Department is also interested in your input
on whether any specific requirement under review should be changed and
why. Please provide supporting information for your recommended change,
and explain whether the recommended regulatory change would affect all
types of OTRB operators or just one type, such as large fixed-route,
small fixed-route, or all demand-responsive operators.
    Your comments will help the Department conduct a review of its ADA
regulations for OTRB operators and decide whether to propose any
regulatory revisions. At this time, there are no pending proposed
revisions to DOT's ADA regulations for OTRB operators.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2013.
Robert S. Rivkin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-04309 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24445-24447]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09772]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30472; 812-14081]

Symetra Mutual Funds Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

April 19, 2013
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section
15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of the Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements
without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain
disclosure requirements.

Applicants: Symetra Mutual Funds Trust (the ``Trust'') and Symetra
Investment Management, Inc. (the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 3, 2012, and amended
on March 25, 2013.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on May 13, 2013 and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants,
Symetra Financial Corporation, 777 108th Avenue, Suite 1200, Bellevue,
WA 98004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6868, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment
Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the
Act as an open-end management investment company and currently offers
three series which are advised by the Adviser.\1\ The Adviser, a
Washington state corporation, is, and any future Adviser will be,
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser will serve as investment
adviser to the Funds under an investment advisory

agreement with the Trust (``Advisory Agreement'') that will have been
approved by each respective Fund's shareholders and the Trust's Board
of Trustees (``Board''),\2\ including a majority of the trustees who
are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the
Act, of either the Trust or the Adviser (``Independent Trustees'') in
the manner required by sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act and rule 18f-2
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing and
any future series of the Trust and any other existing and future
registered open-end management company or series thereof that: (a)
is advised by the Adviser, or any entity controlling, controlled by,
or under common control with the Adviser or its successor (each,
also an ``Adviser''); (b) uses the manager of managers structure
described in the application; and (c) complies with the terms and
conditions of the requested order (each, a ``Fund'' and
collectively, the ``Funds''). The only existing registered open-end
management investment company that currently intends to rely on the
requested order is named as an applicant and each series that
currently intends to be a Fund is identified in the application. For
purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an
entity or entities that result from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization. If
the name of any Fund contains the name of a Subadviser (as defined
below), that name will be preceded by the name of the Adviser.
    \2\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, and subject to the
authority of the Board, the Adviser is responsible for the overall
management of each Fund's business affairs and selecting each Fund's
investments according to that Fund's investment objectives, policies,
and restrictions. For the investment management services it will
provide to each Fund, the Adviser will receive the fee specified in the
Advisory Agreement from such Fund based on the average daily net assets
of the Fund. The Advisory Agreement permits the Adviser, subject to the
approval of the Board, to delegate certain responsibilities to one or
more subadvisers (``Subadvisers''). The Adviser expects to enter into
subadvisory agreements with various Subadvisers (``Subadvisory
Agreements'') to provide investment advisory services to the Funds.\3\
Each Subadviser is or will be an investment adviser as defined in
section 2(a)(20) of the Act as well as registered, or not subject to
registration, with the Commission as an ``investment adviser'' under
the Advisers Act. The Adviser evaluates, allocates assets to and
oversees the Subadvisers, and makes recommendations about their hiring,
termination and replacement to the Board, at all times subject to the
authority of the Board. The Adviser will compensate the Subadvisers out
of the advisory fee paid by a Fund to the Adviser under the Advisory
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Adviser has entered into Subadvisory Agreements with
DoubleLine Capital LP and Yacktman Asset Management L.P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, to select certain Subadvisers to manage all or a
portion of the assets of a Fund or Funds pursuant to a Subadvisory
Agreement and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining
shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any
Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3)
of the Act, of the Trust, a Fund, or of the Adviser, other than by
reason of serving as a subadviser to one or more of the Funds
(``Affiliated Subadviser'').
    4. Applicants also request an order exempting the Funds from
certain disclosure provisions described below that may require a Fund
to disclose fees paid by the Adviser to each Subadviser. Applicants
seek an order to permit the Trust to disclose for a Fund (as both a
dollar amount and as a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (a) The
aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadviser; and
(b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated
Subadvisers (collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). Any Fund that
employs an Affiliated Subadviser will provide separate disclosure of
any fees paid to the Affiliated Subadviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by a vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser
subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the
Subadvisers who are best suited to achieve the Fund's investment
objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the
shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is substantially equivalent to
that of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional
investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring
shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose
unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds and may preclude the Funds
from acting promptly when the Adviser and Board consider it appropriate
to hire Subadvisers or amend Subadvisory Agreements. Applicants note
that the Advisory Agreements and any Subadvisory Agreements with
Affiliated Subadvisers will remain subject to the shareholder approval
requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    7. If a new Subadviser is retained in reliance on the requested
order, the Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new
Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is
hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a
Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager
Information Statement; \4\ and (b) the Fund will make

