[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79689-79691]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0908]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment
and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information
concerning the establishment and operation of clinical trial data
monitoring committees.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by February 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of
Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees--(OMB Control Number 0910-
0581)--Extension

    Sponsors are required to monitor studies evaluating new drugs,
biologics, and devices (21 CFR 312.50 and 312.56 for drugs and
biologics, and 21 CFR 812.40 and 812.46 for devices). Various
individuals and groups play different roles in clinical trial
monitoring. One such group is a data monitoring committee (DMC),
appointed by a sponsor to evaluate the accumulating outcome data in
some trials. A clinical trial DMC is a group of individuals with
pertinent expertise that reviews on a regular basis accumulating data
from one or more ongoing clinical trials. The DMC advises the sponsor
regarding the continuing safety of current trial subjects and those yet
to be recruited to the trial, as well as the continuing validity and
scientific merit of the trial.
    The guidance document referenced in this document is intended to
assist sponsors of clinical trials in determining when a DMC is needed
for monitoring a study and how such committees should operate. The
guidance addresses the roles, responsibilities, and operating
procedures of DMCs, describes certain reporting and recordkeeping
responsibilities, including the following: (1) Sponsor notification to
the DMC regarding waivers, (2) DMC reports based on meeting minutes to
the sponsor, (3) sponsor reports to FDA on DMC recommendations related
to safety, (4) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for DMCs, and (5)
DMC meeting records.

1. Sponsor Notification to the DMC Regarding Waivers

    The sponsor must report to FDA certain serious and unexpected
adverse events in drugs and biologics trials (Sec.  312.32 (21 CFR
312.32)) and unanticipated adverse device effects in the case of device
trials (Sec.  812.150(b)(1) (21 CFR 812.150(b)(1)). The Agency
recommends in the guidance that sponsors notify DMCs about any waivers
granted by FDA for expedited reporting of certain serious events.

2. DMC Reports of Meeting Minutes to the Sponsor

    The Agency recommends in the guidance that DMCs should issue a
written report to the sponsor based on the DMC meeting minutes. Reports
to the sponsor should include only those data generally available to
the sponsor. The sponsor may convey the relevant information in this
report to other interested parties, such as study investigators.
Meeting minutes or other information that include discussion of
confidential data would not be provided to the sponsor.

3. Sponsor Reporting to FDA on DMC Recommendations Related to Safety

    The requirement of the sponsor to report DMC recommendations
related to serious adverse events in an expedited manner in clinical
trials of new drugs (Sec.  312.32(c)) would not apply when the DMC
recommendation is related to an excess of events not classifiable as
serious. Nevertheless, the Agency recommends in the guidance that
sponsors inform FDA about all recommendations related to the safety of
the investigational product whether or not the adverse event in
question meets the definition of ``serious.''

4. SOPs for DMCs

    In the guidance, FDA recommends that sponsors establish procedures
to do the following things:
     Assess potential conflicts of interest of proposed DMC
members;
     Ensure that those with serious conflicts of interest are
not included in the DMC;
     Provide disclosure to all DMC members of any potential
conflicts that are not thought to impede objectivity and, thus, would
not preclude service on the DMC;

     Identify and disclose any concurrent service of any DMC
member on other DMCs of the same, related, or competing products;
     Ensure separation, and designate a different statistician
to advise on the management of the trial, if the primary trial
statistician takes on the responsibility for interim analysis and
reporting to the DMC; and
     Minimize the risks of bias that are associated with an
arrangement under which the primary trial statistician takes on the
responsibility for interim analysis and reporting to the DMC, if it
appears infeasible or highly impractical for any other statistician to
take over responsibilities related to trial management.

5. DMC Meeting Records

    The Agency recommends in the guidance that the DMC or the group
preparing the interim reports to the DMC maintain all meeting records.
This information should be submitted to FDA with the clinical study
report (Sec.  314.50(d)(5)(ii) (21 CFR 314.50(d)(5)(ii)).
    a. Description of Respondents: The submission and data collection
recommendations described in this document affect sponsors of clinical
trials and DMCs.
    b. Burden Estimate: Table 1 of this document provides the burden
estimate of the annual reporting burden for the information to be
submitted in accordance with the guidance. Table 2 of this document
provides the burden estimate of the annual recordkeeping burden for the
information to be maintained in accordance with the guidance.
    c. Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens: Based on information from
FDA review divisions, FDA estimates there are approximately 740
clinical trials with DMCs regulated by the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, the Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research,
and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. FDA estimates that
the average length of a clinical trial is 2 years, resulting in an
annual estimate of 370 clinical trials. Because FDA has no information
on which to project a change in the use of DMCs, FDA estimates that the
number of clinical trials with DMCs will not change significantly in
the next few years. For purposes of this information collection, FDA
estimates that each sponsor is responsible for approximately 10 trials,
resulting in an estimated 37 sponsors that are affected by the guidance
annually.
    Based on information provided to FDA by sponsors that have
typically used DMCs for the kinds of studies for which this guidance
recommends them, FDA estimates that the majority of sponsors have
already prepared SOPs for DMCs, and only a minimum amount of time is
necessary to revise or update them for use for other clinical studies.
FDA receives very few requests for waivers regarding expedited
reporting of certain serious events; therefore, FDA has estimated one
respondent per year to account for the rare instance a request may be
made. Based on FDA's experience with clinical trials using DMCs, FDA
estimates that the sponsor on average would issue two interim reports
per clinical trial to the DMC. FDA estimates that the DMCs would hold
two meetings per year per clinical trial, resulting in the issuance of
two DMC reports of meeting minutes to the sponsor. One set of both of
the meeting records should be maintained per clinical trial.
    The ``Average Burden per Response'' and ``Average Burden per
Recordkeeping'' are based on FDA's experience with comparable
recordkeeping and reporting provisions applicable to FDA regulated
industry. The ``Average Burden per Response'' includes the time the
respondent would spend reviewing, gathering, and preparing the
information to be submitted to the DMC, FDA, or the sponsor. The
``Average Burden per Recordkeeping'' includes the time to record,
gather, and maintain the information.
    The information collection provisions in the guidance for
Sec. Sec.  312.30, 312.32, 312.38, 312.55, and 312.56 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; Sec.  314.50 has been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and Sec. Sec.  812.35 and
812.150 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
  Section of guidance/reporting      Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
            activity                respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>. Sponsor notification to               1               1               1            0.25            0.25
 the DMC regarding waivers......                                                       (15 min.)
<IP_ADDRESS>. DMC reports of meeting              370               2             740               1          740
 minutes to the sponsor.........
5. Sponsor reporting to FDA on                37               1              37            0.50           18.5
 DMC recommendations related to                                                        (30 min.)
 safety.........................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          758.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
      Section of guidance/           Number of      records per    Total annual     burden per      Total hours
     recordkeeping activity        recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1. and 6.4 SOPs for DMCs......              37               1              37               8             296
<IP_ADDRESS>. DMC meeting records....             370               1             370               2             740
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,036
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32776 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50189-50191]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20316]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67652; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31 To Specify How MPL Orders With ALO Order
Instructions May Interact

