[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80742-80744]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1202; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-167-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-
90-30 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the left and right upper center skin panels
of the horizontal stabilizer, and corrective action if necessary. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the upper skin
panel at the aft inboard corner of a right horizontal stabilizer. We
are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the horizontal
stabilizer upper center skin panel. Uncorrected cracks might ultimately
lead to the loss of overall structural integrity of the horizontal
stabilizer.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 7,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles ACO, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1202;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-167-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of a crack to a Model MD-80 airplane
upper center skin panel of the right horizontal stabilizer at the aft
inboard corner during an inspection for cracks in the upper and lower
aft skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer in accordance with AD
2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045 (72 FR 25960, May 8, 2007). That
airplane had accumulated 47,146 total flight hours and 26,490 total
flight cycles when the crack was found. The cause of the cracking is
suspected to be fatigue. The Model MD-90-30 airplane horizontal
stabilizer is similar in design and loading to that of the Model MD-80
airplane horizontal stabilizer. Therefore, Model MD-90-30 airplanes may
also be subject to the identified unsafe condition.
    A crack in the upper center skin panel may transfer the load to the
upper aft skin panel. This may result in the upper aft skin panel
cracking faster than the existing inspection intervals that are
required by AD 2009-13-08, Amendment 39-15947 (74 FR 30922, June 29,
2009). Uncorrected cracking could result in loss of the overall
structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A015, dated July
16, 2010. This service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive
eddy current inspections, either (Option 1) two high frequency eddy
current (ETHF) scans and one low frequency eddy current (ETLF) scan, or
(Option 2) three ETHF scans, to detect cracking of the right and left
upper center skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer. Corrective
actions include replacing any cracked horizontal stabilizer upper
center skin panel with a serviceable panel or contacting Boeing for
possible temporary repair instructions.
    The repetitive interval is 5,200 flight cycles or 2,500 flight
cycles depending on the eddy current inspection option selected.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A015, dated July 16, 2010,
provides an option to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how
to repair

cracking, but this proposed AD would require replacing the cracked skin
panel.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 19 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection......................  4 work-hours x $85 per           $0   $340 per inspection  $6,460 per
                                   hour = $340 per                       cycle.               inspection cycle
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                   Labor cost                Parts cost      product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skin panel replacement.......................  648 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $55,608      $110,688
                                                $55,080.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2010-1202; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-167-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model
MD-90-30 airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 55: Stabilizers.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the
upper center skin panel at the aft inboard corner of a right
horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks in the upper center skin panel of the horizontal stabilizer.
Uncorrected cracks might ultimately lead to the loss of overall
structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

Compliance

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

Inspections

    (g) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,778 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, do eddy current inspections to detect
cracking of the left and right upper center skin panels of the
horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A015, dated
July 16, 2010.
    (1) If no crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat the applicable inspections
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-55A015, dated
July 16, 2010.
    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the skin
panel with a serviceable skin panel, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
55A015, dated July 16, 2010. Within 20,000 flight cycles after the
replacement, do eddy current inspections as required by paragraph
(g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19,

send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

Related Information

    (i) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (562) 627-
5210; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (j) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32207 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to comply
with, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. Compliance with the information collection is
mandatory. Responses to the information collection are not kept
confidential and there is no mandatory retention period for the
information disclosed. The title for the affected collection of
information is: ``Regulation 14A (Commission Rules 14a-1 through 14a-21
and Schedule 14A)'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \310\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We adopted the existing regulations and schedule pursuant to the
Exchange Act. The regulations and schedule set forth the disclosure and
other requirements for proxy statements filed by issuers and other
soliciting parties. A detailed description of the proposed amendments,
including the need for the information and its proposed use, as well as
a description of the likely respondents, can be found in Section II
above, and a discussion of the expected economic effects of the
proposed amendments can be found in Section IV above.

B. Summary of the Proposed Amendments' Effects on the Collections of
Information

    The following table summarizes the estimated effects of the
proposed amendments on the paperwork burdens associated with Regulation
14A.

