[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65305-65308]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20503]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1250; Project Identifier AD-2022-00763-T;
Amendment 39-22490; AD 2023-13-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating fuselage
skin lap splice cracking was found between stations (STA) 767 and STA
787, just below S-14R fuselage skin lap splice, where a lower skin
panel buckle intersected the upper skin of the lap splice. Cracking was
also found just below S-14R between STA 747 and STA 767. This AD
requires an inspection for any repair at certain skin lap splices at S-
4, S-14, and S-24 and depending on the configuration, repetitive
inspections for buckling, wrinkling, or bulging at affected skin lap
splices and repair, repetitive inspections for cracking at affected
locations common to fuselage skin on the left and right sides and
repair, and alternative inspections and on-condition actions. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 27, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 27,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1250; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Owen Bley-Male, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-
231-3992; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2022 (87 FR
67581). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating fuselage skin lap
splice cracking was found between STA 767 and STA 787, just below S-14R
fuselage skin lap splice, where a lower skin panel buckle intersected
the upper skin of the lap splice. Cracking was also found just below S-
14R between STA 747 and STA 767. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require an inspection for any repair at certain skin lap splices and
depending on the configuration, repetitive inspections for buckling,
wrinkling, or bulging at affected skin lap splices and repair,
repetitive inspections for cracking at affected locations common to
fuselage skin on the left and right sides and repair, and alternative
inspections and on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address cracks, skin buckles, wrinkles, and bulges at fuselage
longitudinal lap splice areas at S-4, S-14 and S-24. This condition, if
not addressed, could result in cracks in fatigue-critical baseline
structure and the inability of a principal structural element to
sustain limit loads, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from The Air Line Pilots Association,
International, who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from six commenters, including
Boeing, Aviation Partners Boeing, Delta Air Lines (Delta), Southwest
Airlines (SWA), United Airlines (UAL), and Qantas. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified
in the proposed AD.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and
added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17

Request To Correct Errors in Service Information or Refer to Latest
Service Information

    Boeing, Delta, SWA, UAL, and Qantas requested that the NPRM be
revised to correct errors in the referenced service information.
Boeing, SWA, UAL, and Qantas requested that the NPRM be

revised to refer to a new revision of Boeing Special Attention
Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, dated May 20, 2022. The
commenters noted that Boeing was drafting a revision to correct several
errors in the service information. Boeing stated that the revision
would modify a table and several illustrations, inspection steps, and
footnotes to clarify the inspection locations, and revise Table 1 in
the Accomplishment Instructions to correctly specify the applicable
airplanes. SWA suggested the revision would clarify the distinction
between the detailed visual and non-destructive testing (NDT)
inspections underneath the lap joint. UAL and SWA noted that certain
figures incorrectly specify to externally inspect an area that is not
visible externally. UAL added that the revision would correct errors in
the figures related to orientations of airplane sections. Delta and
Qantas noted that Table 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, dated May 20,
2022, includes the compliance actions for Groups 1 through 6 airplanes,
but Table 1 specifies it applies only to Group 1 airplanes. UAL pointed
out that Table 1 in the Compliance section specifies the inspections
are applicable to all airplanes, which contradicts Table 1 in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Requirements
Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, dated May 20, 2022.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters' request. The FAA has reviewed
Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision
1, dated March 14, 2023, which corrects the errors noted by the
commenters. Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399
RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023, also combines actions for several
conditions to remove duplicative instructions and revises related
figures accordingly. These revisions allow operators to do all
applicable actions for their airplane models without obtaining an AMOC,
and do not add additional work. The FAA has revised this AD to refer to
Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision
1, dated March 14, 2023.

Request To Clarify Inspection Locations

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the Related Service
Information Under 1 CFR part 51 section of the NPRM to clarify the
inspection locations, including whether they are on the right (R) or
left (L) side of the airplane, and applicable airplane models for each
inspection location. Boeing noted that the locations specified in the
NPRM don't correspond to the service information due to errors in
Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, dated
May 20, 2022.
    The FAA agrees to revise the Related Service Information Under 1
CFR part 51 section for the reasons provided. The FAA has revised this
section as requested.

