I4 = 2.9 g PS/day as                          *p < 0.05
                                                                                sheanut
                                                                                nonesterified
                                                                                sterols.
                                                                                Stanol source: wood..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Niinikoski et al., 1997 (Ref. 107).  Randomized double-      Normocholesterolemic    24 g margarine         Habitual diet.         Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         adults, 24 enrolled     consumed in 3          Replace normal         Baseline:
                                      controlled parallel    Age 24-52 y...........   portions               dietary fat with      197
                                      trial; no run-in       n = 12 (C)............  C = margarine w/out     test rapeseed oil     Total C % compared to
                                      period, 5-wk test      n = 12 (I)............   added PS.              margarine              control
                                      period                 Inclusion criteria:     I = 3 g PS/day as                             C [darr] 11
                                                              not provided.           esterified                                   I [darr] 31*
                                                             Finland...............   sitostanol.                                  *p < 0.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelletier et al., 1995 (Ref. 30)...  Randomized, crossover   Normolipidemic men      50 g/d butter as part  Controlled but normal  Total-C % change
                                      trial; 1-wk run-in,    Mean age     of a normal diet       diet                   compared to control:
                                      two test periods of 4   sd.                    C =butter w/out added                         I [darr] 10%*
                                      wks                    22.7  2.6    PS.                                          LDL-C % change
                                                              y.                     I = 0.74 g PS/d as                             compared to control:
                                                             n = 12................   soybean                                      I [darr] 15%*
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      nonesterified                                *p < 0.05
                                                              light smokers and       sterols.
                                                              normal physical
                                                              activity.
                                                             France................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miettinen et al., 1994 (Ref. 28)...  Randomized double-      Hypercholesterolemic    50 g rapeseed oil      Habitual diets.        Total-C % change
                                      blind, placebo-         adults, 31 enrolled     mayonnaise, with       Advised to replace     compared to control:
                                      controlled parallel    Mean age     meals                  50 g of typical       I1 [darr] 7.7%
                                      trial; 6-wk run-in, 9-  sd.                    C = mayonnaise w/out    daily fat with        I2 [darr] 0.4%
                                      wk test period         45  3 y...   added PS.              mayonnaise            I3 [darr] 7.4%*
                                                             n = 31................  I1 = 0.7 g PS/d as      containing rapeseed   LDL-C % change
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      nonesterified          oil                    compared to control:
                                                              Total-C >232 mg/dL.     sitosterol in                                I1 [darr] 7.0%
                                                             Finland...............   mayonnaise.                                  I2 [darr] 1.2%
                                                                                I2 = 0.7 g PS/d as                            I3 [darr] 7.7%*
                                                                                nonesterified                                *p < 0.05
                                                                                sitostanol in
                                                                                mayonnaise.
                                                                                I3 = 0.8 g PS/d as
                                                                                sitostanol ester in
                                                                                mayonnaise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blomqvist et al., 1993 Vanhanen et   Randomized double-      Hypercholesterolemic    50 g rapeseed oil      Habitual diets.        Total-C % change
 al., 1993 (Ref. 108).                blind placebo           adults, 37 enrolled     mayonnaise, with       Advised to replace     compared to control:
                                      controlled parallel    Mean age     meals                  50 g of daily fat     C [darr] 2.7
                                      trial; 4-wk run-in, 6-  sd.                    C = mayonnaise w/out    intake with 50 of     I [darr] 17.0*
                                      wk test period         43-48  2 y   added PS.              mayonnaise            LDL-C % change
                                                             n = 33 (C)............  I = 3.4 g PS/d as       containing rapeseed    compared to control:
                                                             n =34 (I).............   sitosterol ester in    oil                   C [darr] 1.5
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      mayonniase.                                  I [darr] 14.3*
                                                              Total-C >232 mg/dL.                                                  *p < 0.051
                                                             Finland...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weight represents nonesterified sterols or stanols.