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

    \311\ See supra Section IV.C.2.i. We estimate that the decrease
in the number of shareholder proposals could range from 0 to 56%,
depending on shareholders' holding periods. For purposes of the PRA,
we assume an estimated decrease of 28%.
    \312\ In response to the Proxy Process Roundtable, commenters
provided several cost estimates associated with a company's receipt
of a shareholder proposal. These estimates are $87,000 (see letters
in response to the Proxy Process Roundtable from Blackrock, Inc.
dated November 16, 2018; Society for Corporate Governance dated
November 9, 2018); more than $100,000 (see letter in response to the
Proxy Process Roundtable from Exxon Mobil Corporation dated July 26,
2019); and approximately $150,000 (see letter in response to the
Proxy Process Roundtable from the American Securities Association
dated June 7, 2019). In addition, one observer estimated a cost of
approximately $50,000 ``based on anecdotal discussions with [members
of the Society for Corporate Governance].'' See Statement of Darla
C. Stuckey, President and CEO, Society for Corporate Governance,
Before the H. Comm. on Financial Services Subcomm. on Capital
Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Sep. 21, 2016. At an
estimated hourly cost of $400 per hour, these estimated costs would
correspond to the following estimated burden hours: 125 hours
($50,000 / $400 = 125), 218 hours ($87,000 / $400 = 218), 250 hours
($100,000 / $400 = 250), and 375 hours ($150,000 / $400 = 375).
    A July 2009 survey of Business Roundtable companies, in which 67
companies responded, indicated that the average burden associated
with preparing a no-action request related to a shareholder proposal
is approximately 47 hours with associated costs of $47,784. The
survey also indicated that the average burden for a company
associated with printing and mailing a single shareholder proposal
is 20 hours with associated costs of $18,982. See letter in response
to Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations, Release No. 34-
60089 (Jun. 10, 2009) [74 FR 29024 (Jun. 18, 2009)] from Business
Roundtable dated August 17, 2009, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-09/s71009-267.pdf. Thus, based on the Business
Roundtable's survey, the combined effect of these two aspects of
processing a shareholder proposal was estimated at 67 hours with
associated costs of $66,766.
    Informed by the range of estimates provided, we estimate that
the burden hours for a company associated with considering and
printing and mailing a shareholder proposal (not including burdens
associated with the no-action process) would be 100 hours (80 hours
associated with activities unrelated to printing and mailing, and 20
hours associated with printing and mailing). In addition, we
estimate that the burden hours associated with seeking no-action
relief would be 50 hours.
    We further estimate that 40% of proposals are included in the
proxy statement without seeking no-action relief, 16% are included
after seeking no-action relief, 15% are excluded after seeking no-
action relief, and 29% are withdrawn. Thus, we estimate 107 burden
hours associated with a company's receipt of a shareholder proposal,
calculated as follows:

