Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 4353 

safety-related functions while wearing a 

SCBA for several hours.’’ 

• Procedures should be developed to 

ensure control room purging is 

considered when the outside 

concentration is less than the inside 

concentration. NEI commented, 

‘‘Although this appears to be a good 

practice, it can’t be credited in the 

operator dose analysis. The timing of 

purging could be critical based on the 

timing of the release and the release 

pathway. Therefore, this 

recommendation may not have any 

practical merit.’’ 

The petitioner stated that because of 

the low risk significance of being 

outside the control room habitability 

program guidelines, a plant shutdown 

would not be required in this condition; 

rather, the program could specify that 

timely actions should be taken to return 

the plant within the guidelines. If not 

complete within 30 days, a special 

report would be sent to the NRC with 

a justification for continued operation 

and a proposed schedule for meeting the 

guidelines. NEI commented, ‘‘This is a 

valid point that the industry supports.’’ 

The petitioner stated that as an 

alternative to total removal of dose 

guidelines from the regulations, most of 

his concerns could be resolved if the 

dose criteria were based solely on the 

whole body dose from noble gases that 

he believes is the only possible dose 

impact that may result in control room 

evacuation. NEI commented, ‘‘It is not 

clear that the noble gas contribution 

would be limiting in all cases. However, 

this may be the case if KI were allowed 

to be credited.’’ 

Response: These comments have been 

addressed in Section III of this 

document. 

V. Denial of Petition 

Based upon review of the petition and 

comments received, the NRC has 

determined that the conclusions upon 

which the petitioner relies do not 

substantiate a basis to eliminate the 

control room radiological dose 

acceptance criteria from current 

regulations as requested. For the reasons 

discussed previously, the Commission 

denies PRM–50–87. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of January 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–1211 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM398; Notice No. 25–09–01– 

SC] 

Special Conditions: Model C–27J 

Airplane; Interaction of Systems and 

Structures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Alenia Model C–27J 

airplane. This airplane has novel or 

unusual design features when compared 

to the state of technology described in 

the airworthiness standards for 

transport-category airplanes. These 

design features include electronic flightcontrol systems. These special 

conditions pertain to the effects of novel 

or unusual design features such as 

effects on the structural performance of 

the airplane. We have issued additional 

special conditions for other novel or 

unusual design features of the C–27J. 

The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These proposed special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by February 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM398, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356. You may deliver two 

copies to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

NM398. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Thorson, FAA, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1357, facsimile 

(425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

You can inspect the docket before and 

after the comment closing date. If you 

wish to review the docket in person, go 

to the address in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a self-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it back to you. 

Background 

On March 27, 2006, the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

forwarded to the FAA an application 

from Alenia Aeronautica of Torino, 

Italy, for U.S. type certification of a 

twin-engine commercial transport 

designated as the Model C–27J. The 

C–27J is a twin-turbopropeller, cargotransport aircraft with a maximum 

takeoff weight of 30,500 kilograms. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of Section 21.17 

of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) and the bilateral agreement 

between the U.S. and Italy, Alenia 

Aeronautica must show that the C–27J 

meets the applicable provisions of 14 

CFR part 25, as amended by 

Amendments 25–1 through 25–87. 

Alenia also elects to comply with 

Amendment 25–122, effective 

September 5, 2007, for 14 CFR 25.1317. 

If the Administrator finds that 

existing airworthiness regulations do 

not adequately or appropriately address 

safety standards for the C–27J due to a 

novel or unusual design feature, we 

prescribe special conditions under 

provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. 

4354 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the C–27J must comply with 

the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission 

requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the 

noise-certification requirements of 14 

CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a 

finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant 

to § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the 

‘‘Noise Control Act of 1972.’’ 

The FAA issues special conditions, 

under §§ 11.19 and 11.38, and they 

become part of the type-certification 

basis under § 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, the special 

conditions also apply to the other model 

under § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The C–27J incorporates several novel 

or unusual design features. Because of 

rapid improvements in airplane 

technology, the existing airworthiness 

regulations do not adequately or 

appropriately address safety standards 

for these design features. This proposed 

special condition for the C–27J contains 

the additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

This special condition was derived 

initially from standardized requirements 

developed by the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC), 

comprised of representatives of the 

FAA, Europe’s Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA, now replaced by the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA)), and industry. From the initial 

proposal, the JAA proposed this special 

condition in Notice of Proposed 

Amendment (NPA) 25C–199. When 

Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile 

(ENAC) certified the C–27J they applied 

NPA 25C–199, issued July 3, 1997. 

Discussion 

The Alenia C–27J is equipped with 

systems that affect the airplane’s 

structural performance, either directly 

or as a result of failure or malfunction. 