                     Table 2--Randomized Clinical Trials of Phytosterols in Supplements and Total and LDL Cholesterol Concentration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Study                         Design                Population             Intervention               Diet                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Nonesterified Phytosterols
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denke 1995 (Ref. 65)...............  Non-random, non-        Moderately              (1) Gelatin capsules   Step I diet (control)  Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blinded, 3 sequential   hypercholesterolemic    containing tall oil    during intervention    Baseline: 239
                                      3-mos trial periods     males.                  sitostanol suspended   and washout periods.  Total-C % change
                                      separated by 3-mos     33 enrolled, 33          in safflower oil; 3                           compared to Step I
                                      washout periods.        completed.              doses/d of 4                                  diet:
                                                             Age range 31-70 y.....   capsules (total 12                           I[ihel1] [darr] 0.5%
                                                             Subjects'                capsules/d) taken                            I[ihel2] [darr] 7.1%*
                                                              characteristics: mean   with meals. (2)                              I[ihel3] [darr] 8.9%*
                                                              LDL-C with Step I       Cholestyramine                               LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                              diet 175 mg/dL, TG <    supplied in flavored                          Baseline: 175
                                                              250 mg/dL, mean BMI     bars.                                        LDL-C % change from
                                                              26.2.                  I[ihel1] = 3 g/d                               Sep 1 diet:
                                                             USA...................   sitostanol\1\.                               I[ihel1] [darr] 1.8%
                                                                                I[ihel2] =                                    I[ihel2] [darr]
                                                                                cholestyramine.                               12.6%*
                                                                                I[ihel3] = sitostanol                         I[ihel3] [darr]
                                                                                + cholestyramine.                             14.8%*
                                                                                *p < 0.001 compared
                                                                                to preceding and
                                                                                subsequent washout
                                                                                periods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McPherson et al., 2005 (Ref. 66)...  Randomized, double      Healthy adults 52       Dietary supplement of  AHA heart healthy      Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         enrolled, 52            rapidly                diet.                  Baseline:
                                      controlled, parallel    completed.              disintegrating                               CT 195
                                      design; four arms; 6-  Mean age     tablets or slowly                            IT 186
                                      wk trial period.        sd 46.5     disintegrating                               CC 198
                                                              8.1 y (tablets).        capsules, twice/d                            IC 203
                                                             50.7  12.5   with meals.                                  Total-C % change
                                                              y (capsules).          CT = lecithin-                                 compared to control:
                                                             tablet trial..........   containing tablets w/                        IT [darr] 4.8%
                                                             n = 13 (IT)...........   o PS.                                        IC [darr] 1.9%
                                                             n = 12 (PT)...........  CC = lecithin-                                No significant
                                                             n = 27 (capsule trial)   containing capsules                           differences between
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      w/o PS.                                       IT and IC and
                                                              LDL-C 70-190 mg/dL,    IT = 1.26 g PS/d as                            control
                                                              TG < 300 mg/dL.         spray-dried plant                            LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                             USA...................   stanol/lecithin                               Baseline:
                                                                                emulsion in tablets.                         CT 121
                                                                                IC = 1.26 g PS/d as                           IT 117
                                                                                spray-dried plant                            CC 123
                                                                                stanol/lecithin                              IC 235
                                                                                emulsion in gelatin                          LDL-C % change
                                                                                capsules.                                     relative to placebo:
                                                                                IT [darr] 10.4%*
                                                                                IC [darr] 2.5%
                                                                                * p < 0.05 compared
                                                                                to placebo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg et al., 2006 (Ref. 67)....  Randomized double-      Hyperlipidemic adults   Soy stanols as a       American Heart         Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         taking statins 26       tableted stanol/       Association Heart      Baseline:
                                      controlled, parallel    enrolled, 26            lecithin emulsion.     Healthy Diet.         C 197
                                      trial, 1-wk run-in, 6-  completed..             225 mg PS/tablet; 4                          I 193
                                      wk test period.        age range 40-78 y.....   tablets twice a day                          Total-C % change
                                                             n = 13/group..........   before meals. Starch                          compared to control:
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      replaced stanol/                             I [darr] 5.7% (p <
                                                              Stable statin dose,     lecithin complex in                           0.05)
                                                              LDL-C >100 mg/dL, TG    placebo tablets.                             LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                              < 300 mg/dL.           C = placebo tablet...                          Baseline:
                                                             USA...................  I = 1.8 g PS/d as                             C 119
                                                                                stanol/lecithin                              I 112
                                                                                emulsion in tablets.                         LDL-C % change
                                                                                compared to placebo:
                                                                                I [darr] 9.1% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Esterified Phytosterols
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodgate et al., 2006 (Ref. 64)....  Randomized, double-     Hyperchoelsterolemic    Total of 6 softgel     Habitual diets         Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         adults, 30 enrolled,    (glyceron) capsules                           Baseline:
                                      controlled trial with   29 completed.           with breakfast and                           C 266
                                      2 groups; 4-wk test    Age 33-70 y...........   dinner.                                      I 267
                                      period.                Inclusion criteria: no  C = corn oil.........                         Total-C % change
                                                              diabetes, no           I = 1.6 g PS/d as                              compared to control
                                                              cholesterol lowering    stanol esters.                               I [darr] 8% (p <
                                                              Rx, no prior                                                          0.05)
                                                              myocardial infarction                                                LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                              or heart surgery.                                                     Baseline:
                                                                                C 207
                                                                                I 201
                                                                                LDL-C % change
                                                                                compared to control
                                                                                I [darr] 9% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acuff et al., 2007 (Ref. 62).......  Randomized, double-     Hypercholesterolemic    2 dietary supplement   Habitual diets, diets  Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         adults, 20 enrolled,    capsules/d, one        not monitored.         Baseline: 256
                                      controlled,             16 completed.           capsule w/lunch,                             After 4 wk test
                                      sequential trial; two  Mean age     second capsule w/                             period:
                                      4-wk test periods       sd.                     dinner.                                      C 242
                                      separated by 2-wk      51  13 y..  C = soy oil capsules.                         I 230
                                      washout period.        Inclusion criteria:     I = 0.8 g PS/d as                             Total-C % change
                                                              hyperlipidemia, BMI <   plant sterol esters                           compared to control:
                                                              30, no lipid lowering   divided between 2                            I [darr] 4.7% (not
                                                              RX, no diseases         capsules.                                     significant)
                                                              requiring tmt, no                                                    LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                              hypertension.                                                         Baseline: 177
                                                             USA...................                                                After 4 wk test
                                                                                period:
                                                                                C 169
                                                                                I 163
                                                                                LDL-C % change
                                                                                compared to control:
                                                                                I [darr] 3.5% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnest et al., 2007 (Ref. 63).....  Randomized double-      Mildly                  4 dietary supplement   Habitual diets, diets  Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         hypercholesterolemic    capsules/d; 2          not monitored.         Baseline:
                                      controlled, parallel    adults.                 capsules w/each of 2                         C 232
                                      trial with 2 groups;   54 enrolled, 54          meals.                                       I 243
                                      12-wk test period.      completed.             C = capsule w/o PS...                         After 4 wk test
                                                             Age 20-70 y...........  I = 2.6 g PS/d as                              period:
                                                             Inclusion criteria:      plant sterol esters                          C 237
                                                              LDL-C >=130 mg/dL.      divided among 4                              I 234
                                                             USA...................   capsules.                                    Total-C % change
                                                                                compared to control:
                                                                                I [darr] 6.0% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
                                                                                LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                                                Baseline:
                                                                                P 155
                                                                                I 165
                                                                                After 4 wk test
                                                                                period:
                                                                                P 161
                                                                                I 157
                                                                                LDL-C % change
                                                                                compared to control:
                                                                                I [darr] 9.2% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rader and Nguyen, 2000 (Ref. 61)...  Randomized, double-     Hypercholesterolemic    3 dietary supplement   Habitual diets         Total-C (mg/dL)
                                      blind, placebo-         adults; 160 enrolled,   test capsules/d with                          Baseline:
                                      controlled, parallel    156 completed.          meals.                                       P 245
                                      trial, two arm. 3-wk   n = 156...............  C = placebo capsules                          I 248
                                      trial period.          Inclusion criteria:      w/o PS.                                      Total-C % change
                                                              Total-C 220-300 mg/    I = 1 g PS/d as plant                          compared to control:
                                                              dL; TG <=350 mg/dL;     stanol esters                                I [darr] 3.0% (p <
                                                              good health.            divided over 3                                0.05)
                                                             USA...................   capsules.                                    LDL-C (mg/dL)
                                                                                Baseline:
                                                                                C 154
                                                                                I 155
                                                                                LDL-C % change
                                                                                compared to control:
                                                                                I [darr] 5.2% (p <
                                                                                0.05)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weight represents nonesterified sterols or stanols.
Abbreviations Used in table:
C control group/period
I intervention group/period
BMI body mass index
Total-C serum total cholesterol
LDL-C serum low density lipoprotein cholesterol
wk week
y years
PS phytosterols (mixture of sterols and stanols)
mg/dL milligrams per deciliter
g gram
g/d grams per day
w/ with
w/o without
TG serum triglycerides
tmt treatment
mos months
CAD coronary artery disease
CVD cardiovascular disease
Rx prescription drugs
Hx history
Sd standard deviation
d day
RSO Rape seed oil