     PRA Table 1--Estimated Paperwork Burden Effects of the Proposed
                               Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed amendments                    Estimated effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14a-8(b)(1)(i):
     Revise the ownership              28% decrease in the
     requirements that shareholders must        number of shareholder
     satisfy to be eligible to submit           proposal
     proposals to be included in an issuer's    submissions,\311\
     Schedule 14A proxy statement to the        resulting in a reduction
     following levels:                          in the average burden
    [cir] >=$2K to <$15K for at least 3         per response of 5.08
     years;.                                    hours.\312\
        [cir] >=$15K to <$25K for at least 2
         years; or
        [cir] >=$25K for at least 1 year.
Rule 14a-8(b)(1)(iii):
     Require shareholders to provide   Increase in the average
     the company with a written statement       burden per response of
     that they are able to meet with the        0.04 hours.\313\
     company in person or via teleconference
     no less than 10 calendar days nor more
     than 30 calendar days after submission
     of the shareholder proposal, and to
     provide contact information as well as
     business days and specific times that
     they are available to discuss the
     proposal with the company.
Rule 14a-8(b)(1)(iv):
     Require shareholders to provide   Increase in the average
     certain written documentation to           burden per response of
     companies if the shareholder appoints a    0.01 hours.\314\
     representative to act on its behalf in
     submitting a proposal under the rule.
Rule 14a-8(b)(1)(v):
     Disallow aggregation of holdings  0.2% decrease in the
     for purposes of satisfying the ownership   number of shareholder
     requirements.                              proposal
                                                submissions,\315\
                                                resulting in a reduction
                                                in the average burden
                                                per response of 0.04
                                                hours.\316\
Rule 14a-8(c):
     Provide that shareholders and     2% decrease in the number
     other persons cannot submit, directly or   of shareholder proposal
     indirectly, more than one proposal for     submissions,\317\
     the same shareholders' meeting.            resulting in a reduction
                                                in the average burden
                                                per response of 0.36
                                                hours.\318\
Rule 14a-8(i)(12):
     Increase the prior vote           7% reduction in the
     thresholds for resubmission of a           number of shareholder
     proposal that addresses substantially      proposals by reducing
     the same subject matter as a proposal      the number of
     previously included in company's proxy     resubmissions,\319\
     materials within the preceding 5           resulting in a reduction
     calendar years if the most recent vote     in the average burden
     occurred within the preceding 3 calendar   per response of 1.26
     years to:                                  hours.\320\
    [cir] Less than 5% of the votes cast if
     previously voted on once;.
        [cir] less than 15% of the votes cast
         if previously voted on twice; or
        [cir] less than 25% of the votes cast
         if previously voted on three or more
         times.
    Permit exclusion of proposals that
     addresses substantially the same subject
     matter as proposals that have been
     previously voted on three or more times
     in the last five years, notwithstanding
     having received at least 25% of the
     votes cast on the most recent
     submission, if the most recently voted
     on proposal (i) received less than 50%
     of the votes cast and (ii) experienced a
     decline in shareholder support of 10% or
     more of the votes cast compared to the
     immediately preceding vote.
                                              --------------------------
        Total................................  Net decrease in the
                                                average burden per
                                                response of 6.69
                                                hours.\321\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Incremental and Aggregate Burden and Cost Estimates for the Proposed
Amendments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     100 hours for 40% of proposals (i.e., proposals that
are included in the proxy statement without seeking no-action
relief);
     150 hours for 16% of proposals (i.e., proposals that
are included in the proxy statement after seeking no-action relief);
     130 hours for 15% of proposals (i.e., proposals that
are excluded from the proxy statement after seeking no-action
relief); and
     80 hours for 29% of proposals (i.e., proposals that are
withdrawn).
    The reduction in the average burden per response of 5.08 hours
is calculated by multiplying the expected reduction in proposals
(28%) by the average number of proposals received between 1997 and
2018 (946) for a reduction in the total number of proposals of 265.