the Multi-manager Information Statement available on the Web site
identified in the Multi-manager Notice no later than when the Multi-
manager Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information
Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and will maintain it on that
Web site for at least 90 days. In the circumstances described in the
application, a proxy solicitation to approve the appointment of new
Subadvisers provides no more meaningful information to shareholders
than the proposed Multi-manager Information Statement. Moreover, the
applicable Board will comply with the requirements of sections 15(a)
and 15(c) of the 1940 Act before entering into or amending Subadvisory
Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Exchange
Act, and specifically will, among other things: (a) summarize the
relevant information regarding the new Subadviser; (b) inform
shareholders that the Multi-manager Information Statement is
available on a Web site; (c) provide the Web site address; (d) state
the time period during which the Multi-manager Information Statement
will remain available on that Web site; (e) provide instructions for
accessing and printing the Multi-manager Information Statement; and
(f) instruct the shareholder that a paper or email copy of the
Multi-manager Information Statement may be obtained, without charge,
by contacting the Funds.
    A ``Multi-manager Information Statement'' will meet the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as
modified by the requested order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed electronically
with the Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief would
benefit shareholders of the Funds because it would improve the
Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisers. Applicants
state that the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a
Subadviser's ``posted'' amounts if the Adviser is not required to
disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the public.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Applicants will only comply with conditions 7, 8, 9 and 12
if they rely on the relief that would allow them to provide
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the
application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the
application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding
voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund
whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus
containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the
sole initial shareholder before offering the Fund's shares to the
public.
    2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence,
substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application.
Each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the manager
of managers structure described in the application. The prospectus will
prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility
(subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and
recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser
within 90 days after the hiring of a new Subadviser pursuant to the
Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any
Affiliated Subadviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination and selection of new or
additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of
the then-existing Independent Trustees.
    6. When a Subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of
the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of
interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then
existing Independent Trustees.
    8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the
applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    10. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of the Fund's assets and, subject to review
and approval of the Board, will (i) set each Fund's overall investment
strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage
all or part of a Fund's assets; (iii) when appropriate, allocate and
reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and
evaluate the performance of Subadvisers; and (v) implement procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that the Subadvisers comply with each
Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
    11. No trustee or officer of the Trust, or of a Fund, or director
or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly (other than
through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such
person) any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership of
interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the Adviser; or (b) ownership of less
than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of
a publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a
Subadviser.
    12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09772 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71302-71304]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0701; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-025-AD;
Amendment 39-18034; AD 2014-24-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various de Havilland Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Harry E. Williams de Havilland Model DH 82A airplanes, all Cliff
Robertson de Havilland Model DH 82A airplanes, and all de Havilland
Model DH 83 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of structural
failure of the attachment of the wing to the fuselage that resulted
from failed lateral fuselage tie rods. This AD requires inspecting the
aircraft maintenance records to determine the date of installation or
the date of last replacement of the lateral fuselage tie rods. This AD
also requires repetitively replacing all lateral fuselage tie rods and
attaching nuts at a specified life limit interval. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 6, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 6,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, for de
Havilland DH 82A airplanes, contact de Havilland Support Ltd., Building
213, Duxford Airfield, Cambridge, United Kingdom CB22 4QR, telephone:
+44 (0) 1223 830090; fax: +44 (0) 1223 830085; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.dhsupport.com/moth.php.
    For service information identified in this AD, for de Havilland DH
83 airplanes, contact Air Stratus Ltd., Oaksey Park Airfield, Oaksey,
Malmesbury, Wiltshite, United Kingdom SN 16 9SD; telephone: +44 (0)
1666 575111; no known Internet address.
    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0701; 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: 800-647-
5527) 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: For airplanes covered under Type
Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) A5PC (Model de Havilland DH 82A airplanes
built in Australia): Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort
Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150 (c/o San Antonio MIDO),
10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210)
308-3365; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For airplanes covered under TCDS A8EU (Model de Havilland DH 82A
airplanes built in the United Kingdom): Fred Guerin, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, California 90712; phone (562)
627-5232; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For airplanes covered under TCDS 2-439 (Model de Havilland DH 83
airplanes built in the United Kingdom): Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; 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 all Harry E. Williams de
Havilland Model DH 82A airplanes, all Cliff Robertson de Havilland
Model DH 82A airplanes, and all de Havilland