Request To Clarify Root Cause of Cracking

    Boeing asked that the FAA change a sentence in the Background
section of the NPRM to specify that the skin lap splice cracking ``may
have been the result of incorrect procedures . . .'' rather than ``was
the result of incorrect procedures . . .'' Boeing noted that it has
always stated that the root cause of cracking is unknown.
    The FAA agrees that the suggested wording provides clarification on
the root cause. However, the sentence in question does not get carried
over to the final rule. This AD was not changed regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Number of Reports

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise a sentence in the Background
section of the NPRM to specify that the FAA ``received a report from
Boeing'' rather than ``received reports'' indicating fuselage skin
cracking was found. Boeing noted that it had only one report of crack
findings, with only one airplane with cracks reported.
    The FAA agrees that the suggested wording is more accurate.
However, the sentence in question does not get carried over to the
final rule. This AD was not changed regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Reference to Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD)

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to remove
reference to WFD. Boeing explained that, although there was one report
of multi-site damage within two bays, it does not consider this
cracking to be a WFD issue. Boeing added that, based on its reviews of
similar manufactured skins on other models of Boeing airplanes, these
skins are not susceptible to WFD. Additionally, Boeing proposed revised
language for the unsafe condition sentence in the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. After further review,
the FAA has determined that a single crack finding is not enough to
conclusively indicate that the unsafe condition is related to WFD.
However, an unsafe condition still exists because cracks in fatigue-
critical baseline structure and the inability of a principal structural
element to sustain limit loads could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane. The FAA has revised the SUMMARY, Background
section, and paragraph (e) of this AD to remove reference to WFD, and
revised the Background section and paragraph (e) of this AD to clarify
the unsafe condition.

Request To Define Skin Buckles, Wrinkles, and Bulges

    Qantas requested that the proposed AD be revised to provide more
precise definitions for skin buckles, wrinkles, and bulges, including
size, orientation, origin, and depth as well as whether wrinkling is
permanent or temporary. Qantas noted that skin panels have minor
imperfections due to production assembly processes, but those aren't
skin buckles, wrinkles, or bulges. Qantas states that what constitutes
a skin buckle, wrinkle, or bulge could be open to interpretation,
causing operators to perform unnecessary NDT inspection. The commenter
noted that it found a Boeing definition of a buckle and a Boeing
Service Letter that states wrinkling is temporary and will have no
detrimental long-term effect unless it becomes more severe or
permanent. The commenter added that the Boeing Service Letter suggests
that you'll find wrinkling in the vicinity of the inspection area.
Qantas suggested this would lead to unnecessary repeat inspection on
unrepaired areas and cause an undue burden.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. This terminology
reflects the suspected root cause of the discovered cracking, and
possible precursors to future cracks. This terminology also reflects
commonly used verbiage for possible structural damage, so further
explanation is unnecessary. However, the FAA notes that Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March
14, 2023, states that areas of loose paint, discoloration, loose
fasteners, lap joint separation, or disturbed sealant can be indicative
of areas where a skin buckle, wrinkle, or bulge has occurred. Skin
buckles, wrinkles, or bulges could lead to cracks that may result in
the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and
lead to a decompression event. Therefore, the follow-on inspections for
cracks are necessary if any skin buckles, wrinkles, or bulges are
found, regardless of size, origin, depth, or other factors. This AD was
not changed regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Certain Compliance Times

    Qantas noted that, for certain conditions, the NDT inspections must
be repeated every 600 flight cycles, regardless whether any buckle,
wrinkle, or bulge is found, which is burdensome for operators. The FAA
infers the commenter is requesting an extension of the compliance time.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. In developing the
compliance times for this AD, the FAA considered the recommendations of
the manufacturer as well as the urgency associated with the subject
unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of
this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of
the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate
that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of
safety. This AD was not changed regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Paint Thickness for Certain Inspections