This reduction in the number of proposals (265) is then multiplied
by the estimated burden hours per proposal (107) for a total of
28,355 burden hours. This total number of burden hours (28,355) is
then divided by the total number of responses (5,586) for a
reduction in the average burden per response of 5.08 hours.
    \313\ The increase in the average burden per response of 0.04
hours is calculated by multiplying the expected amount of time to
provide this information (20 minutes) by the expected average number
of expected proposals after taking account of the total reduction in
proposals submitted as a result of the proposed amendments (615) for
a total increase of 205 hours. This increase in burden hours (205
hours) is then divided by the total number of responses (5,586) for
an increase in the average burden per response of 0.04 hours.
    \314\ The increase in the average burden per response of 0.01
hours is calculated by multiplying the expected amount of time to
provide this information (20 minutes) by the expected number of
proposals submitted by a representative. We estimate that
approximately 18% of proposals are submitted by a representative;
thus, we multiply the average number of expected proposals after
taking into account the reduction in proposals as a result of the
proposed amendments (615) by 18% for a total of 111 proposals
submitted by a representative. The number of proposals (111) is
multiplied by the estimated amount of time to provide this
information (20 minutes) for a total of 37 hours. This increase in
burden hours (37 hours) is then divided by the total number of
responses (5,586) for an increase in the average burden per response
of 0.01 hours.
    \315\ See supra Section IV.C.2.i. We estimate that the decrease
in the number of proposals could range from 0 to 0.4%. For purposes
of the PRA, we assume an estimated decrease of 0.2%.
    \316\ The reduction in the average burden per response of 0.04
hours is calculated by multiplying the expected reduction in
proposals (0.2%) by the average number of proposals received between
1997 and 2018 (946) for a reduction in the total number of proposals
of 2. This reduction in the number of proposals (2) is then
multiplied by the estimated burden hours per proposal (107) for a
total of 214 burden hours. This total number of burden hours (214)
is then divided by the total number of responses (5,586) for a
reduction in the average burden per response of 0.04 hours.
    \317\ See supra Section IV.C.2.i.
    \318\ The reduction in the average burden per response of 0.36
hours is calculated by multiplying the expected reduction in
proposals (2%) by the average number of proposals received between
1997 and 2018 (946) for a reduction in the total number of proposals
of 19. This reduction in the number of proposals (19) is then
multiplied by the estimated burden hours per proposal (107) for a
total of 2,033 burden hours. This total number of burden hours
(2,033) is then divided by the total number of responses (5,586) for
a reduction in the average burden per response of 0.36 hours.
    \319\ See supra Section IV.C.2.iii, Table 9 for a discussion
regarding the estimated decrease in resubmitted proposals. That
discussion estimates that there would have been 269 additional
excludable resubmitted proposals (212 attributable to the revised
resubmission thresholds of 5%, 15%, and 25% and 57 attributable to
the Momentum Requirement) between 2011 and 2018 out of a total of
1,442 resubmitted proposals under the proposed amendments. A total
of 3,620 proposals were included in proxy statements during that
period. Thus, the estimated reduction in the number of shareholder
proposals is estimated by dividing 269 by 3,620, which yields 7%.
    \320\ The reduction in the average burden per response of 1.26
hours is calculated by multiplying the expected reduction in
proposals (7%) by the average number of proposals received between
1997 and 2018 (946) for a reduction in the total number of proposals
of 66. This reduction in the number of proposals (66) is then
multiplied by the estimated burden hours per proposal (107) for a
total of 7,062 burden hours. This total number of burden hours
(7,062) is then divided by the total number of responses (5,586) for
a reduction in the average burden per response of 1.26 hours.
    \321\ (5.08 + 0.04 + 0.36 + 1.26)-(0.04 + 0.01) = 6.69 hours
decrease in average burden per response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The paperwork burden estimate for Regulation 14A includes the
burdens imposed by our rules that may be incurred by all parties
involved in the proxy process leading up to and associated with the
filing of a Schedule 14A. This would include both the time that a
shareholder-proponent spends to prepare its proposals for inclusion in
a company's proxy statement, as well as the time that the company
spends to respond to such proposals. Our incremental and aggregate
reductions in paperwork burden as a result of the proposed amendments
represent the average burden for all respondents, including
shareholder-proponents and large and small registrants. In deriving our
estimates, we recognize that the burdens would likely vary among
individual proponents and registrants based on a number of factors,
including the propensity of a particular shareholder-proponent to
submit proposals, or the number of shareholder proposals received by a
particular company, which may be related to its line of business or
industry or other factors.