Model DH 83 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
September 15, 2014 (79 FR 54919). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
structural failure of the attachment of the wing to the fuselage that
resulted from failed lateral fuselage tie rods. The NPRM proposed to
require inspecting the aircraft maintenance records to determine the
date of installation or the date of last replacement of the lateral
fuselage tie rods. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitively
replacing all lateral fuselage tie rods and attaching nuts at a
specified life limit interval. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 54919, September
15, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 54919, September 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 54919, September 15, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 69 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the aircraft maintenance    1 work-hour x $85     Not applicable......             $85           $5,865
 records to determine the date of    per hour = $85.
 installation or date of last
 replacement of the lateral
 fuselage tie rods and attaching
 nuts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to the necessary replacements.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace lateral fuselage tie rods and       30 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $825           $3,375
 attaching nuts.                             $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):

2014-24-01 Harry E. Williams, Cliff Robertson, and de Havilland
Airplanes: Amendment 39-18034; Docket No. FAA-2014-0701; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-025-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Harry E. Williams and Cliff Robertson de
Havilland Model DH 82A airplanes, all serial numbers, and de
Havilland Model DH 83 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5341, Fuselage, Wing Attach Fittings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of structural failure of the
attachment of the wing to the fuselage that resulted from failed
lateral fuselage tie rods. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (g) through (h) of this AD, unless already done.

(g) Determine Date of Installation or Date of Last Replacement of the
Lateral Fuselage Tie Rods and Attaching Nuts

    Within the next 30 days after January 6, 2015 (the effective
date of this AD), review the aircraft records to determine the date
of installation or date of last replacement of the lateral fuselage
tie rods and attaching nuts.

(h) Replace the Lateral Fuselage Tie Rod and Attaching Nuts

    Initially replace the lateral fuselage tie rod and attaching
nuts at whichever of the compliance times specified in paragraph
(h)(1) or paragraph (h)(2) of this AD that applies. Repetitively
thereafter replace the lateral fuselage tie rod and attaching nuts
every 2,000 hours TIS or 18 years, whichever occurs first. Do the
replacement following the procedures in paragraph 2.C. of the
Accomplishment Instructions and the table on Figure 1 in British
Aerospace Military Aircraft and Aerostructures BAe Aircraft Bulletin
for De Havilland Moth Aircraft, Document Type and Ref No Technical
News Sheet CT (Moth) No 29, Issue 3, dated March 1, 1999.
    (1) If the date of lateral fuselage tie rod installation or date
of last replacement is known: Do the initial replacement at
whichever of the following compliance times in paragraph (h)(1)(i)
or paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this AD that occurs later:
    (i) Upon accumulating 2,000 hours TIS on the lateral fuselage
tie rod or upon reaching 18 years from the last lateral fuselage tie
rod replacement, whichever occurs first; or
    (ii) Within the next 6 months after January 6, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD) or within the next 100 hours TIS January
6, 2015 (after the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
first.
    (2) If the date of lateral fuselage tie rod installation or date
of last replacement is not known: Do the initial replacement within
the next 6 months after January 6, 2015 (the effective date of this
AD) or within the next 100 hours TIS after January 6, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager of the Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office
(ACO), the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), and the Manager of the Standards Office, FAA, have the
authority to approve AMOCs for their respective products covered by
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 applicable FAA
office, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3), as applicable.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD for airplanes covered
under Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) A5PC (Model de Havilland DH
82A airplanes built in Australia), contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth ACO, ASW-150 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210)
308-3365; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For more information about this AD for airplanes covered
under TCDS A8EU (Model de Havilland DH 82A airplanes built in the
United Kingdom), contact Fred Guerin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los
Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, California
90712; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For more information about this AD for airplanes covered
under TCDS 2-439 (Model de Havilland DH 83 airplanes built in the
United Kingdom), contact Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) 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) British Aerospace Military Aircraft and Aerostructures BAe
Aircraft Bulletin for De Havilland Moth Aircraft, Document Type and
Ref No Technical News Sheet CT (Moth) No 29, Issue 3, dated March 1,
1999.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For British Aerospace Military Aircraft and Aerostructures
service information identified in this AD, contact:
    (i) For de Havilland DH 82A airplanes: de Havilland Support Ltd,
Building 213, Duxford Airfield, Cambridge, United Kingdom CB22 4QR;
telephone: +44 (0) 1223 830090; fax: +44 (0) 1223 830085; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.dhsupport.com/moth.php.
    (ii) For de Havilland DH 83 airplanes: Air Stratus Ltd., Oaksey
Park Airfield, Oaksey, Malmesbury, Wiltshite, United Kingdom SN 16
9SD; telephone: +44 (0) 1666 575111; no known Internet address.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on November 18, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-27789 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Date:		January 30, 2003