That is, the airplane’s systems affect 

how it responds in maneuver and gust 

conditions, and thereby affect its 

structural capability. These systems may 

also affect the aeroelastic stability of the 

airplane. Such systems represent a 

novel and unusual feature when 

compared to the technology described 

in the current airworthiness standards. 

A special condition is needed to require 

consideration of the effects of systems 

on the structural capability and 

aeroelastic stability of the airplane, in 

both the normal and the failed states. 

This special condition requires that 

the airplane meet the structural 

requirements of subparts C and D of 14 

CFR part 25 when the airplane systems 

are fully operative. The special 

condition also requires that the airplane 

meet these requirements taking into 

consideration failure conditions. In 

some cases, reduced margins are 

allowed for failure conditions based on 

system reliability. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these proposed 

special conditions are applicable to the 

C–27J. Should Alenia apply at a later 

date for a change to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

features, these proposed special 

conditions apply to that model as well 

under the provisions of Sec. 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features of the Alenia 

C–27J. It is not a rule of general 

applicability, and it affects only the 

applicant that applied to the FAA for 

approval of these features on the 

airplane. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

proposes the following special 

conditions as part of the typecertification basis for the C–27J. 

1. General 

(a) The C–27J is equipped with 

systems that affect the airplane’s 

structural performance either directly or 

as a result of failure or malfunction. The 

influence of these systems and their 

failure conditions must be taken into 

account when showing compliance with 

requirements of subparts C and D of part 

25 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). The following 

criteria must be used for showing 

compliance with this proposed special 

condition for airplanes equipped with 

flight control systems, autopilots, 

stability-augmentation systems, loadalleviation systems, flutter-control 

systems, fuel-management systems, and 

other systems that either directly, or as 

a result of failure or malfunction, affect 

structural performance. If this proposed 

special condition is used for other 

systems, it may be necessary to adapt 

the criteria to the specific system. 

(b) The criteria defined here address 

only the direct structural consequences 

of the system responses and 

performances, and cannot be considered 

in isolation, but should be included in 

the overall safety evaluation of the 

airplane. These criteria may, in some 

instances, duplicate standards already 

established for this evaluation. These 

criteria are only applicable to structure 

the failure of which could prevent 

continued safe flight and landing. 

Specific criteria that define acceptable 

limits on handling characteristics or 

stability requirements, when operating 

in the system-degraded or inoperative 

mode, are not provided in this special 

condition. 

(c) Depending upon the specific 

characteristics of the airplane, 

additional studies may be required, that 

go beyond the criteria provided in this 

special condition, to demonstrate the 

capability of the airplane to meet other 

realistic conditions, such as alternative 

gust or maneuver descriptions, for an 

airplane equipped with a loadalleviation system. 

(d) The following definitions are 

applicable to this special condition. 

Structural performance: 

Capability of the airplane to meet the 

structural requirements of 14 CFR part 

25. 

Flight limitations: 

Limitations that can be applied to the 

airplane flight conditions following an 

in-flight occurrence, and that are 

included in the flight manual (e.g., 

speed limitations, avoidance of severe 

weather conditions, etc.). 

Operational limitations: 

Limitations, including flight 

limitations, that can be applied to the 

airplane operating conditions before 

dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload, and Master 

Minimum Equipment List limitations). 

Probabilistic terms: 

The probabilistic terms (probable, 

improbable, extremely improbable) used 

in this special condition are the same as 

those used in § 25.1309. 

Failure condition: 

The term ‘‘failure condition’’ here is 

the same as that used in § 25.1309. 

However, this appendix applies only to 

system-failure conditions that affect the 

structural performance of the airplane 

(e.g., system-failure conditions that 

induce loads, change the response of the 

airplane to variables such as gusts or 

pilot actions, or reduce flutter margins). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 4355 

2. Effects of Systems on Structures 

(a) General. The following criteria 

determine the influence of a system and 

its failure conditions on the airplane 

structure. 

(b) System fully operative. With the 

system fully operative, the following 

apply: 

(1) Limit loads must be derived in all 

normal operating configurations of the 

system from all the limit conditions 

specified in Subpart C, taking into 

account any special behavior of such a 

system or associated functions, or any 

effect on the structural performance of 

the airplane that may occur up to the 

limit loads. In particular, any significant 

nonlinearity (rate of displacement of 

control surface, thresholds, or any other 

system nonlinearities) must be 

accounted for in a realistic or 

conservative way when deriving limit 

loads from limit conditions. 

(2) The airplane must meet the 

strength requirements of 14 CFR part 25 

(static strength, residual strength) using 

the specified factors to derive ultimate 

loads from the limit loads defined 

above. The effect of nonlinearities must 

be investigated beyond limit conditions 

to ensure the behavior of the system 

presents no anomaly compared to the 

behavior below limit conditions. 