    As shown in PRA Table 1, the burden estimates were calculated by
estimating the number of parties expected to expend time, effort, and/
or financial resources to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or
provide information required by the proposed amendments and then
multiplying by the estimated amount of time, on average, each of these
parties would devote in response to the proposed amendments. For
purposes of the PRA, the burden is to be allocated between internal
burden hours and outside professional costs. For Regulation 14A we
estimate that 75% of the burden is carried by the company or the
shareholder-proponent internally and that 25% of the burden of
preparation is carried by outside professionals retained by the company
or the shareholder-proponent at an average cost of $400 per hour.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ We recognize that the costs of retaining outside
professionals may vary depending on the nature of the professional
services, but for purposes of this PRA analysis, we estimate that
such costs would be an average of $400 per hour. This estimate is
based on consultations with several issuers, law firms, and other
persons who regularly assist issuers in preparing and filing reports
with the Commission.

           PRA Table 2--Calculation of the Incremental Change in Burden Estimates of Current Responses Resulting From the Proposed Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Burden hour
 Number of estimated      reduction per      Reduction in burden   Reduction in internal hours   Reduction in professional    Reduction in professional
      responses             response         hours for responses          for responses             hours for responses          costs for responses
(A) \323\                           (B)                     (C) = (A) x (B)         (D) = (C) x 0.75             (E) = (C) x 0.25    (F) = (E) x $400
                                                        \324\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            5,586                  6.69                37,370                        28,027                        9,343                   $3,737,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table summarizes the requested paperwork burden,
including the estimated total reporting burdens and costs, under the
proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ The number of estimated affected responses is based on the
number of responses in the Commission's current OMB PRA filing
inventory. The OMB PRA filing inventory represents a three-year
average. We do not expect that the proposed amendments will
materially change the number of responses in the current OMB PRA
filing inventory.
    \324\ The estimated reductions in Columns (C), (D) and (E) are
rounded to the nearest whole number.
    \325\ From Column (D) in PRA Table 2.
    \326\ From Column (F) in PRA Table 2.

                                          PRA Table 3--Requested Paperwork Burden Under the Proposed Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Current burden                                   Program change                                Requested change in burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Current                                         Number of     Reduction in     Reduction in
    annual        Current        Current cost       affected       internal       professional       Annual         Burden hours         Cost burden
  responses     burden hours        burden         responses        hours            costs          responses
(A)                    (B)                  (C)          (D)      (E) \325\          (F) \326\      (G) = (A)        (H) = (B)-(E)              (I) = (C)-(F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      5,586        551,101        $73,480,012          5,586         28,027         $3,737,200          5,586              523,074          $69,742,812
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), we request comment in order
to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information would have practical
utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy and assumptions and estimates of the
burden of the proposed collection of information;
     Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
     Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those who respond, including through
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
     Evaluate whether the proposed amendments would have any
effects on any other collection of information not previously
identified in this section.
    Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning
the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing
these burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of
information requirements should direct their comments to the Office of
Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, and send a copy to, Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-23-19.
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard
to the collection of information should be in writing, refer to File
No. S7-23-19 and be submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of
this proposed rule. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if the OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \327\ requires the
Commission, in promulgating rules under Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, to consider the impact of those rules on
small entities. The Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') in accordance with Section 603 of the

RFA.\328\ This IRFA relates to proposed amendments to Rule 14a-8 of the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \328\ 5 U.S.C. 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action

    Rule 14a-8 facilitates the proxy process for shareholders seeking
to have proposals considered at a company's annual or special meeting;
however, the burdens associated with this process are primarily borne
by issuers. The proposed amendments are intended to balance
shareholders' ability to submit proposals with the attendant burdens
for companies and other shareholders associated with the inclusion of
such proposals in a company's proxy statement. The reasons for, and
objectives of, the proposed amendments are discussed in more detail in
Sections I and II, above.

B. Legal Basis

    We are proposing amendments to the rules under the authority set
forth in Sections 3(b), 14 and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Rules