Subject:	Occupational and Residential Risk Assessment to Support Request for a Section 3 Registration of Cyromazine on Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables Group 5, and Turnip Greens.

DP Barcode:

PC Code:

Trade Name:

EPA Reg#

MRID#

PRAT Case

Class

Caswell#

40 CFR

D285851

121301

Trigard ®

100-654

N/A

295479

Insecticide

N/A

N/A

From:		Jack Arthur, Environmental Scientist

Registration Action Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509C)

To:		William Wassell, Risk Assessor

Registration Action Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509C)

Thru:		Stephen Dapson, Ph.D., Branch Senior Scientist

Registration Action Branch 3

Health Effects Division (7509C)

Introduction

The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requests the establishment of tolerances for residues of the insecticide cyromazine on brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group 5 (including: abyssinian cabbage; bok choy; broccoli; broccoli, Chinese; broccoli raab; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese; cabbage, Chinese mustard; cabbage, seakale; cauliflower; cavalo broccolo; collards; Hanover salad; kale, common; kohlrabi; mustard, wild; mustard, Chinese; mustard greens; mustard spinach; and rape greens) and turnip greens .  This memorandum addresses risk from occupational and residential exposure only.  An aggregate human risk assessment for cyromazine will be included as a separate HED memorandum.

1.0  Executive Summary

Cyromazine is currently registered for a number of uses including, on mango, onion (green and dry bulb), potato, head lettuce, celery, leafy vegetables (except Brassica) crop group, cucurbit vegetables crop group, tomato, mushroom and pepper.  The formulated end use product evaluated in this assessment is labeled under the trade name Trigard®.  In this memorandum, the name cyromazine will be used for the active ingredient (ai) in this product.

Cyromazine is an insecticide for the control of leafminers.  The formulation of cyromazine evaluated in this assessment is a wettable powder, packaged in water-soluble packets (i.e., Trigard® 75% ai).  The petitioner proposes multiple foliar sprays at a rate of 0.125 lb ai/A, using ground or aerial equipment.  Applications are proposed to begin when leafminers first appear and continue throughout the season at 7-day intervals to maintain control.

There are no residential use sites associated with current or proposed uses of cyromazine.  Therefore, a residential risk assessment was not conducted.

There is a potential for occupational exposure to cyromazine during mixing, loading, application, and postapplication activities.  The Health Effects Division's Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) did not select any dermal endpoints for cyromazine, because no hazard was identified via the dermal route (i.e., no toxicity was observed at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day; there are no concerns for pre/postnatal toxicity; and dermal absorption is relatively low [13%]).  Therefore, the occupational risk assessment was based on inhalation exposure only.  For handlers, daily inhalation doses were compared to the oral NOAELs of 10 mg/kg/day (based on decreases in maternal body weight gain and food consumption in the developmental oral study in the rabbit) and 7.5 mg/kg/day (based on alterations in hematological parameters, body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights in the 6-month feeding study in the dog) to estimate the risk from short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposures, respectively.  Chronic exposures are not expected for handlers of cyromazine for the proposed use patterns.