    SWA requested clarification regarding the acceptable level of paint
thickness for certain inspections. SWA noted that figures 17 through 19
and 28 through 35 in Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin
737-53-1399 RB, dated May 20, 2022, indicate that subsequent NDT
inspections can be accomplished with paint in place. SWA added that per
the 737 NDT Manual Part 4, 53-30-06, the procedure can only be used
with paint up to 0.007 inches thick. SWA suggested adding this guidance
in a note, since the repetitive inspections occur every 600 flight
cycles.
    The FAA notes that the suggested clarification has been added to a
note in the applicable figures in Boeing Special Attention Requirements
Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023. As
previously noted, this AD has been revised to refer to Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March
14, 2023. Therefore, no further change to this AD is necessary
regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin
737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023. This service
information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for
any repair, any buckle, any wrinkle, any bulge, and any cracking at
skin lap splice at stringers S-4R (737-800 Boeing Converted Freighter
airplanes only), S-14L, S-14R, and S-24R (737-600, -700, -700C, 800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes only). This service information also
describes procedures, depending on the configuration, for repetitive
detailed inspections for buckling, wrinkling, or bulging at unrepaired
areas of affected lap splices, and repair; repetitive detailed, high
frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic (UT) inspections for
cracking at affected locations common to fuselage skin on the left and
right sides, and repair; and alternative inspections and on-condition
actions. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2,462 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.....................  Up to 34 work-hours x              $0  $2,890 per           Up to $7,115,180
                                   $85 per hour = Up to                   inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                   $2,890 per inspection                                       cycle.
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs or for the alternative
inspections and on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-13-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22490; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1250; Project Identifier AD-2022-00763-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 27, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -
700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating fuselage skin lap
splice cracking was found between stations (STA) 767 and STA 787,
just below S-14R fuselage skin lap splice, where a lower skin panel
buckle intersected the upper skin of the lap splice. Cracking was
also found just below S-14R between STA 747 and STA 767. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address cracks, skin buckles, wrinkles, and
bulges at fuselage longitudinal lap splice areas at S-4, S-14 and S-
24. This condition, if not addressed, could result in cracks in
fatigue-critical baseline structure and the inability of a principal
structural element to sustain limit loads, which could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1,
dated March 14, 2023, do all applicable actions identified in, and
in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1,
dated March 14, 2023.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023, which is
referred to in Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-
53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Special Attention Requirements
Bulletin 737-53-1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023, use the
phrase ``the original issue date of the Requirements Bulletin 737-
53-1399 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of this
AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-
1399 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023, specifies contacting
Boeing for repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This
AD requires doing the repair and doing the alternative inspections
and applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]/.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520
Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To
be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Owen Bley-Male,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-53-1399
RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 30, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20503 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
      Title: EPA's Safer Choice Program Product and Partner Recognition Activities
      EPA ICR No.: 2692.01
      OMB Control No.: 2070-[new]
      EPA Form Numbers: EPA Form 9600-023: Safer Choice Program Partner of the Year Application Form; EPA Form 9600-017: Product and Ingredient Submission; EPA Form 9600-018: Private Label Submission; EPA Form 9600-019: General Adult Questionnaire; EPA Form 9600-020: Leaning Green Questionnaire; EPA Form 9600-021: Moderator guide; EPA Form 9600-022: General Adult Population Survey; and EPA Form 9600-023: Safer Choice Program Partner of the Year Awards Application Form
      Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0245

Abstract

This ICR will cover the information collection activities associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities participating in or collaborating with EPA's Safer Choice program. These components are designed to:

Improve data efficiency by electronic data collection via a cloud-based Salesforce system called the Safer Choice Community;
Monitor the public's awareness of the Safer Choice program and label; and,
Clarify the Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards application process and form.

Legal authority: Section 6604(b)(5) of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(5) (see Attachment A) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). More details are provided in section 1(a) of this Supporting Statement.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include current and potential voluntary participants in the Safer Choice program, and any purchasers or users of chemical products.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Although participation in the Safer Choice program is voluntary, certain responses and submission of materials are mandatory under TSCA and required by the Safer Choice program.

      Confidentiality of responses: Respondents may claim all or part of a document submitted to be confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

Summary Total Burden and Costs

IC Summary Table: Annual Burden and Cost over the Three-Year ICR Period
IC Category
Responses
Burden
Total Cost
Respondents
IC #1: Safer Choice program
157
1,596
$666,806
IC #2: Safer Choice label redesign consultations
2,330
771
$35,466
IC #3: Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards
35
525
$34,030
Annual Total
2,522
2,892
$736,302
Agency
IC #1: Safer Choice program
N/A
658
$46,664
IC #2: Safer Choice label redesign consultations
N/A
15
$20,884
IC #3: Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards
N/A
54
$3,960
Annual Total
N/A
727
$71,508

Supporting Statement
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

Related Legal and/or Administrative Requirements

The related legal authority derives from Section 6604(b)(5) of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), (42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(5) (Attachment A), which directs EPA to facilitate the adoption of source-reduction techniques by businesses, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), which encourages safety through technological innovation in chemistry. EPA has developed the Safer Choice program in recognition of this statutory directive, and through consultation with a broad range of stakeholders.