[FR Doc. 2010-30386 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57625-57627]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22963]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67846; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Section 907.00 of the
Listed Company Manual, Which Describes Certain Complimentary Products
and Services that are Offered to Certain Issuers

September 12, 2012.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 30, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 of the Listed Company
Manual (the ``Manual''), which describes certain complimentary products
and services that are offered to certain issuers. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 of the Manual, which
describes certain complimentary products and services that are offered
to certain issuers.
Background
    Section 907.00 of the Manual sets forth certain complimentary
products and services that are offered to certain currently and newly
listed issuers. These products and services are developed or delivered
by NYSE or by a third party for use by NYSE-listed companies. Some of
these products are commercially available from such third-party
vendors. All listed issuers receive some complimentary products and
services through the NYSE Market Access Center. Certain tiers of
currently listed issuers and newly listed issuers receive additional
products and services.
Expand Definition of Newly Listed Issuer
    Under Section 907.00, a newly listed issuer is defined as a U.S.
issuer conducting an initial public offering (``IPO'') or an issuer
emerging from a bankruptcy, spinoff (where a company lists new shares
in the absence of a public offering), or carve-out (where a company
carves out a business line or division, which then conducts a separate
IPO), but does not include an issuer that transfers its listing from
another U.S. exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65127 (Aug. 12,
2011), 76 FR 51449, 51450 n. 13 (Aug. 18, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to broaden the definition of newly listed
issuer to mean any U.S. company listing common stock on the Exchange
for the first time, and any non-U.S. company \4\ listing an equity
security \5\ on the Exchange under Section 102.01 or 103.00 of the
Manual for the first time, regardless of whether such U.S. or non-U.S.
company conducts an offering; the definition would continue to exclude
any issuer that transfers its listing from another U.S. securities
exchange.\6\ Under the proposed rule change, the definition of ``newly
listed issuer'' also would mean any U.S. or non-U.S. company emerging
from a bankruptcy, spinoff (where a company lists new shares in the
absence of a public offering), and carve-out (where a company carves
out a business line or division, which then conducts a separate initial
public offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the Manual, the terms ``Foreign Private
Issuer'' and ``non-U.S. company'' have the same meaning and are
defined in accordance with the Commission's definition of foreign
private issuer set out in Rule 3b-4(c) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). See Section 103.00 of the
Manual. Strictly for ease of reference and to use a less technical
term, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of Section 907.00 to
refer to ``non-U.S. companies'' rather than ``Foreign Private
Issuers.'' This aspect of the proposed rule change does not result
in any substantive change in the entities eligible under Section
907.00.
    \5\ In some instances, a non-U.S. company may not list its
common stock on the Exchange; rather, such company may have its
common stock listed on a foreign market and list some other type of
security on the Exchange, such as American Depository Receipts
(``ADRs''). Thus, to qualify for the products and services under
Section 907.00, the Exchange would require the non-U.S. company to
list an ``equity security'' on the Exchange, which would be defined
to mean common stock or common share equivalents such as ordinary
shares, New York shares (a type of share used by Canadian
companies), global shares, ADRs, or Global Depository Receipts. Each
of these types of shares has been used by non-U.S. companies when
listing on the Exchange. The definition of ``equity security'' would
be added to Section 907.00. The Exchange proposes to make conforming
amendments throughout Section 907.00 to change specific references
to ADRs to the broader term ``equity security.''
    \6\ The current text of Section 907.00 states that the
definition of ``newly listed issuer'' excludes an issuer that
transfers its listing from another exchange. In a prior filing, the
Exchange's stated that the exclusion applied to transfers from a
national securities exchange, i.e., another U.S. securities
exchange. See supra note 3. For greater clarity, the text of the
Section 907.00 would be amended to provide specifically that a
transfer from a U.S. securities exchange would be excluded from the
definition of newly listed issuers. The Exchange does not believe
that such issuers need the services offered to newly listed issuers
because they already have been trading in U.S. capital markets.
Rather, issuers that transfer from another U.S. exchange may qualify
for the products and services offered to currently listed issuers
under Section 907.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to Tier One and Tier Two for Currently Listed Issuers
    Currently, the Exchange has two tiers of products and services that
are available to currently listed issuers. Under Tier One, the Exchange
offers market surveillance and Web-hosting products and services to
U.S. issuers that have 270 million or more total shares of common stock
issued and outstanding in all share classes, including and in addition
to Treasury shares, and Foreign Private Issuers that have 270 million
or more in ADRs issued and outstanding, each calculated annually as of
December 31 of the preceding year. Under Tier Two, at each such
issuer's election, the Exchange offers either market analytics or Web-
hosting products and services to U.S. issuers that have 160 million to
269,999,999 total shares of common stock issued and outstanding in all
share classes, including and in addition