No chemical-specific handler exposure data were submitted in support of this Section 3 registration.  It is the policy of the HED to use data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Version 1.1 as presented in PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide (8/98) to assess handler exposures for regulatory actions when chemical-specific monitoring data are not available (HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure Draft Policy # 7, dated 1/28/99).

Occupational handlers’ inhalation MOEs range from 34,000 for intermediate-term flagging sprays for aerial operations to 290,000 for short-term mixing/loading wettable powder packaged in water-soluble packets for groundboom application.  These MOEs are greater than HED’s target MOE of 100, and therefore, are not of concern.

Occupational postapplication dermal exposure is possible following treatment of crops with cyromazine.  However, because no appropriate dermal endpoints were identified for this exposure potential, and inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible for reentry activities, a postapplication risk assessment based foliar treatment was not conducted.

The current label for  Trigard® has a 12-hour restricted entry interval (REI).  The cyromazine technical material has been classified in Toxicity Category III for acute dermal, and Toxicity Category IV for primary eye irritation and primary skin irritation.  Per the Worker Protection Standard(WPS), a 12-hour restricted entry interval (REI) is required for chemicals classified under Toxicity Category III or IV.  Therefore, the REI of 12 hours is in compliance with the WPS.

2.0  Hazard Profile

On April 4, 2002, the Health Effects Division (HED) Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) reviewed the recommendations of the toxicology reviewer for cyromazine with regard to the acute and chronic Reference Doses (RfDs) and the toxicological endpoint selection for use as appropriate in occupational/residential exposure risk assessments.  The potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to cyromazine was also evaluated as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 according to the 2002 OPP 10x guidance document.  HED’s FQPA Safety Factor Committee met on August 12, 2002 and confirmed that the 10-fold safety factor for increased susceptibility of infants and children should be removed (i.e., reduced to 1x) for cyromazine for the U.S. population and all population subgroups and for all exposure scenarios.  The acute toxicity and endpoint selection for cyromazine are in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1.  Acute Toxicity Data on Cyromazine Technical

Guideline

 No.

Study Type

MRID #

Results

Toxicity Category

81-1

Acute Oral

00082836

LD50 = > 3387 mg/kg

III

81-2

Acute Dermal-Rat

00082839

LD50 = > 3100 g/kg

III

81-3

Acute Inhalation

43799901

LC50 > 0.744 mg/L

III

81-4

Primary Eye Irritation

00082841

no irritation

IV

81-5

Primary Skin Irritation

00082842

mild irritant

IV

81-6

Dermal Sensitization

00082843

non-sensitizing

Table 2.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyromazine for Use in Human Risk Assessment

Exposure

Scenario

Dose (mg/kg/day)

UF /MOE

Hazard Based Special FQPA Safety Factor

Endpoint for Risk Assessment

Dietary Risk Assessments

Acute Dietary

NA

NA

An appropriate end point attributable to a single dose (exposure) was not observed in oral toxicity studies.

Chronic Dietary

all populations

NOAEL = 7.5

UF =100

Chronic RfD =  0.075

1x

6-Month Feeding-Dog

LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based on  alterations in hematological parameters [hematocrit,  and hemoglobin (males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights

Incidental Oral

Short-Term

(1 - 30 Days)

Residential Only

NOAEL= 10

MOE= 100

1x

Developmental Toxicity-Rabbit

LOAEL=30 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption

Incidental Oral

Intermediate-Term

(1 - 6 Months)

Residential Only

NOAEL= 7.5

MOE = 100

1x

6-Month Feeding-Dog

LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based on  alterations in hematological parameters [hematocrit,  and hemoglobin (males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights

Non-Dietary Risk Assessments

Dermal

Short-Term

(1 - 30 days)

NA

No hazard was identified via the dermal route. Quantification of risk is not required.  There are no concerns for pre/post natal toxicity.