August 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\

notice is hereby given that, on August 6, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to
specify how MPL Orders with ALO Order instructions may interact. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to
specify how MPL Orders with ALO Order instructions may interact.
Background
    An MPL Order is a type of Working Order that has conditional or
undisplayed price and/or size. As set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(h)(5), an MPL Order is a Passive Liquidity Order that is priced at
the midpoint of the PBBO and does not trade through a Protected
Quotation. An MPL Order has a minimum order entry size of one share and
Users may specify a minimum executable size for an MPL Order, which
must be no less than one share. If an MPL Order has a specified minimum
executable size, it will execute against an incoming order that meets
the minimum executable size and is priced at or better than the
midpoint of the PBBO. If the leaves quantity becomes less than the
minimum size, the minimum executable size restriction will no longer be
enforced on executions.
    If the market is locked or crossed, the MPL Order will wait for the
market to unlock or uncross before becoming eligible to trade again.
MPL Orders are ranked in time priority for the purposes of execution as
long as the midpoint is within the limit range of the order. MPL Orders
always execute at the midpoint and do not receive price improvement.
MPL Orders are valid for any session, but do not participate in
auctions. Users that choose not to trade with MPL Orders may mark
incoming limit orders with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' designator and
such limit orders will ignore MPL Orders. MPL Orders do not route out
of the Exchange to other market centers.
    An ALO Order is a limit order that Exchange systems will accept and
place in the NYSE Arca book only when the order adds liquidity. As set
forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(nn), ALO Orders will not route to
an away market, shall be day only, and may not be designated as GTC. In
addition, the rule specifies when Exchange systems will reject incoming
ALO orders at the time of entry, including when the ALO Order is
marketable or if the ALO Order will lock or cross the market. The rule
also specifies that an ALO Order will be rejected if it would interact
with undisplayed orders on NYSE Arca. However, the rule further
specifies that the system will not reject an incoming ALO Order if it
would interact with an MPL Order. Rather, the incoming ALO order will
ignore the MPL Order and proceed to post to the NYSE Arca book.
    Currently, Users may designate an MPL Order to also be an ALO Order
(``MPL-ALO Order''). If an MPL Order (or MPL-ALO Order) is resting on
the NYSE Arca book and an incoming contra-side MPL-ALO Order is
marketable against the resting MPL Order, pursuant to current rules,
the incoming MPL-ALO Order will ignore the resting MPL Order and be
placed in the NYSE Arca Book. As a result, there may be a buy and sell
MPL Order resting on the NYSE Arca Book at the same price that cannot
interact.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to amend both NYSE Arca Equities Rules
7.31(h)(5) and (nn) to specify how MPL Orders with ALO Order
instructions may interact. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.31(h)(5) to specify that User may designate an MPL Order as an ALO
Order and to name such orders as an ``MPL-ALO Order''.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.31(nn) to provide that a
User may specify that a resting MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order may execute
against an arriving marketable MPL-ALO Order. By providing Users with
the choice for an MPL Order to interact with an incoming MPL-ALO Order,
the Exchange believes that it will reduce the potential for two orders
that are marketable against one another to be placed in the NYSE Arca
book.
    The Exchange recognizes that if a User designates an MPL or MPL-ALO
Order to execute against an incoming marketable MPL-ALO Order, the
incoming order would technically not be a liquidity providing order,
since it would be executing against a resting order, and proposes to
amend Rule 7.31(nn) accordingly. However, for purposes of determining
which order is a ``liquidity taker'' and which order is a ``liquidity
provider'', the Exchange will designate the User who chooses for a
marketable MPL-ALO Order to execute to be the liquidity taker.
Accordingly, if the resting interest chooses to interact, but the
arriving MPL-ALO Order does not, the two orders will execute, but the
arriving MPL-ALO Order will be considered the liquidity provider. If
both the resting interest and the arriving MPL-ALO Order are designated
to interact, the Exchange will consider the arriving interest as the
liquidity taker interest.
    The Exchange further proposes to make technical, non-substantive
changes to Rule 7.31(nn). The Exchange proposes to use consistent
terminology for orders that are placed in the NYSE Arca book and
replace the term ``post to'' with ``placed in.'' The Exchange notes
that orders ``placed in'' the NYSE Arca book are not necessary [sic]
displayed orders. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.31(nn)(1)
to clarify that ALO Orders that are marketable will be rejected, except
as provided for in Rule 7.31(nn)(3), which, as noted above, concerns
the proposed new rule text enabling User-directed MPL or MPL-ALO Orders
to interact with incoming marketable MPL-ALO Orders.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Trader Update to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. The implementation date will be no later
than 90 days following publication of the Trader Update announcing
Commission approval.