to Treasury shares. Tier Two products and services also are offered to
Foreign Private Issuers that have 160 million to 269,999,999 in ADRs
issued and outstanding, each calculated annually as of December 31 of
the preceding year.
    The Exchange has determined that using December 31 as the date of
qualification is not optimal because it provides issuers with too
little notice of their qualification for Tier One or Tier Two. The
Exchange has determined that it would be preferable to determine
issuers' qualifications as of September 30 of the preceding year. Thus,
for example, shortly after September 30, 2012, the Exchange would run
the calculations for each issuer and determine which are eligible for
Tier One or Tier Two for calendar year 2013, and so notify the
qualifying issuers.\7\ Qualifying issuers then would have nearly three
months to select from the available services in their tier for the
following calendar year, and non-qualifying issuers would have
additional time to budget and plan for obtaining the services elsewhere
should they so wish. The Exchange also proposes that for non-U.S.
companies, the measurement of shares of an equity security would mean
shares issued and outstanding in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change may not be
in effect prior to September 30, 2012; however, the Exchange
believes that there will be sufficient time following approval of
the proposed rule change to notify qualifying issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Tier One offerings, the Exchange proposes to permit
a Tier One issuer to choose market analytics products and services as
an alternative to market surveillance products and services. Some
issuers would prefer to receive the former. Web-hosting products and
services would continue to be offered to Tier One issuers.
Change to Tier A Offering
    Tiers A and B describe the products and services available to newly
listed issuers. Tier A includes issuers with a global market value of
$400 million or more based on the public offering price. Tier B
includes issuers with a global market value of less than $400 million
based on the public offering price.
    With one exception, the specified products and services for newly
listed issuers are offered for 24 months after listing, at which time
the issuers may be eligible for the Tier One or Tier Two products and
services offered to existing issuers. The exception is market
surveillance products and services, which currently are offered to Tier
A issuers for the initial 12 months after listing. Under the current
Manual, those issuers would not be eligible to receive the market
surveillance products and services for the next 12 months, until they
qualified for Tier One status at the end of the 24-month period
following listing. The Exchange proposes to eliminate that 12-month gap
by amending Section 907.00 to provide that if, at the end of the 12-
month period following a new listing, an issuer that has selected
market surveillance products and services meets the qualifications of a
Tier One issuer, then such issuer may continue to receive such services
for an additional 12 months. This amendment would assure that there is
no break in the offering of market surveillance products and services
to otherwise qualified issuers.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the text that refers to global
market value based on public offering price. As noted above, some
listed companies may not conduct a public offering in connection with
listing. For example, non-U.S. companies that are already listed on a
foreign exchange may not conduct a public offering in connection with
listing in the U.S. markets for the first time on the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes to add text to Section 907.00 that would provide that
if a newly listed issuer does not conduct a public offering, then its
global market value will be determined by the Exchange at the time of
listing for purposes of determining whether the issuer qualifies for
Tier A or B.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in that it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer complimentary
products and services to attract new listings, retain currently listed
issuers, and respond to competitive pressures. The Exchange faces
competition in the market for listing services, and it competes in part
by improving the quality of the services that it offers to listed
companies. By offering products and services on a complimentary basis
and ensuring that it is offering the services most valued by its listed
issuers, NYSE will improve the quality of the services that listed
companies receive.
    With respect to the change to the definition of newly listed
issuer, the Exchange believes that a non-U.S. company that is listing
an equity security for the first time on the Exchange, or is emerging
from a bankruptcy, spinoff, or carve-out, is similarly situated to a
U.S. issuer conducting an IPO or emerging from a bankruptcy, spinoff,
or carve-out, and should be eligible to receive the same products and
services from the NYSE Market Access Center as those U.S. issuers do.
The proposed rule change would result in a more reasonable and
equitable allocation of the listing benefits received in return for a
non-U.S. company's listing fees \11\ and would not be unfairly
discriminatory because all similarly situated non-U.S. companies that
list an equity security on the Exchange as described above would be
eligible (other than transfers from another U.S. securities exchange).
The Exchange also believes that amending the text of Section 907.00 to
refer to listing on the Exchange for the first time, rather than the
specific offerings that may occur in conjunction with the listing would
make the coverage of the Section sufficiently broad to account for
different types of offerings that may occur in connection with a new
listing. The Exchange believes that defining the term ``equity
security,'' would make the coverage of the Section sufficiently broad
to account for different types of securities. The Exchange believes
that the text of Section 907.00 would be more transparent if it is
[sic] specifically referenced the exclusion of issuers transferring
from another U.S. securities exchange, as had been noted in a prior
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Listing fees for non-U.S. companies are set forth in
Section 902.03 of the Manual.
    \12\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the changes to Tier One, the Exchange believes that
it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to allow
issuers that qualify under this tier to choose whether they receive
market surveillance or market analytics products and services.
    With respect to changing the qualification date from December 31 to
September 30 of the preceding year, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
issuers with greater advance notice of their qualification (or non-
qualification) for

Tier One and Tier Two services, providing such issuers with additional
time to plan and budget accordingly. The Exchange also believes that
stating in the text of Section 907.00 that (i) the measurement of
shares of an equity security for non-U.S. companies is limited to
shares issued and outstanding in the U.S., and (ii) the Exchange will
determine global market value for newly listed issuers that do not
conduct a public offering in connection with the listing would provide
greater clarity in the Exchange's rules, and as such is reasonable.
    With respect to the change to Tier A, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to offer
market surveillance products and services throughout the 24-month
period following listing, rather than just the initial 12 months, in
order to eliminate the interruption in service that would otherwise
occur for issuers that would qualify for Tier One status as existing
issuers at the end of the 24-month period.
    The Exchange further notes that the proposed rule change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the criteria for
satisfying the tiers are the same for all similarly situated issuers.
Issuers are not forced or required to utilize the complimentary
products and services as a condition of listing. All issuers will
continue to receive some level of free services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between 10
a.m. and 3 p.m.. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-44 and should be submitted on or before
October 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22963 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51973-51974]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1894-226]