Residential

 MOE = NA

NA

Occupational

 MOE = NA

NA

Dermal

Intermediate-Term

(1 - 6 Months)

NA

No hazard was identified via the dermal route. Quantification of risk is not required.  There are no concerns for pre/post natal toxicity.

Residential

 MOE = NA

NA

Occupational

 MOE = NA

NA

Dermal

Long-Term

(> 6 Months)

NA

No hazard was identified via the dermal route. Quantification of risk is not required.  There are no concerns for pre/post natal toxicity.

Residential

 MOE = NA

NA

Occupational

 MOE = NA

NA

Inhalation

Short-Term

(1 - 30 days)

Oral NOAEL = 10

Developmental Toxicity-Rabbit

LOAEL=30 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption

Residential

 MOE = 100

1x

Occupational

 MOE = 100

NA

Inhalation

Intermediate-Term

(1 - 6 Months)

Oral NOAEL = 7.5

6-Month Feeding-Dog

LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based on  alterations in hematological parameters [hematocrit,  and hemoglobin (males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights

Residential

 MOE = 100

1x

Occupational

 MOE = 100

NA

Inhalation

Long-Term

(>6 Months)

Oral NOAEL = 7.5

6-Month Feeding-Dog

LOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day based on  alterations in hematological parameters [hematocrit,  and hemoglobin (males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights

Residential

  MOE = 100

1x

Occupational

  MOE = 100

NA

Cancer

Classification: E

NA = Not Applicable; MOE = Margin of Exposure.

3.0  Use Profile

The proposed uses for this Section 3 petition are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.  Summary of Use Patterns/Formulation Information

Formulation Type (% ai)

Application Method

Use Site

Application Rate

(lb ai/A)

Frequency of Application (interval)

Wettable Powder in Water-Soluble Packet

(75% ai)

Groundboom and Aerial Sprayer

brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group 5 (including: abyssinian cabbage; bok choy; broccoli; broccoli, Chinese; broccoli raab; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese; cabbage Chinese mustard; cabbage, seakale; cauliflower; cavalo broccolo; collards; Hanover salad; kale, common; kohlrabi; mustard, wild; mustard, Chinese; mustard greens; mustard spinach; and rape greens) and turnip greens

0.125

6 apps

 (7 days)

PHI = 7 days

4.0  Occupational Exposure

4.1   Handler Exposure and Risk

There is a potential for exposure to cyromazine during mixing, loading, and application  activities.  An exposure/risk assessment using applicable endpoints selected by the HIARC was performed.  No chemical-specific handler exposure data were submitted in support of this Section 3 registration.  In accordance with HED’s Exposure Science Advisory Council (SAC) policy, exposure data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Version 1.1 as presented in PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide (8/98) were used with other HED default values for acres treated per day, body weight, and the level of personal protective equipment to assess handler exposures.

Handler’s exposure and risk were estimated for the following scenarios:  (1) mixing/loading wettable powder packaged in water-soluble packets for aerial application, (2) mixing/loading wettable powder packaged in water-soluble packets for groundboom application, (3) applying sprays with fixed-wing aircraft, (4) applying sprays with a groundboom sprayer, and (5) flagging sprays for aerial operations.

The minimum level of PPE for handlers is based on acute toxicity for the end-use products.  The Registration Division (RD) is responsible for ensuring that PPE listed on the label is in compliance with the Worker Protection Standard (WPS).

As mentioned previously, no dermal endpoint was selected for cyromazine by the HIARC, because no hazard was identified via the dermal route (i.e., no toxicity was observed at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day; there are no concerns for pre/postnatal toxicity; and dermal absorption is relatively low [13%]).  Therefore, the occupational risk assessment was based on inhalation exposure only.  The daily inhalation doses were compared to the oral NOAELs of 10 mg/kg/day (based on decreases in maternal body weight gain and food consumption in the developmental oral study in the rabbit) and 7.5 mg/kg/day (based on alterations in hematological parameters, body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights in the 6-month feeding study in the dog) to estimate the risk from short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposures, respectively.  Chronic exposures are not expected for handlers of cyromazine for the proposed use patterns.