    The proposed amendments would affect some small entities that are
either: (i) Shareholder-proponents that submit Rule 14a-8 proposals, or
(ii) issuers subject to the federal proxy rules that receive Rule 14a-8
proposals. The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean ``small business,''
``small organization'' or ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \329\
The definition of ``small entity'' does not include individuals. For
purposes of the RFA, under our rules, an issuer of securities or a
person, other than an investment company, is a ``small business'' or
``small organization'' if it had total assets of $5 million or less on
the last day of its most recent fiscal year.\330\ We estimate that
there are approximately 881 issuers that are subject to the federal
proxy rules, other than investment companies, that may be considered
small entities. We are unable to estimate the number of potential
shareholder-proponents that may be considered small entities; \331\
therefore, we request comment on the number of these small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \330\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \331\ For the purposes of our Economic Analysis, we have
estimated that there were 22,162,828 retail accounts that held
shares of U.S. public companies during calendar year 2017. There
were 170 unique proponents that submitted proposals that were
included in a company's proxy statement as lead proponent or co-
proponent during calendar year 2018. See supra Section IV.B.2. Out
of these 170 unique proponents, 38 were individuals and 132 were
non-individuals. Thus, no more than 132 of these unique proponents
would be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    As noted above, the primary purpose of the proposed amendments is
to balance shareholders' ability to submit proposals with the attendant
burdens for companies and other shareholders associated with the
inclusion of such proposals. If adopted, the proposed amendments would
likely reduce the number of proposals required to be included in the
proxy statements of issuers subject to the federal proxy rules,
including small entities. In turn, the proposed amendments would likely
reduce the costs to these issuers of complying with Rule 14a-8. If
adopted, the proposed amendments may reduce the number of proposals
that shareholder-proponents that are small entities would be permitted
to submit to issuers for inclusion in their proxy statements. In turn,
these small entities may experience an increase in shareholder-
engagement costs to the extent these small entities elect to increase
their investment to meet the eligibility criteria or pursue
alternatives methods of engagement, such as conducting their own proxy
solicitation. The proposed amendments that would require shareholder-
proponents to provide written documentation regarding their ability to
meet with the issuer and relating to the appointment of a
representative would slightly increase the compliance burden for
shareholder-proponents, including those that are small entities.\332\
Compliance with the proposed amendments may require the use of
professional skills, including legal skills. The proposed amendments
are discussed in detail in Section II, above. We discuss the economic
impact, including the estimated costs and benefits, of the proposed
rule to all affected entities, including small entities, in Section IV
and Section V, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ See supra Section V.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We believe that the proposed amendments would not duplicate,
overlap or conflict with other federal rules.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider alternatives
that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any
significant adverse impact on small entities. In connection with the
proposed amendments, we considered the following alternatives:
     Establishing different compliance or reporting
requirements that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
     Clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for small entities;
     Using performance rather than design standards; and
     Exempting small entities from all or part of the
requirements.
    Rule 14a-8 generally does not impose different standards or
requirements based on the size of the issuer or shareholder-proponent.
We do not believe that establishing different compliance or reporting
obligations in conjunction with the proposed amendments or exempting
small entities from all or part of the requirements is necessary. We
believe the proposed amendments are equally appropriate for
shareholder-proponents of all sizes seeking to engage with issuers
through the Rule 14a-8 process. While we do anticipate a moderate
increase in burden for shareholder-proponents, we do not believe that
imposing different standards or requirements based on the size of the
shareholder-proponent will accomplish the purposes of the proposed
amendments, and may result in additional costs associated with
ascertaining whether a particular shareholder-proponent may avail
itself of such different standards. For issuers, the proposed
amendments would not impose any significant new compliance obligations.
To the contrary, the proposed amendments would reduce the compliance
costs of affected issuers, including small entities, by decreasing the
number of shareholder proposals that may be submitted. For these
reasons, we are not proposing differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables for issuers that are small entities, or an
exception for small entities. However, we seek comment on whether and
how the proposed amendments could be modified to provide differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities
and whether such separate requirements would be appropriate.
    We believe that the proposed amendments do not need further
clarification, consolidation or simplification for small entities,
although we solicit comment on how the proposed amendments could be
revised to reduce the burden on small entities.

    The proposed amendments generally use design standards rather than
performance standards in order to promote uniform submission
requirements for all shareholder-proponents. We solicit comment as to
whether there are aspects of the proposed amendments for which
performance standards would be appropriate.

G. Request for Comment

    We encourage the submission of comments with respect to any aspect
of this IRFA. In particular, we request comments regarding:
     How the proposed rule and form amendments can achieve
their objective while lowering the burden on small entities;
     The number of small entities, including shareholder-
proponents, that may be affected by the proposed amendments;
     The existence or nature of the potential impact of the
proposed amendments on small entities discussed in the analysis; and
     How to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments.
    Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and
provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. Comments
will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, if the proposed amendments are adopted, and will
be placed in the same public file as comments on the proposed
amendments themselves.

VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA),\333\ the Commission must advise OMB as to whether
the proposed amendments constitute a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a
rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or is likely
to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or
more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    We request comment on whether the proposed amendments would be a
``major rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. In particular, we request
comment on the potential effect of the proposed amendments on the U.S.
economy on an annual basis; any potential increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries; and any potential effect on
competition, investment or innovation. Commenters are requested to
provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the
extent possible.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The amendments contained in this release are being proposed under
the authority set forth in Sections 3(b), 14 and 23(a) of the Exchange
Act, as amended.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Proposed Amendments

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission is proposing to
amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The general authority citation for part 240 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78dd, 78ll, 78mm,
80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et
seq., and 8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C.
1350; Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-
106, sec. 503 and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  240.14a-8 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. Revise paragraph (c); and
0
c. Revise paragraph (i)(12).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  240.14a-8   Shareholder proposals.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) To be eligible to submit a proposal, you must satisfy the
following requirements:
    (i) You must have continuously held:
    (A) At least $2,000 in market value of the company's securities
entitled to vote on the proposal for at least three years; or
    (B) At least $15,000 in market value of the company's securities
entitled to vote on the proposal for at least two years; or
    (C) At least $25,000 in market value of the company's securities
entitled to vote on the proposal for at least one year; and
    (ii) You must provide the company with a written statement that you
intend to continue to hold the requisite amount of securities,
determined in accordance with Sec.  240.14a-8(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C),
through the date of the shareholders' meeting for which the proposal is
submitted; and
    (iii) You must provide the company with a written statement that
you are able to meet with the company in person or via teleconference
no less than 10 calendar days, nor more than 30 calendar days, after
submission of the shareholder proposal. You must include contact
information as well as business days and specific times that you are
available to discuss the proposal with the company; and
    (iv) If you use a representative to submit a shareholder proposal
and/or otherwise act on your behalf in connection with the shareholder
proposal, you must provide the company with written documentation that:
    (A) Identifies the company to which the proposal is directed;
    (B) Identifies the annual or special meeting for which the proposal
is submitted;
    (C) Identifies you as the proponent and identifies the person
acting on your behalf as your representative;
    (D) Includes your statement authorizing the designated
representative to submit the proposal and/or otherwise act on your
behalf;
    (E) Identifies the specific proposal to be submitted;
    (F) Includes your statement supporting the proposal; and
    (G) Is signed and dated by you.
    (v) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) through (C), you may not
aggregate your holdings with those of another shareholder to meet the
requisite amount of securities.
    (2) The following methods may be used to demonstrate eligibility to
submit a proposal:
    (i) If you are the registered holder of your securities, which
means that your name appears in the company's records as a shareholder,
the company can verify your eligibility on its own, although you will
still have to provide the company with a written statement that you
intend to continue to hold the requisite amount of securities,
determined in accordance with Sec.  240.14a-8(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C),
through the date of the meeting of shareholders.
    (ii) If, like many shareholders, you are not a registered holder,
the company likely does not know that you are a shareholder, or how
many shares you own. In this case, at the time you submit your
proposal, you must prove your