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Temporary variance of seasonal turbine venting
period.
    b. Project No.: 1894-226.
    c. Date Filed: August 1, 2022 and supplemented on August 15, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Parr Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Broad River in Newberry
and Fairfield counties, South Carolina, and occupies federal lands
within the Sumter National Forest, administered by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Amy Bresnahan, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc., 220 Operation Way, Mail Code B223, Cayce, South
Carolina 29033;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Joy Kurtz,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is September 7, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-1894-226. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to extend the seasonal turbine venting window requirements
specified in the project's Turbine Venting Plan (Plan) through October
31, 2022. The Plan requires the licensee to provide turbine venting
from June 15 to August 31, annually in order to increase dissolved
oxygen levels downstream of Parr Shoals Dam. Article 401(b) of the
project license requires the licensee to obtain Commission approval for
extensions exceeding 30 days. The licensee is seeking Commission
approval to extend the seasonal turbine venting window through October
31, 2022 in light of requests from the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, who are concerned that low dissolved oxygen
levels may persist at the project through fall of 2022.
    l. Locations of the Application: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll free,
(866) 208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 385.2010.

    Dated: August 18, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18231 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11464-11466]
[DOCID:fr03mr08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28735; Notice 2]

Mazda North American Operations, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) has determined that an
unspecified quantity of replacement seat belt assemblies that it
delivered prior to June 25, 2007 did not comply with paragraphs S4.1(k)
and S4.1(l) of 49 CFR 571.209, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies. Mazda has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Mazda has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on October
4, 2007 in the Federal Register (72 FR 56826). No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://
www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2007-28735.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Ms. Claudia
Covell, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Paragraphs S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require:

    (k) Installation instructions. A seat belt assembly, other than
a seat belt assembly installed in a motor vehicle by an automobile
manufacturer, shall be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing
sufficient information for installing the assembly in a motor
vehicle. The installation instructions shall state whether the
assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in
specifically stated motor vehicles, and shall include at least those
items specified in SAE Recommended Practice J800c, ``Motor Vehicle
Seat Belt Installations,'' November 1973. If the assembly is for use
only in specifically stated motor vehicles, the assembly shall
either be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the
following statement, or the instruction sheet shall include the
following statement:
    This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific
seating position(s), e.g., ``front right''] in [insert specific
vehicle make(s) and model(s)].
    (l) Usage and maintenance instructions. A seat belt assembly or
retractor shall be accompanied by written instructions for the
proper use of the assembly, stressing particularly the importance of
wearing the assembly snugly and properly located on the body, and on
the maintenance of the assembly and periodic inspection of all
components. The instructions shall show the proper manner of
threading webbing in the hardware of seat belt assemblies in which
the webbing is not permanently fastened. Instructions for a
nonlocking retractor shall include a caution that the webbing must
be

fully extended from the retractor during use of the seat belt
assembly unless the retractor is attached to the free end of webbing
which is not subjected to any tension during restraint of an
occupant by the assembly. Instructions for Type 2a shoulder belt
shall include a warning that the shoulder belt is not to be used
without a lap belt.

Mazda's Data, Views, and Arguments

    Mazda explains that three possible situations apply to the subject
replacement seat belt assemblies.
    In the first instance, the seat belt assembly instruction sheets
included with the replacement assemblies appropriate for Mazda B-series
pickup trucks and Mazda Navajo multipurpose passenger vehicles only
identified the assemblies as applicable to the Ford Ranger pickup
trucks or Ford Explorer multipurpose passenger vehicles, respectively.
Although other information provided was accurate for the Mazda
vehicles, the incorrect vehicle reference fails to comply with S4.1(k)
of the standard.
    Second, replacement seat belt assemblies produced for use in the
following vehicles did not include either the installation instructions
or the instructions for the proper use and maintenance of the
replacement seat belt assemblies. This fails to comply with both
paragraph S4.1(k) and paragraph S4.1(l) of the standard:

1992-1995 MY Mazda 929, delivered from 1991 to 2007
1990-2002 MY Mazda 626, delivered from 1989 to 2007
1994-1995 MY Mazda MX-3, delivered from 1993 to 2007
1994-2007 MY Mazda MX-5, delivered from 1993 to 2007
1988-1997 MY Mazda MX-6, delivered from 1987 to 2007
1993-1995 MY Mazda RX-7, delivered from 1992 to 2007
1999-2003 MY Mazda Protege, delivered from 1998 to 2007
2001-2008 MY Mazda Tribute, delivered from 2000 to 2007
2004-2007 MY Mazda Mazda6, delivered from 2003 to 2007
2006-2007 MY Mazda 5, delivered from 2005 to 2007
2007 MY Mazda CX-9, delivered from 2006 to 2007
2007 MY Mazda B-Series Truck, delivered from 2006 to 2007