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\4\ which requires
the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market by reducing the potential for two orders that
are marketable against one another from resting on the NYSE Arca book
and not executing. The proposed rule change will also provide
transparency in the Exchange rules of how MPL Orders with ALO Order
instructions would interact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-83 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-NYSEArca-2012-83. 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 Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-83 and should
be submitted on or before September 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20316 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22160-22161]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B).

DATES: The meeting will be held May 3-5, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the RTCA Conference Rooms, 1828
L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036,<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 186, Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting. The agenda will include:

Specific Working Group Sessions

Tuesday, May 3

 All Day, WG-6 Application Technical Requirements, MacIntosh-
NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room

Wednesday, May 4

 All Day, WG-6 Application Technical Requirements, MacIntosh-
NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room

Thursday, May 5

     Plenary Session

Agenda--Plenary Session--Agenda

May 5, 2011

RTCA--Washington, DC--MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room

9 a.m.

 Chairman's Introductory Remarks

 Review of Meeting Agenda
 Review and Approval of the 53rd Meeting Summary, RTCA Paper
No. 035-11/SC186-307
 FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program Status
 Traffic Situation Awareness with Alerts (TSAA)
     Con-Ops Presentation
 ADS-B IM Coordination with SC-214/WG-78 for Data Link Rqts,
Discussion and Status
 ADS-B Coordination with SC-206 for Wake Vortex, Discussion and
Status
 Working Group Reports
     WG-1--Operations and Implementation
     WG-2--TIS-B MASPS--no report
     WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS -
     Errata Activity and Status
     WG-4--Application Technical Requirements
     Pre-FRAC Briefing for DO-317A
     WG-5--UAT MOPS--No Report
     WG-6--ADS-B MASPS
     RFG--Requirements Focus Group
     Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting
     New Business
     Other Business
     Review Action Items/Work Programs
     Adjourn Plenary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-9491 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


yr ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G)

Cost/ yrb G27 SUBTOTAL 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities Included in 4C C. Implement Activities Included in 3B D. Develop Record System N/ A E. Time to Enter Information i. Facilities above cutoff 1.5 52 54 4,212 211 421 $ 386,631 ii. Facilities below cutoffd 0.5 52 0 0 0 0 $ 0 F. Train Personnel N/ A G. Audits N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 10,821 542 1,081 ( A)

hr/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/ yr ( C) a Respondent/

yr ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G)

Cost/ yrb G28 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 12,444 $ 993,255 a Expect that there will be no new sources covered by these standards over the next three years.

b United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. Technical  $ 82.47/ hr; Managerial  $ 96.41/ hr; Clerical

$ 42.25/ hr.

c Estimate that there are 54 facilities subject to this standard. Estimate there are 3 tank truck and railcars and 131 marine vessels subject to the standards. All other transfer racks subject to Subpart BB are assumed to be complying with the HON. Assume 50 percent of the marine vessels ( 66) operate at negative pressure and do not conduct annual vapor tightness tests.

d For sources below the low quantity applicability for control requirements, a report is only required the first year of operation. It is assumed that this report has been submitted. G29 TABLE G. 9 ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBPART Y ( A)

hr/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/ yr ( C) a Respondent/

yr ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G)

Cost/ yrb 1. Applications Application for approval of Construction/

Modification N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3C B. Required Activities Initial performance test N/ A C. Create Information Annual IFR Internal Inspections and EFR Seal Gap measurements ( existing sources) 8 1 4 32 2 3 $ 2,967 D. Gather Existing Information Included in 3C E. Write Report New Sources ( A)

hr/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/ yr ( C) a Respondent/

yr ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G)

Cost/ yrb G30 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction Included in NSPS Kb Notification of anticipated startup Included in NSPS Kb Notification of actual startup Included in NSPS Kb Notification of emission N/ A Report of emission test N/ A Notification of Control installation and refill at 1st IFR Degassingc 2 1 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Existing Sources Annual Inspection Reports 2 2 4 16 1 2 $ 1,505 Supplemental Delay Reportd 2 1 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Quarterly Emission Report None Expectede Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 8 4. Recordkeeping Requirements ( A)

hr/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/ yr ( C) a Respondent/

yr ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G)

Cost/ yrb G31 A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities Included in 4C C. Implement Activities

Filing and Maintaining Records 2 1 4 8 0 1 $ 704 D. Develop Record System Included in 4C E. Time to Enter Information Included in 4C F. Train Personnel N/ A G. Audits N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 56 3 6 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 65 $ 5,176 a Estimate that there will be 4 existing sources not covered by the HON. All new source burden is included in the NSPS Subpart Kb regulation for storage vessels at 40 CFR Part 60 b United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. Technical  $ 82.47/ hr; Managerial  $ 96.41/ hr; Clerical

$ 42.25/ hr c It is believed that all vessels have been degassed and all controls have been installed as they were to be installed within 10 years of promulgation.