However, conditions beyond limit 

conditions need not be considered when 

it can be shown that the airplane has 

design features that will not allow it to 

exceed those limit conditions. 

(3) The airplane must meet the 

aeroelastic-stability requirements of 

§ 25.629. 

(c) System in the failure condition. 

For any system-failure condition not 

shown to be extremely improbable, the 

following apply: 

(1) At the time of occurrence. Starting 

from 1-g level-flight conditions, a 

realistic scenario, including pilot 

corrective actions, must be established 

to determine the loads occurring at the 

time of failure and immediately after 

failure. 

(i) For static-strength substantiation, 

these loads, multiplied by an 

appropriate factor of safety that is 

related to the probability of occurrence 

of the failure, are ultimate loads to be 

considered for design. The factor of 

safety (F.S.) is defined in Figure 1. 

(ii) For residual-strength 

substantiation, the airplane must be able 

to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate 

loads defined in subparagraph (c)(1)(i). 

(iii) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must be shown up to the 

speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For 

failure conditions that result in speed 

increases beyond VC/MC, freedom from 

aeroelastic instability must be shown to 

increased speeds, so that the margins 

intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are 

maintained. 

(iv) Failures of the system that result 

in forced structural vibrations 

(oscillatory failures) must not produce 

loads that could result in detrimental 

deformation of primary structure. 

(2) For the continuation of the flight. 

For the airplane in the system-failed 

state, and considering any appropriate 

reconfiguration and flight limitations, 

the following apply: 

(i) The loads derived from the 

following conditions at speeds up to VC/ 

MC, or the speed limitation prescribed 

for the remainder of the flight, must be 

determined: 

(A) The limit-symmetricalmaneuvering conditions specified in 

§ 25.331 and in § 25.345. 

(B) The limit-gust-and-turbulence 

conditions specified in § 25.341 and in 

§ 25.345. 

(C) The limit-rolling conditions 

specified in § 25.349, and the limitunsymmetrical conditions specified in 

§ 25.367 and § 25.427(b) and (c). 

(D) The limit-yaw-maneuvering 

conditions specified in § 25.351. 

(E) The limit-ground-loading 

conditions specified in § 25.473 and 

§ 25.491. 

(ii) For static-strength substantiation, 

each part of the structure must be able 

to withstand the loads in subparagraph 

(2)(i) of this paragraph, multiplied by a 

factor of safety depending on the 

probability of being in this failure state. 

The factor of safety is defined in Figure 

2. 


EP26JA09.002</GPH>
4356 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Qj = (Tj)(Pj) 

Where: 

Tj = Average time spent in failure condition 

j (in hours) 

Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode 

j (per hour) 

Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight 

hour, then a 1.5 factor of safety must be 

applied to all limit-load conditions specified 

in Subpart C. 

(iii) For residual-strength 

substantiation, the airplane must be able 

to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate 

loads defined in subparagraph (c)(2)(ii). 

(iv) If the loads induced by the failure 

condition have a significant effect on 

fatigue or damage tolerance, then their 

effects must be taken into account. 

(v) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must be shown up to a speed 

determined from Figure 3. Flutterclearance speeds V′ and V′′ may be 

based on the speed limitation specified 

for the remainder of the flight using the 

margins defined by § 25.629(b). 

V′ = Clearance speed as defined by 

§ 25.629(b)(2). 

V′′ = Clearance speed as defined by 

§ 25.629(b)(1). 

Where: 

Qj = (Tj)(Pj) 

Tj = Average time spent in failure condition 

j (in hours) 

Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode 

j (per hour) 

Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight 

hour, then the flutter clearance speed must 

not be less than V′′. 

(vi) Freedom from aeroelastic 

instability must also be shown, up to V′ 

in Figure 3 above, for any probable 

system-failure condition combined with 

any damage required or selected for 

investigation by § 25.571(b). 

(3) Consideration of certain failure 

conditions may be required by other 

subparts of part 25 regardless of 

calculated system reliability. Where 

analysis shows the probability of these 

failure conditions to be less than 10¥9, 

criteria other than those specified in this 

paragraph may be used for structural 

substantiation to show continued safe 

flight and landing. 

(d) Failure indications. For systemfailure detection and indication, the 

following apply: 

(1) The system must be checked for 

failure conditions, not extremely 

improbable, that degrade the structural 

capability below the level required by 

part 25, or that significantly reduce the 

reliability of the remaining system. To 

the extent practicable, these failures 

must be detected and annunciated to the 

flight crew before flight. Certain 

elements of the control system, such as 

mechanical and hydraulic components, 

may use special periodic inspections, 

and electronic components may use 

daily checks, in lieu of warning systems, 

to achieve the objective of this 

requirement. These certificationmaintenance requirements must be 

limited to components that are not 

readily detectable by normal warning 

systems, and where service history 

shows that inspections provide an 

adequate level of safety. 