    And finally, all remaining replacement seat belt assemblies
produced for use in the United States and its territories did not
include the instructions for the proper use and maintenance of the
replacement seat belt assemblies. This fails to comply with S4.1(l) of
the standard.
    Mazda makes the argument that the Mazda parts ordering system used
by Mazda dealers clearly identifies the correct service seat belt
components for any given model/model year seat position combination.
The parts are unique to each belt and are designed to assemble properly
only in their intended application. When ordering Mazda replacement
seat belt parts, the dealer must refer to the Mazda parts catalog to
identify the ordering part number with the information on the specific
vehicle model type, location and model year. Each replacement seat belt
assembly is packaged individually with a specific part number label to
ensure shipping the correct parts. Then, the dealer routinely checks to
confirm that the part received matches the one ordered. Given the
ordering system and process, the dealers could select, order, and
obtain the correct parts. Also, installation instructions for seat
belts are readily available in the Mazda workshop manuals and on the
internet. Therefore, the seat belt parts can be successfully installed
with the information already available even though installation
instructions did not accompany the replacement seat belt assemblies.
    Mazda further argues that since the instruction for proper use and
maintenance is described in the owner's manual which is installed in
the vehicle, incorrect usage and maintenance by the vehicle owner is
highly unlikely.
    Mazda is not aware of any customer or field reports of service seat
belt assemblies being incorrectly installed in the subject applications
as a result of installation instructions not accompanying the service
part.
    Mazda also stated that it is not aware of any reports requesting
installation instructions, which it believed to be related to the
noncompliances.
    Upon discovery of the subject noncompliance, Mazda took action to
ensure that all replacement seat belt assemblies shipped in the future
are packaged with the required installation instructions. Mazda has
also corrected all the replacement seat belt assemblies in the
inventory for shipment to dealers.
    In summation, Mazda states that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production and that it believes that because the noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no corrective action is
warranted.

NHTSA Decision

    To help ensure proper selection, installation, usage, and
maintenance of seat belt assemblies, paragraph S4.1(k) of FMVSS No. 209
requires that installation, usage, and maintenance instructions be
provided with seat belt assemblies, other than those installed by an
automobile manufacturer.
    First, NHTSA believes that installers who receive seat belt
assemblies having instructions that reference an incorrect vehicle will
either return the part, determine that the part is correct for the
appropriate Mazda vehicle based on the specific part number label
located on the seat belt assembly, or install the part in the vehicle
listed on the accompanying instruction sheet. In any of these
scenarios, the assembly will be installed in the correct vehicle and
seating position resulting in no safety risk.
    Second, we note that the subject seat belt assemblies are only made
available to Mazda authorized dealerships for their use or subsequent
resale. Because the parts ordering process used by Mazda authorized
dealerships clearly identifies the correct service part required by
model year, model, and seating position, NHTSA believes that there is
little likelihood that an inappropriate seat belt assembly will be
provided for a specific seating position within a Mazda vehicle.
    Third, we note that technicians at Mazda dealerships have access to
the seat belt assembly installation instruction information in workshop
manuals. In addition, installers other than Mazda dealership
technicians can access the installation instructions on the Internet.
We also believe that Mazda is correct in stating that the seat belt
assemblies are designed to assemble properly only in their intended
application. Thus, we conclude that sufficient safeguards are in place
to prevent the installation of an improper seat belt assembly.
    NHTSA recognizes the importance of having installation instructions
available to installers and use and maintenance instructions available
to consumers. The risk created by this noncompliance is that someone
who purchased an assembly is unable to obtain the necessary
installation information resulting in an incorrectly installed seat
belt assembly. However, because the seat belt assemblies are designed
to be assembled properly only in their intended application and the
installation information is widely available to the public, it appears
that there is little likelihood that installers will not be able to
access the installation instructions. Furthermore, we note that Mazda
has stated that they are not aware of any customer or field reports of
service seat belt assemblies being incorrectly installed in the subject
applications, nor aware of any reports requesting installation
instructions.

These findings suggest that it is unlikely that seat belts have been
improperly installed.
    In addition, although 49 CFR Part 571.209 paragraph S4.1(k)
requires certain instructions specified in SAE Recommended Practice
J800c be included in seat belt replacement instructions, that
requirement applies to seat belts intended to be installed in seating
positions where seat belts do not already exist. The subject seat belt
assemblies are only intended to be used for replacement of original
equipment seat belts, therefore the instructions do not apply to the
subject seat belt assemblies.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subaru of America, Inc.; Grant of Application for Decision
of Inconsequential Non-Compliance (65 FR 67472).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to seat belt usage and inspection instructions, we
note that this information is available in the owner's manual which is
installed in the vehicle. Thus, with respect to usage and maintenance
instructions, it appears that Mazda has met the intent of S4.1(l) of
FMVSS No. 209 for the subject vehicles using alternate methods for
notification.
    NHTSA has granted similar petitions for noncompliance with seat
belt assembly installation and usage instruction standards. Refer to
Subaru of America, Inc. (65 FR 67471, November 9, 2000); Bombardier
Motor Corporation of America, Inc. (65 FR 60238, October 10, 2000);
TRW, Inc. (58 FR 7171, February 4, 1993); and Chrysler Corporation, (57
FR 45865, October 5, 1992). In all of these cases, the petitioners
demonstrated that the noncompliant seat belt assemblies were properly
installed, and due to their respective replacement parts ordering
systems, improper replacement seat belt assembly selection and
installation would not be likely to occur.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Mazda has
met its burden of persuasion that the installation and usage
instruction noncompliances described are inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mazda's application is granted, and it is
exempted from providing the notification of noncompliance that is
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the noncompliance, as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120. All products manufactured or sold on and
after June 26, 2007, must comply fully with the requirements of FMVSS
No. 209.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8-4012 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13034]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04797]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-121, OMB Control No. 3235-0110]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form T-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form T-1 (17 CFR 269.1) is a statement of eligibility and
qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et
seq.) of a corporation designated to act as a trustee under an
indenture. The information is used to determine whether the corporation
is qualified to serve as a trustee. Form T-1 takes approximately 15
hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2
respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 15 hours (4 hours per
response) is prepared by the company for a total reporting burden of 8
hours (4 hours per response x 2 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by May 9, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04797 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 13905]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0008]