The MOEs range from 34,000 for intermediate-term flagging sprays for aerial operations to 290,000 for short-term mixing/loading wettable powder packaged in water-soluble packets for groundboom application.  These MOEs are above HED’s target of 100, and therefore, are not of concern.  Exposure assumptions and estimates for occupational handlers are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.  Inhalation Exposure and Risk Assessment for Occupational Handlers

PHED Scenario

Selected from PSEG (8/98)

PHED Unit Exposure 1

(mg/lb ai)

Application Rate 2

(lb ai/A)

Area Treated 3

(A/day)

Daily

Dose 4

(mg/kg/day)

Short- Term Inhalation

MOE 5

Intermed- Term Inhalation

MOE 5

1. Mixing/Loading Wettable Powder packaged in Water-Soluble Packets for Aerial Application

0.00024

0.125

350

0.00015

67,000

50,000

2. Mixing/Loading Wettable Powder packaged in Water-Soluble Packets for Groundboom Application

0.125

80

0.000034

290,000

220,000

3. Applying Sprays with Fixed-wing Aircraft (enclosed cockpit)

0.000068

0.125

350

0.000043

240,000

180,000

4. Applying Sprays with a Groundboom Sprayer (open cab)

0.00074

0.125

80

0.00011

95,000

71,000

5. Flagging (Sprays) for Aerial Operations

0.00035

0.125

350

0.00022

46,000

34,000

1Unit Exposure values are based on exposure without a respirator.  There is low confidence in values used for M/L wettable powder in water-soluble packets, high confidence in the values for groundboom application and flagging for aerial operations, and medium confidence in values used for aerial application with an enclosed-cockpit aircraft.

2 Maximum application rate of 0.125 lb ai/acre was used as a screening value.

3Standard values for acres treated in a day were used.

4 Daily Dose = [Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai handled) x Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Acres Treated (A/day)] / Body Weight (70 kg used because endpoint effects were not considered gender-specific)

5 MOE = NOAEL/ Daily Inhalation Dose.  Short-term Inhalation NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day.  Intermediate-term Inhalation  NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/day.

4.2   Postapplication Exposure and Risk

This action on cyromazine involves foliar applications.  Therefore, there is a potential for postapplication exposure to scouts, harvesters and other field workers.  However, because no appropriate dermal endpoints were identified for this exposure potential, and  postapplication inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible, an occupational postapplication risk assessment was not conducted.  Non-occupational postapplication risk in residential settings is covered in Section 5.0.

The current label for  Trigard® has a 12-hour restricted entry interval (REI).  The cyromazine technical material has been classified in Toxicity Category III for acute dermal, and Toxicity Category IV for primary eye irritation and primary skin irritation.  Per the Worker Protection Standard(WPS), a 12-hour restricted entry interval (REI) is required for chemicals classified under Toxicity Category III or IV.  Therefore, the REI of 12 hours is in compliance with the WPS.

5.0  Non-Occupational/Residential Exposure

There are no residential use sites associated with current or proposed uses of cyromazine.  Therefore, a residential risk assessment was not conducted.

Off Target Non-Occupational Exposure

Spray drift is always a potential source of exposure to residents nearby to spraying operations.  This is particularly the case with aerial application, but, to a lesser extent, could also be a potential source of exposure from the ground application method employed for cyromazine.  The Agency has been working with the Spray Drift Task Force, EPA Regional Offices and State Lead Agencies for pesticide regulation and other parties to develop the best spray drift management practices.  The Agency is now requiring interim mitigation measures for aerial applications that must be placed on product labels/labeling.  The Agency has completed its evaluation of the new data base submitted by the Spray Drift Task Force, a membership of U.S. pesticide registrants, and is developing a policy on how to appropriately apply the data and the AgDRIFT computer model to its risk assessments for pesticides applied by air, orchard airblast and ground hydraulic methods.  After the policy is in place, the Agency may impose further refinements in spray drift management practices to reduce off-target drift and risks associated with aerial as well as other application types where appropriate.

CC:     RAB3 RF

SignOff Date: January 2003

DP Barcode:  D285851

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42509]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17210]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-83-000]

NM Neptune, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 14, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a) of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), NM Neptune, LLC (NM Neptune),
filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission
disclaim jurisdiction over NM Neptune under sections 201 and 203(a)(1)
of the Federal Power Act, as amended (FPA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824,824b (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2014.

    Dated: July 16, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17210 Filed 7-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P