d Estimate that two percent of existing sources will request delay of repair in the annual report. G32 e Assume that no sources will select the fixed roof vented to a control device option and thus have no quarterly reports of excess emissions. TABLE G. 10 ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBPART V Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

year ( C) Respondents/

year ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G) a Cost/ year 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 1 1 2 b 2 0 0 $ 165 B. Required Activities Initial Performance Test 20 1 2 40 2 4 $ 3,671 Reference Method 21/ 22 Tests 4 1 2 8 0 1 $ 704 Repeat Performance Test 20 0.2 2 8 0 1 $ 704 C. Create Information See 3B D. Gather Existing Information See 3B Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

year ( C) Respondents/

year ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G) a Cost/ year G33 E. Write Report Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 4 0 0 $ 331 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 4 0 0 $ 331 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 4 0 0 $ 331 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 4 0 0 $ 331 Report of Performance Test See 3B Application for Alternative 10 1 0.5 5 0 1 $ 456 Initial Report 8 1 2 16 1 2 $ 1,505 Semiannual Report 30 2 55c 3,300 165 330 $ 302,892 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 123 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activities See 4C Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

year ( C) Respondents/

year ( D) Technical hr/ yr ( E= D*. 05) Managerial hr/ yr ( F= D*. 10)

Clerical hr/ yr ( G) a Cost/ year G34 C. Implement Activities See 3B D. Develop Record System N/ A E. Time to Enter Information Records of startups,

shutdown, malfunction, etc. 1.5 1 2 3 0 0 $ 248 Records of operating,

parameters and emissions 0.1 365d 55c 2,008 100 201 $ 184,234 Records of leak detected 0.4 52 55 1,144 57 114 $ 104,966 F. Train personnel N/ A G. Audits N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 6,550 325 654 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 7,529 $ 600,869 a United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. Technical  $ 82.47/ hr; Managerial  $ 96.41/ hr; Clerical

$ 42.25/ hr b Assume one new facility per year comprising two new sources.

c Estimate 21 existing facilities comprising 55 sources. G35 TABLE G. 11: NEW SOURCE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HON Burden Item Average Hours per Activity ( a) Number of Activities per year per respondent ( b) Technical Hours per year per respondent ( c) Estimated.

Number New respondents ( d) Estimated Technical Hours per year ( e) Estimated Managerial Hours per year ( f) Estimated Clerical Hours per year ( g) Annual Cost per year ( h)

1) Read Rule and Instructions 2.7 93 250 5 1,250 63 125 $ 114,780 2) Plan Activities 3.8 93 355 5 1,775 89 178 $ 162,964 3) Training 3.5 38 132 5 660 33 66 $ 60,578 4) Create, Test,

Research and Development 2.4 1,778 4,266 5 21,330 1,067 2,133 $ 1,957,833 5) Gather Information,

Monitor/ Inspect 1.4 2,102 2,943 5 14,715 736 1,472 $ 1,350,669 6) Process/ Compile and Review 0.8 50 40 5 200 10 20 $ 18,357 7) Complete Reports 11.4 49 557 5 2,785 139 279 $ 255,620 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 245 8) Record/ Disclose 10.0 49 489 5 2,445 122 245 $ 224,413 9) Store/ File 5.2 51 264 5 1,320 66 132 $ 121,157 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 46,480 2,325 4,650 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 53,455 $ 4,266,371 ( a) = ( c)/( b)

( d)  From previously approved ICR.

See Attachment I for assumptions and further description of activities. G36 TABLE G. 12: EXISTING SOURCE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HON PROVISIONS Burden Item Average Hours per Activity ( a) Number of Activities per year per respondent ( b) Total Technical Hours per year per respondent ( c) Technical Hours per year per respondent for wastewater ( d) Estimated Technical Hours per year ( e) Estimated Managerial Hours per year ( f) Estimated Clerical Hours per year ( g) Annual Cost $ per year ( h)

1) Read Rule and Instructions 3.6 23 69 14 17,680 884 1,768 $ 1,097,548 2) Plan Activities 6.1 13 61 18 16,080 804 1,608 $ 998,222 3) Training 5.3 4 17 4 4,400 220 440 $ 273,145 4) Create, Test,

Research and Development 17.8 99 1617 150 400,080 20,004 40,008 $ 24,836,366 5) Gather Information,

Monitor/ Inspect 2.5 677 1693 0 406,320 20,316 40,632 $ 25,223,736 6) Process/ Compile and Review 20.0 1 20 0 4,800 240 480 $ 297,977 7) Complete Reports 81.2 5 388 18 94,560 4,728 9,456 $ 5,870,143 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) a 1,600 8) Record/ Disclose 17.5 26 442 12 107,040 5,352 10,704 $ 6,644,883 9) Store/ File 6.8 35 222 15 54,480 2,724 5,448 $ 3,382,037 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 1,105,440 55,272 110,544 Burden Item Average Hours per Activity ( a) Number of Activities per year per respondent ( b) Total Technical Hours per year per respondent ( c) Technical Hours per year per respondent for wastewater ( d) Estimated Technical Hours per year ( e) Estimated Managerial Hours per year ( f) Estimated Clerical Hours per year ( g) Annual Cost $ per year ( h)

G37 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 1,271,256 $ 68,624,057 ( a) = ( c + d)/( b)

( c)  there are 240 existing sources out of the 320 total that will continue to comply with the HON.

( d)  the 80 facilities complying with the CAR will still be required to comply with the HON for wastewater.

a Total number of respondents is 320 ( 240 for HON + 80 CAR still complying with HON Wastewater).