eligibility to the company in one of two ways:
    (A) The first way is to submit to the company a written statement
from the ``record'' holder of your securities (usually a broker or
bank) verifying that, at the time you submitted your proposal, you
continuously held at least $2,000, $15,000, or $25,000 in market value
of the company's securities entitled to vote on the proposal for at
least three years, two years, or one year, respectively. You must also
include your own written statement that you intend to continue to hold
the requisite amount of securities, determined in accordance with Sec.
240.14a-8(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C), through the date of the meeting of
shareholders; or
    (B) The second way to prove ownership applies only if you were
required to file, and filed, a Schedule 13D (Sec.  240.13d-101),
Schedule 13G (Sec.  240.13d-102), Form 3 (Sec.  249.103 of this
chapter), Form 4 (Sec.  249.104 of this chapter), and/or Form 5 (Sec.
249.105 of this chapter), or amendments to those documents or updated
forms, demonstrating that you meet at least one of the share ownership
requirements under Sec.  240.14a-8(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C). If you have
filed one or more of these documents with the SEC, you may demonstrate
your eligibility to submit a proposal by submitting to the company:
    (1) A copy of the schedule(s) and/or form(s), and any subsequent
amendments reporting a change in your ownership level;
    (2) Your written statement that you continuously held at least
$2,000, $15,000, or $25,000 in market value of the company's securities
entitled to vote for at least three years, two years, or one year,
respectively; and
    (3) Your written statement that you intend to continue to hold the
requisite amount of securities, determined in accordance with Sec.
240.14a-8(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C), through the date of the company's
annual or special meeting.
    (c) Question 3: How many proposals may I submit? Each person may
submit no more than one proposal, directly or indirectly, to a company
for a particular shareholders' meeting. A person may not rely on the
securities holdings of another person for the purpose of meeting the
eligibility requirements and submitting multiple proposals for a
particular shareholders' meeting.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (12)(i) Resubmissions. If the proposal addresses substantially the
same subject matter as a proposal, or proposals, previously included in
the company's proxy materials within the preceding five calendar years
if the most recent vote occurred within the preceding three calendar
years and the most recent vote was:
    (A) Less than 5 percent of the votes cast if previously voted on
once;
    (B) Less than 15 percent of the votes cast if previously voted on
twice; or
    (C) Less than 25 percent of the votes cast if previously voted on
three or more times.
    (ii) A proposal that is not excludable under Sec.  240.14a-
8(i)(12)(i)(C) may nevertheless be omitted if it deals with
substantially the same subject matter as proposals previously voted on
by shareholders three or more times in the preceding five calendar
years if, at the time of the most recent shareholder vote, the
proposal:
    (A) Received less than 50 percent of the votes cast; and
    (B) The percentage of votes cast declined by 10 percent or more
compared to the immediately preceding shareholder vote on substantially
the same subject matter.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: November 5, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24476 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 26086-26087]
[DOCID:fr03my06-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0336; FRL-8058-4]

Pesticide Product Registrations; Conditional Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of applications
submitted by Suterra, LLC, to conditionally register the pesticide
products Checkmate BAW Technical Pheromone containing a new active
ingredient not included in any previously registered products pursuant
to the provisions of section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bryceland, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. i. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0336. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
.

    ii. Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the first
week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday, May 5,
2006, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket
will NOT be accepting any deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2
address and this facility will be closed to the public. Beginning on
May 8, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m.
and deliveries will be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code
for the mailing address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise
remain the same. The OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number
((703) 305-5805) and hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays) will remain the same after
the move.
    In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific
information used to support

registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10
of FIFRA, are available for public inspection in the OPP Regulatory
Public Docket (7502P), Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Requests for data
must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information
Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Such requests should: Identify the product name and registration number
and specify the data or information desired.
    A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this
registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Did EPA Conditionally Approve the Application?

    A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C)
of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on
condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional
registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set
forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional
registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and
that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has
considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed
use of (Z,E)-9,12-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate, and information on
social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from such
use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature and its pattern
of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of
potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make
basic health and safety determinations which show that use of (Z,E)-
9,12-tetradecadien-1-yl during the period of conditional registration
will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, and
that use of the pesticide is, in the public interest.
    Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has
determined that these conditional registrations are in the public
interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user
community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures
have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in
unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment.

III. Conditionally Approved Registrations

    EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of December
15, 2005 (70 FR 74316) (FRL-7749-7), which announced that Suterra, LLC,
213 S.W. Columbia Street, Bend, OR, 97702-1013, had submitted an
application to conditionally register the pesticide product, Checkmate
BAW Technical Pheromone, biochemical pheromone (attractant) for mating
disruption of the Beet Armyworm Moth (Spodoptera exigua) (EPA File
Symbol 56336-UT), containing (Z,E)-9,12-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate at
87.66% an active ingredient not included in any previously registered
product.
    The application(s) were conditionally approved on March 13, 2006,
for an end-use product and a technical listed below:
    1. Checkamate BAW Technical Pheromone. For manufacturing use only.
EPA Reg. No. 56336-47.
    2. Checkmate BAW-F. End use product for direct application to the
Beet Armyworm Moth. EPA Reg. No. 56336-43.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 25, 2006.

Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-6613 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S