(2) The existence of any failure 

condition, not extremely improbable, 

during flight, that could significantly 

affect the structural capability of the 

airplane and for which the associated 

reduction in airworthiness can be 

minimized by suitable flight limitations, 

must be signaled to the flight crew. 

Failure conditions that result in a factor 

of safety between the airplane strength 

and the loads of Subpart C below 1.25, 


EP26JA09.003</GPH> EP26JA09.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 4357 

1When the Commission implemented the Act in 

1980, it stated that it ‘‘intend[ed] to conduct a 

broader review [than that required by the RFA], 

with a view to identifying those rules in need of 

modification or even rescission.’’ Securities Act 

Release No. 6302 (Mar. 20, 1981), 46 FR 19251 

(Mar. 30, 1981). 

or flutter margins below V′′, must be 

signaled to the crew during flight. 

(e) Dispatch with known failure 

conditions. If the airplane is to be 

dispatched in a known system-failure 

condition that affects structural 

performance, or affects the reliability of 

the remaining system to maintain 

structural performance, then the 

provisions of § 25.302 must be met for 

the dispatched condition and for 

subsequent failures. Flight limitations 

and expected operational limitations 

may be taken into account in 

establishing Qj as the combined 

probability of being in the dispatched 

failure condition and the subsequent 

failure condition for the safety margins 

in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations 

must be such that the probability of 

being in this combined failure state, and 

then subsequently encountering limitload conditions, is extremely 

improbable. No reduction in these safety 

margins is allowed if the subsequent 

system-failure rate is greater than 10¥3

per hour. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 31, 2008. 

Linda Navarro, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–1327 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Chapter II 

[Release Nos. 33–9000, 34–59248, 39–2460, 

IC–28600, IA–2830; File No. S7–03–09] 

List of Rules To Be Reviewed Pursuant 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Publication of list of rules 

scheduled for review. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission is today publishing a list of 

rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 

610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The list is published to provide the 

public with notice that these rules are 

scheduled for review by the agency and 

to invite public comment on them. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by February 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/other.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number S7–03–09 on the subject line; 

or 

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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 No. 

S7–03–09. This file number should be 

included on the subject line if e-mail is 

used. To help us 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/other.shtml). 

Comments also are available for public 

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. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; we do not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Sullivan, Office of the General 

Counsel, 202–551–5019. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 

codified at 5 U.S.C. 600–611, requires 

an agency to review its rules that have 

a significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities 

within ten years of the publication of 

such rules as final rules. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). 

The purpose of the review is ‘‘to 

determine whether such rules should be 

continued without change, or should be 

amended or rescinded * * * to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the rules upon a substantial 

number of such small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

610(a). 

The RFA sets forth specific 

considerations that must be addressed 

in the review of each rule: 

• The continued need for the rule; 

• The nature of complaints or 

comments received concerning the rule 

from the public; 

• The complexity of the rule; 

• The extent to which the rule 

overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with 

other federal rules, and, to the extent 

feasible, with state and local 

governmental rules; and 

• The length of time since the rule 

has been evaluated or the degree to 

which technology, economic conditions, 

or other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the rule. (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). 

The Securities and Exchange 

Commission, as a matter of policy, 

reviews all final rules that it published 

for notice and comment to assess not 

only their continued compliance with 

the RFA, but also to assess generally 

their continued utility.1 The list below 

is therefore broader than that required 

by the RFA, and may include rules that 

do not have a substantial impact on a 

significant number of small entities. 

Where the Commission has previously 

made a determination of a rule’s impact 

on small businesses, the determination 

is noted on the list. The Commission 

particularly solicits public comment on 

whether the rules listed below affect 

small businesses in new or different 

ways than when they were first adopted. 

The rules and forms listed below are 

scheduled for review by staff of the 

Commission during the next twelve 

months. The list includes rules from 

1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995. The rules 

are grouped according to which 

Division or Office of the Commission 

recommended their adoption. 

Division of Corporation Finance 

Title: Plain English Disclosure. 

Citation: 17 CFR 230.421, 17 CFR 

230.481. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 

Description: This rule requires that 

issuers write the cover page, summary 

and risk factors sections of prospectuses 

in plain English. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604 in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. 33–7497, which was 

approved by the Commission on January 

28, 1998, which amended Rules 421 and 

481. Comments to the proposing release 

and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis were considered at that time. 

* * * * * 

Title: Regulation S. 

Citation: 17 CFR 230.900–905. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 

Description: This rule provides a safe 

harbor from the term ‘‘offer’’ for certain 

offshore communications made by a 

registrant. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in