See Attachment I for assumptions and further description of activities. H1 Attachment H Assumptions and Item Descriptions for Attachment F: Table F. 11 ( A) That all existing and new sources must submit an initial report within 120 days of promulgation and an implementation plan or permit application within 12 or 18 months of the compliance date. It is assumed that initial reports and implementation plans have been submitted for existing sources and these reports are only required for new sources. The new sources are most likely to be collocated within existing plants and be included in those existing source reports. ( B) That semiannual reports of results from equipment leak detection and repair programs are required by the equipment leak standard. Sources are required to comply with the equipment leak standard by 6 months after promulgation. It is assumed that an average of 320 facilities will submit reports semiannual ( 320 x 2 = 640) ( even those that use the CAR will still have to submit reports under the HON for wastewater).

Item Descriptions: ( a) Average Hours per Activity are estimates of the specific activities and are the basis for estimating the overall burden. ( b) Number of Activities per year represents the number of reports expected to be reviewed and other related activities during the course of the year. Under the performance test headings, these numbers are based upon assumptions ( A) and ( B), above. For one time reports, the total number of reports expected over the three year period was divided by three to get an annual average incorporating assumption ( C), above. ( c) Estimated Technical Hours per year is the product of ( a) and ( b). ( d) Estimated Managerial Hours per year is 5 percent of ( c). ( e) Estimated Clerical Hours per year is 10 percent of ( c). ( f) Estimated Annual Cost per year is the sum of costs for technical, managerial, and clerical hours based on rates from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Technical  $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Managerial  $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Clerical $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

( Ht x $ 41.57/ hour)+( Hm x $ 56.02/ hour)+( Hc x $ 14.06/ hour) = ( G)

Where: Ht is ( c), or technical hours Hm is ( d), or managerial hours, and Hc is ( e), clerical hours REPORTS REVIEW: 1) Initial represents the EPA review of all initial reports received. 2) Implementation Plan or Permit Applications represents the EPA review of all H2 implementation plans, or permit applications if submitted in lieu of an implementation plan. 3) Compliance Status represents compliance status verification by the EPA for the portions of the standard which a source must comply with before the compliance date ( see assumption ( D) above). 4) Review equipment leak monitoring represents the review and screening of periodic reports received as a result of the equipment leaks standard. 5) Notification of construction/ reconstruction represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources. 6) Notification of anticipated startup represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources. 7) Notification of actual startup represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources. 8) Notification of performance test represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources. 9) Review of test results represents the EPA review of performance test results for new sources. 10) Review periodic reports represents the EPA review of periodic reports.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST is the sum of each of the columns ( d), ( e), ( f) and ( g). I1 Attachment I Assumptions and Item Descriptions for Attachment G: Tables G. 11 and G. 12 Assumptions are: ( A) That there are 240 existing facilities out of 320 that will continue to comply with the HON, rather than the CAR. The 80 facilities complying with the CAR will still be required to comply with the HON wastewater provisions, as the CAR does not include wastewater provisions. The total number of facilities will increase by 5 new facilities per year. Since new facilities must be in compliance at startup, the general periodic recordkeeping and reporting burdens are included, which accounts for the difference in the technical hours per facility. No new facilities are expected to comply directly with the CAR. ( B) That the average representative source, new and existing, will consist of the following points of burden: 20 parameters to monitor at control devices throughout the facility 10 affected storage tanks of various capacities 3 affected major wastewater streams 4 affected transfer rack operations 3 overall leak detection and repair programs for 2,000 points 1 emissions averaging program that involves 10 emission points 1 facility wide inventory of emission points, Group 1 and Group 2 8 Process vents per facility ( C) That there are 5 percent (. 05) managerial and 10 percent (. 10) clerical hours required for every technical hour. ( D) That some activities necessary to generate reports involve creating records in the process, and that these activities are assumed to be reports activities alone, to avoid double counting these as records activities as well. Therefore, only items 8 and 9 are considered records burdens directly.

Item Descriptions: ( a) Average Hours per Activity is back calculated by dividing ( b) into ( c). Since the activities within each burden category can vary significantly, it is too inaccurate to assume an average to use to calculate ( c). Estimated activity technical hours are summarized to obtain ( c) first, then back calculate for ( a) with an estimated ( b). ( b) Estimated Number of Activities per year per source represents the assumed typical number of separate activities a source may encounter during one year. This number may vary from facility to facility depending on consolidation of activities, collocated readings, etc. Since so much variability exists, it is important to note that this is an estimate. This number was only used to back calculate ( a). ( c) Technical Hours per year per source is the actual best estimate of the burden for each burden item. The three year separate activity burdens were divided by three, where appropriate, and then summarized to include in this column. The technical hours for new sources is higher because some periodic compliance reports and records are required at startup. Existing sources I2 do not encounter these reports and record burdens for three years after promulgation. ( d) ( Table G. 11) Estimated Number of New Sources reflect the number given in assumption ( A), above. ( Table G. 12) Technical Hours Per Year Per Source for Wastewater are the annual technical hours associated with recordkeeping and reporting to ensure compliance with requirements for wastewater. As discussed in assumption ( A), facilities complying with the CAR will comply with the HON wastewater requirements. Burden hours per source, per emission type are shown in Table B. 1. ( e) Estimated Technical Hours per year is the product of ( c) and ( d) for new facilities ( Table G. 11). For Table G. 12, estimated technical hours are the product of ( c) and the number of existing facilities complying with all of the HON ( 240) added to the product of ( d) and the number of facilities complying with only the wastewater provisions ( 80). ( f) Estimated Managerial Hours per year is 5 percent of ( e). ( g) Estimated Clerical Hours per year is 10 percent of ( e). ( h) Estimated Annual Cost per year is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( Ht x $ 82.74/ hour)+( Hm x $ 96.41/ hour)+( Hc x $ 42.25/ hour) = ( G)