Advisory Committee; Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee,
Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has
determined that it is in the public interest to renew the
Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years
beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect
until March 3, 2022.

DATES: Authority for the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee will
expire on March 3, 2022, unless the Commissioner formally determines
that renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Fajiculay, Division of Advisory
Committee and Consultant Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3, FDA is announcing
the renewal of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee (the
Committee). The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee
established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
    The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging
responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective
drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA
has regulatory responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the
safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug
products for use in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases and
makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
    Pursuant to its Charter, the Committee shall consist of a core of
11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are
selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities
knowledgeable in the fields of gastroenterology, endocrinology,
surgery, clinical pharmacology, physiology, pathology, liver function,
motility, esophagitis, and statistics. Members will be invited to serve
for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members
of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of
voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected
by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer
interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-
oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the
voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting representative
member who is identified with industry interests. There may also be an
alternate industry representative.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/human-drug-advisory-committees/gastrointestinal-drugs-advisory-committee or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has
been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment
will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please check https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: March 4, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04778 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2442]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00563]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9905-40-Region 10]

Notice of Termination of Clean Air Act Outer Continental Shelf
Permits Issued to Shell for the Discoverer Drill Ship and the Kulluk
Conical Drilling Unit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 10 has terminated the Clean Air Act Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for
the Discoverer drill ship and the OCS permit to construct and Title V
air quality operating permit for the Kulluk conical drilling rig.

DATES: EPA Region 10 terminated the OCS air permits for the Discoverer
drill ship and the Kulluk drilling unit on December 26, 2013. The
terminations of the two permits were effective on that date. Pursuant
to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1),
judicial review of these permit terminations, to the extent it is
available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by March 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above-referenced permit
terminations are available for public inspection during normal business
hours at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. To arrange
for viewing of these documents, call David Bray at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bray, Office of Air Waste and
Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.

NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September and
October 2011, the EPA Region 10 issued Clean Air Act Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) permits to Shell to conduct exploratory drilling in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas on the Arctic OCS. The EPA issued these OCS
air permits to the Discoverer drill ship for both the Chukchi Sea and
the Beaufort Sea and to the Kulluk Conical drilling unit for the
Beaufort Sea.
    In December 2011, while the three OCS air permits were subject to
administrative petitions before the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board,
the President signed legislation that transferred the authority for
regulating air emissions on the Arctic OCS from the EPA to the U.S.
Department of Interior (DOI). Transition language in the law provided
that the transfer of authority from EPA to DOI did not invalidate the
pending Shell permits.
    The Discoverer permits became effective in January 2012 and the
Kulluk permit became effective in April 2012. Shell used the Discoverer
Chukchi Sea and Kulluk Beaufort Sea OCS air permits in the 2012
drilling season to drill ``top hole'' wells in both Seas. Shell did not
use the Discoverer Beaufort Sea OCS air permit in 2012.
    In a letter dated November 6, 2013, Shell requested that the EPA
terminate the Discoverer Chukchi Sea and the Kulluk Beaufort Sea OCS
air permits so that Shell can seek air regulatory authorization from
the DOI Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Shell asserts that
termination of the EPA OCS air permits is consistent with the 2011
Congressional transfer of authority for air quality management in the
Arctic OCS from EPA to DOI. In the letter, Shell also explained that
the Discoverer was never constructed in the Beaufort Sea within the 18-
month period required by the permit and, as a result, the Shell
Discoverer Beaufort OCS air permit expired in July 2013.
    In a letter dated December 26, 2013, the EPA terminated, effective
immediately, the OCS air permits for the Discoverer (Chukchi Sea) and
the Kulluk (Beaufort Sea), thereby completing the transfer of authority
for air quality management in the Arctic OCS to DOI.

    Dated: December 26, 2013.
Kate Kelly,
Director, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2014-00563 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P