Where: Ht is ( e), or technical hours Hm is ( f), or managerial hours, and Hc is ( g), clerical hours 1) Read Rule and Instructions are the activities, less training, which involve comprehending the provisions in the standard and understanding how they apply to the respective points at a facility. 2) Plan Activities represents such burdens as design, redesign, scheduling as well as drafting the implementation plan, and selecting methods of compliance. 3) Training represents the portion ( assumed 40 percent) of activities from 1) Read Rule and Instruction for which an average facility would elect to provide class room instruction. The standard does not require specific training itself. 4) Create, Test, Research and Development are the activities involving testing, retesting, establishing operating range for parameters and analyzing point by point applicability. Monitor related refit, calibration and maintenance activities are also included under this heading. 5) Gather Information, Monitor and Inspect are the activities involving physical inspections of equipment, collection of monitored data and other related activities. 6) Process/ Compile and Review are the activities that involve analysis of the information collected for accuracy, compliance and appropriate reports and records required as a result. 7) Complete Reports represents the activities normally associated with filling out forms. Since the standard requires no standard forms, these activities relate to the preparing of formal I3 reports and cover letters as appropriate. 8) Record/ Disclose are activities which are solely recordkeeping which occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted [ see assumption ( D)] above. These activities involve software translation, duplication or archival processes normally associated with data management and storage common to this industry. 9) Store/ File are again activities which are solely recordkeeping which occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted ( see assumption ( D) above). These activities involve the management life cycle of records, from the time they are filed and boxed up, to the time they are disposed.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST is the sum of each of the columns ( e), ( f), ( g) and ( h). J1 Attachment J Summary of Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs for the CAR and the Referencing Subparts NSPS Subpart Ka a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 0.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR is $ 0.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NSPS Subpart Kb a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 27,000. This is the cost for 2 new storage tanks to install monitoring equipment associated with the CVS routed to a control device. The storage tanks will use equipment similar to that used for subparts NNN and III; therefore the startup costs is approximately $ 13,500 per facility for a total of $ 27,000. There are no capital/ startup costs for the remaining 35 new storage tanks complying by either an IFR or EFR.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The average annualized burden is estimated to be $ 1,350 per year per affected facility ($ 13,500 discounted over 10 years by straight line depreciation method) for both new and existing affected sources using CVS to a control device ( 31) for a total of $ 41,850 .

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 68,850.

NSPS Subpart VV a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup costs of this regulation are $ 35,000. This is based on the average cost of a monitor with a 5 year expected life. The equipment is not capitalized, so no discount rate applies. The average annual cost is therefore 7000/ 5 or $ 1400/ yr. It is also estimated that 80 percent of facilities contract out LDAR services and 20 percent perform in house. Those facilities which contract J2 out will purchase one unit as backup; the remaining facilities performing LDAR inhouse will purchase 5 units to support the program. There are currently 1120 affected sources located at 84 facilities or an average of 13.3 sources per facility. The total number of units to be purchased it therefore ( 13*. 8) ( 1 unit) + ( 13*. 2)( 5 units) = 25 units.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The operation of the monitors is included in the monitoring costs. Maintenance costs on these units is incidental, therefore no maintenance or operation costs incur.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 35,000.

NSPS Subpart DDD a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup costs for this regulation are $ 300,000. This is based on 10 new sources per year multiplied by $ 30,000 per source for monitoring equipment.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The annual operation and maintenance costs are $ 630,000 dollars. This is based on 80 existing sources plus 10 new sources over the life of the ICR multiplied by $ 7,000 for upkeep of the monitoring devices.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 930,000.

NSPS Subpart NNN/ III a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: The startup cost of monitoring equipment is approximately $ 13,500 per new affected facility for both Subpart III, Air Oxidation Operations and Subpart NNN, Distillation Operations or a total of $ 2,403,000 ( total of 178 new sources x $ 13,500/ source).

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The average annualized burden is estimated to be $ 1,350 per year per affected facility ($ 13,500 discounted over 10 years by straight line depreciation method) for Subpart III and for Subpart NNN for a total of $ 1,830,600 [($ 1350 x 1356) total number of new and existing affected sources under NNN and III].

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: J3 The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 4,233,600.

NSPS Subpart RRR a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup costs for this regulation are $ 500,000 dollars per year. This is based on 20 new sources per year multiplied by $ 25,000 for monitoring equipment discounted over 10 years at 7 percent.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The annual operation and maintenance costs are $ 77,500 dollars. This is based on 155 existing sources multiplied by $ 500 for upkeep of the monitoring device.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital/ startup and O& M Costs are $ 577,500.

NESHAP Subpart BB a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Monitoring Equipment: Startup cost were identified in previous ICR.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: There are no O& M cost associated because no CEMs are employed.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP Subpart Y a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards is labor cost. There are no capital/ startup costs.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: There are no operation and maintenance costs.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP Subpart V a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: Startup cost were identified in previous ICR. J4 b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: There are no O& M cost associated because no CEMs are employed.

c. Total Capital and O& M Cost The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP HON:

Subpart G a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: Estimate the cost to purchase monitoring equipment is approximately $ 20 30K for process vents and wastewater operations, or an average of $ 25K with a 10 year life expectancy and a 7 percent depreciation rate, or $ 2225 per year. There are no associated costs for transfer racks and storage tanks. Only new sources need to buy Monitoring equipment; therefore, the total capital/ startup cost is $ 25,000 x 5 or $ 125,000.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The cost to industry associated with the operation and maintenance ( O& M) is approximately $ 100 500K per year ( capital/ startup depreciation not included) for reactor process vents and wastewater operations. The cost associated with the operation and maintenance $ 50 100K per year ( capital/ startup depreciation not included) for distillation units process vents. There are no associated costs for transfer racks and storage tanks. The average O& M cost is assumed to be the average of the two ranges, or $ 275,000 per year. Operation and maintenance incur for both new and existing sources. The total O& M is therefore $ 275,000 x 245 or $ 67,375,000.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 67,500,000.

Subpart H a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: Only new sources will buy an organic volatile analyzer. Estimate the average cost of a monitor is $ 7,000 with a 5 year expected life. The equipment is not capitalized, so no discount rate applies. The average annual cost is therefore $ 7000/ 5 or $ 1400/ yr. Estimate that 80 percent of facilities contract out LDAR services and 20 percent perform in house. Those facilities which contract out ( 4 facilities) will purchase one unit as backup; the remaining facilities performing LDAR in house ( 1 facility) will purchase 5 units to support the program. The total annual capital/ startup cost is therefore 9 units x 1400/ unit or $ 12,600/ yr. J5 b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The operation of the monitors is included in the monitoring costs. Maintenance costs on these units is incidental, therefore, no maintenance or operation costs incur.

c. Total Capital and O& M Cost for Subparts H, and I: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 12,600.

Part 65 CAR a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Monitoring Equipment: Under the CAR, it is assumed all new sources start out under the referencing subpart. Therefore, there is no capital/ startup cost associated with this subpart.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment: The HON is the basis for determining O& M costs for the CAR. The average cost per source, based on the HON is $ 275,000 per year for a total of $ 22,000,000.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 22,000,000.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13918-13919]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2011-0786]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Non-Primary Entitlement
Funds Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2017

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces May 1,
2017, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA
whether or not it will use its fiscal year 2017 entitlement funds
available under Section 47114 of Title 49, United States Code, to
accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP) eligible projects that the
airport sponsor previously identified through the Airports Capital
Improvement Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year.
    The airport sponsor's notification must address all entitlement
funds available to date for fiscal year 2017, as well as any
entitlement funds not obligated from prior years. After Friday, July 7,
2017, the FAA will carry-over the remainder of currently available
entitlement funds, and these funds will not be available again until at
least the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Currently, the AIP has
approximately 56 percent of the entitlements available through April
28, 2017. If congressional action is taken which provides for
additional entitlements, the FAA will then work with airport sponsors
to adjust accordingly. This notification requirement does not apply to
non-primary airports covered by the block-grant program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank J. San Martin, Manager,
Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, on<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 of the United States Code, section
47105(f), provides that the sponsor of each airport to which funds are
apportioned shall notify the Secretary by such time and in a form as
prescribed by the Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to apply
for its apportioned funds, also called entitlement funds. Therefore,
the FAA is hereby notifying such airport sponsors of the steps required
to ensure that the FAA has sufficient time to carry-over and convert
remaining entitlement funds, due to processes required under federal
laws. This notice applies only to those airports that have had
entitlement funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports
located in designated block-grant States. Airport sponsors intending to
apply for any of their available entitlement funds, including those
unused from prior years, shall make their intent known by 12:00 p.m.
prevailing local time on Monday, May 1, 2017, consistent with prior
practice. A written indication must be provided to the designated
Airports District Office (or Regional Office in regions without
Airports District Offices) stating their intent to submit a grant
application no later than close of business Friday, June 2, 2017 and to
use their fiscal year 2017 entitlement funds available under Title 49
of the United States Code, section 47114. This notice must address all
entitlement funds available to date for fiscal year 2017 including
those entitlement funds not obligated from prior years. By Friday, June
2, 2017, airport sponsors that have not yet submitted a final
application to the FAA, must notify the FAA of any issues meeting the
final application deadline of Friday, June 30, 2017. Absent
notification from the airport sponsor by the May 1 deadline and/or
subsequent notification by the June 2 deadline of any issues meeting
the application deadline, the FAA will proceed after Friday, June 30,
2017 to take action to carry-over the remainder of available
entitlement funds without further notice. These funds will not be
available again until at least the beginning of fiscal year 2018. These
dates are subject to possible adjustment based on future extensions to
the FAA's current appropriation which currently expires April 28, 2017.
    This notice is promulgated to expedite and facilitate the grant-
making process.
    The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public
Law 114-190, the ``FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016,''
enacted on July 15, 2016, which authorizes the FAA through September
30, 2017 and the ``Furthering Continuing and Security Assistance
Appropriations Act, 2017'' which appropriates FY 2017 funds for the AIP
through April 28, 2017.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2017.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2017-05176 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35587-35590]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12403]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95041; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

June 3, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 31, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' 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 self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding credits relating to the BOLD
Mechanism. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
June 1, 2022. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website 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 purpose of this filing is to modify credits associated with the
BOLD Mechanism, a trading mechanism for automated order handling for
eligible orders in designated classes pursuant to NYSE American Rule
994NY.
    Currently, BOLD Initiating Orders receive the better of a $0.12 per
contract credit or a higher credit earned by qualifying for the
American Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program.\4\ As set forth in
Section I.E. of the Fee Schedule, the ACE Program provides qualifying
participants with per contract credits applicable to Electronic options
transactions, including those executed via the BOLD Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.M. BOLD Mechanism Fees &
Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify Section I.M. of the Fee
Schedule to provide that the credit available to BOLD Initiating Orders
would be the better of $0.12 or, to the extent an ATP Holder would
qualify for a higher credit via the ACE Program, $0.13.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that this proposed change would only
impact the credit relating to BOLD Initiating Orders, and the ACE
Program credits outlined in Section I.E. remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the fees and credits relating to the BOLD
Mechanism, as originally established,\6\

were intended to encourage the use of the new mechanism, which purpose
was achieved. The Exchange believes that, although the proposed change
would set an upper limit on the credit for BOLD Initiating Orders
offered to ATP Holders that qualify via the ACE Program, the proposed
change would not discourage ATP Holders from continuing to use the BOLD
Mechanism and would continue to provide an incentive to ATP Holders to
submit orders to the Exchange for execution via the BOLD Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80964 (June 19,
2017), 82 FR 28726 (June 23, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-37) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to Modify the
NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective June 1,
2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\8\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\10\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in April 2022, the Exchange had
less than 9% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity
and ETF options trades.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \11\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options decreased
from 8.57% for the month of April 2021 to 8.14% for the month of
April 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as
OTP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options
exchanges. The Exchange regularly reviews the effectiveness of various
fees and incentives, including to determine whether moderations of such
fees and incentives would be appropriate. As noted above, the existing
fees and credits for use of the BOLD Mechanism were designed to incent
ATP Holders to become familiar with the execution quality of the
mechanism, and ATP Holders have now had the opportunity to do so.
Having reviewed the effectiveness of the credit offered on BOLD
Initiating Orders, the Exchange believes that its proposed modification
of the incentives for use of the BOLD Mechanism is reasonably designed
to continue to encourage ATP Holders to submit orders to the Exchange
for execution via the BOLD Mechanism and would not discourage ATP
Holders from continuing to use the BOLD Mechanism even though the
credit available to ATP Holders that earn a higher credit through the
ACE Program would be capped at $0.13, as proposed.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether or the extent to
which ATP Holders would continue to use the BOLD Mechanism, but
believes that the $0.12 credit on BOLD Initiating Orders (which remains
unchanged) as well as the proposed credit of $0.13 for qualifying ACE
Program participants would continue to encourage ATP Holders to utilize
the mechanism. The Exchange further believes that the benefits
associated with the use of the BOLD Mechanism would continue to provide
an incentive for ATP Holders to direct Customer options order flow to
the Exchange, which brings increased liquidity and order flow for the
benefit of all market participants.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed change continues to attract
volume and liquidity, while encouraging use of the BOLD Mechanism, the
Exchange believes the proposed change would improve the Exchange's
overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all
market participants by offering various mechanisms for execution of
orders. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by
the Exchange to maintain the depth of its market and maintain its
market share relative to its competitors. ATP Holders have a choice of
where they direct their order flow (including their Customer marketable
orders), and the proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent
ATP Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange, thereby promoting
market depth, price discovery and improvement and enhancing order
execution opportunities for market participants.
The Proposed Rule Change is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders can opt
to use the BOLD Mechanism or not. Although the proposed change would
limit the credit available on BOLD Initiating Orders for certain ATP
Holders that also participate in the ACE Program, such limit would
apply equally to all ACE Program participants that may be eligible for
a higher credit and would thus provide for a more equitable allocation
of credits associated with the use of the BOLD Mechanism. Moreover, the
proposal is designed to continue to incent ATP Holders to aggregate all
Customer interest at the Exchange as a primary execution venue and to
attract more marketable orders to be executed through the BOLD
Mechanism. To the extent that the proposed change does not discourage
ATP Holders from directing Customer marketable orders to the Exchange,
the Exchange believes that order flow sent to the Exchange for
execution via the BOLD Mechanism would continue to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution of all
order types. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a

consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the
credit for BOLD Initiating Orders is unfairly discriminatory because
all ATP Holders that submit orders through the BOLD Mechanism would
continue to be eligible for the $0.12 credit, and the proposed
modification to cap the credit available to ATP Holders that may be
eligible for a higher credit via the ACE Program at $0.13 would apply
equally to all such ATP Holders.
    The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted
on the Exchange, and ATP Holders are not obligated to use the BOLD
Mechanism. Rather, the proposal is designed to encourage ATP Holders to
utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for Customer marketable
orders (if they have not done so previously). To the extent that the
proposed change would continue to encourage ATP Holders to maintain
their current level of Customer interest, including marketable
interest, on the Exchange, this order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a competitive venue for, among other things, order execution.
Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would support
market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting continued volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would continue to encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among
orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks
for all types of orders, large and small.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 9, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
maintain order flow (particularly Customer marketable orders) to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the
credit on BOLD Initiating Orders would not discourage ATP Holders from
using the BOLD Mechanism or maintaining their current level of Customer
marketable order flow to the Exchange and, to the extent such purpose
is achieved, the Exchange would maintain its Customer order flow, which
benefits all market participants on the Exchange. In addition, because
the credits available on BOLD Initiating Orders, as modified, would be
available to all similarly-situated market participants that execute
Customer marketable interest through the BOLD Mechanism, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change would impose a disparate
burden on competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\13\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
April 2022, the Exchange had less than 9% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 10, supra.
    \14\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options decreased
from 8.57% for the month of April 2021 to 8.14% for the month of
April 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because, although it may reduce the credit that
some ATP Holders would earn on BOLD Initiating Orders, it modifies the
Exchange's fees in a manner designed to continue to incent ATP Holders
to direct trading interest (particularly Customer marketable interest)
to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order flow. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market
participants should benefit from the improved market quality and
increased opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could maintain
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar Customer execution mechanisms, by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-22. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-22, and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12403 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P