Necessity of the Information Collection

The information collection activities covered by this ICR are necessary components of the Safer Choice program established under PPA and TSCA mandates.

Safer Choice information collection activities will assist the Agency in meeting the goals of the PPA by: (1) providing resources and recognition for individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities committed to the design, manufacture, selection, promotion, sale, and use of  products with safer chemical ingredients and to innovation in safer chemistry; (2) ensuring that the Safer Choice label and educational activities effectively communicate the Agency's missions under the PPA and TSCA; and (3) recognizing the leadership contributions of Safer Choice partners and stakeholders who, over the past year, have shown achievement in the design, manufacture, selection, promotion, sale, and use of products with safer chemical ingredients, that further outstanding or innovative source reduction. In turn, the Safer Choice program will help businesses meet corporate sustainability goals by providing the means to, and an objective measure of, environmental stewardship. Investment analysts and advisers seek these types of measures in evaluating a corporation's sustainability profile and investment worthiness. It is not surprising, then, that EPA has heard from many organizations that Safer Choice program partnership is an important impetus for prioritizing and completing the transition to safer chemical products. The Safer Choice program is also needed to increase demand for and encourage the development of safer chemical-based products, to the benefit of consumers, including low income and minority communities, manufacturing partners, retailers, other stakeholders, and the environment.

Safer Choice has carefully tailored its request for information to ensure that it only asks for information essential for verifying applicant and product eligibility for recognition (e.g., via the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system), testing the qualities of the selected label concepts and outreach efforts, and verifying an applicant's eligibility for award or recognition (e.g., via the Safer Choice Program Partner of the Year application form).

Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
The information collected by the Safer Choice program is not designed or intended to support regulatory decision-making by EPA. EPA will use the information collected to: (1) promote the program's scientific basis and the human health and environmental benefits of using products with safer chemical ingredients, (2) increase consumer recognition of certified products with safer ingredients carrying the Safer Choice label, (3) recognize businesses and others already involved in the Safer Choice program and encourage additional businesses to participate in the Safer Choice program, and (4) further drive innovation and the development of products with safer chemical ingredients that protect human health and the environment.

Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

In order to facilitate collection activities, the Safer Choice program has implemented the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system that houses application, review, and notification processes. This system is a centralized location for information collected as part of the Safer Choice program's various activities. In addition, the Agency will accept more traditional methods of delivery (mail, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery) as well as faxed and e-mailed application forms.

Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

Respondents will not be asked to provide information that has been or is currently being collected by EPA, other federal or state agencies, or proprietary sources. The information collected by the Safer Choice program is unique and is not duplicative of previous information collection requests. EPA also checked with potential respondents to confirm that the information being collected does not exist elsewhere.

If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.

EPA expects that some of the participants will be small entities. EPA has designed its application forms to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. In addition, given the voluntary nature of the collection, EPA expects that respondents will participate only if the benefits of participation outweigh the information collection burden.

Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The application forms included in this ICR are designed to be one-time information submissions for organizations that wish to participate in or be recognized by the Safer Choice program. In relation to using the Safer Choice label, this means that once every three years, the organization will submit a renewal application to confirm that no changes have been made to ingredients; this step is done in response to correspondence from Safer Choice that reminds organizations of the terms of their partnership agreements. The consumer online survey to test awareness of the Safer Choice label will be conducted annually to measure trends in consumer recognition of the label. The Partner of the Year Awards application form is designed to be an annual information submission for only those organizations interested in being considered for the award.

Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

Not applicable.

If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
   Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
   Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) in proposing to submit this ICR, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will provide a 60-day public comment period. The comments received and any additional public comment for this action will be posted in the docket.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), in addition to the public notice EPA staff will contact appropriate stakeholders and ask them for their assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR. A summary of these consultations will be provided in the supporting statement during the second comment period. The full consultation will be reserved in Attachment K.

This is a new ICR that summarizes the information collection activities for the Safer Choice program  -  a voluntary program administered by the EPA. Currently the Safer Choice program has two ICRs that are approved by the OMB under the separate OMB control numbers identified:

OMB Control No. 2070-0178; EPA ICR No. 2302.03; entitled "Safer Choice Product Recognition Program (Renewal)"; approved through 05/31/2022
OMB Control No. 2070-0189; EPA ICR No. 2487.02; entitled "Safer Choice Label Consultations (Renewal)"; approved through 11/30/2022.

Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

For the purposes of this data collection, we anticipate the total incentive/travel reimbursement offered to each consumer focus group participant to be $100. For further information, refer to Supporting Statement B of EPA ICR No. 2487.02 (OMB Control No. 2070-0189).

Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

Some information collected by EPA through the Safer Choice program involves confidential business or trade secret information. The Safer Choice program handles all information claimed as such as confidential business information in accordance with Agency confidentiality procedures (see 40 CFR part 2, subpart B). The Safer Choice program uses information provided by businesses solely for the purposes related to forming partnerships and discloses the information only to EPA employees and EPA contractors cleared for confidential information with a specific need to know.

Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions involving sexuality, religious beliefs, political affiliation, or other matters considered private, as referred to in the Supporting Statement for PRA Submissions in the document "Guidance on Agency Survey and Statistical Information Collections," from January 20, 2006. EPA will adhere to its Privacy Policy (EPA classification number 2151) that establishes requirements for safeguarding the collection, access, use, dissemination, and storage of personally identifiable information (PII) and Privacy Act information in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and policy and guidance issued by the President and Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.

For each respondent category, this section of the ICR describes the respondents, the information collection activities and related estimates for hour burden and costs associated with those activities. See Attachment J for detailed calculations of burden and cost.

12(a).Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with industries most likely affected by the paperwork requirements are described below:

325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (Primary)
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
3256 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing (Primary)
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (Primary)
424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (Primary)
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
4451 Grocery Stores
445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores (Primary)
445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores
446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores
453210 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores
453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) (Primary)
454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
481 Air Transportation
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses)
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) (Primary)
561210 Facilities Support Services
561720 Janitorial Services
561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities
7211 Traveler Accommodation
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
8123 Dry cleaning and Laundry Services
813410 Civic and Social Organizations (Primary)
813910 Business Associations (Primary)
921190 Other General Government Support
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs (Primary)

12(b).Estimated Respondent Burden and Costs by Information Collection

IC #1: Safer Choice product recognition program applications (Safer Choice program)

Respondent NAICS Codes:
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
3256 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

Information Collection Activities:
Once a company with an interest in partnership with the Safer Choice program reviews the program materials and decides to apply, the next step for the organization is to submit the appropriate application.

Data items:
Applicants for this voluntary program submit information items that vary depending upon the class of product. The items include:

      Partnership Applications
      Product manufacturers will submit ingredient information, as described here, through the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system, to a qualified third-party profiler before submittal to EPA. See Attachment B.

      Information submitted to third-party profilers:
Company name and website URL;
Number of employees;
Company headquarters address and manufacturing address;
Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of the candidate's signatory contact person (e.g., CEO, or vice president for health and environment);
Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of candidate's technical contact person;
Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of candidate's marketing/outreach contact person;
Product information (name(s), UPC, GSA number, sector, production volume, pH, product form, product use);
Product characteristics on whether or not the product:
Is an EPA registered pesticide;
Is a direct release product;
Is a concentrate;
Contains enzymes, fragrance, or VOCs;
Requires hazard labeling;
Ingredient disclosure and performance data submitted;
Packaging information:
Container size and shapes;
Material;
Supplier;
Description of all chemical ingredients, including raw materials and alternative ingredients, in product:
CAS number;
Chemical name;
Trade name;
Percent composition;
Ingredient class;
Supplier name;
Other product information, including product packaging description, product flashpoint, and compostability;
Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the product and each ingredient;
Product performance testing (any method of demonstrating product performance is acceptable as long as it is a commonly used industry standard);
If available, any supplemental product or ingredient environmental health and safety information, such as:
Biodegradation tests on individual ingredients;
Acute aquatic toxicity tests on product as a whole or individual ingredients;
Human health and safety tests;
Description of the type of training the company provides to customers on environmental and worker safety matters.

      Information submitted to EPA:
Summary report, containing same data items as above

      Adding Private Label Partners, Products, and Alternate Product Names
      Cleaning product manufacturers will submit information about private label additions to Safer Choice. To be label-eligible, private label products must contain ingredients identical to those in a Safer Choice-certified product. The three types of private label partners and products are private labels, licensees, and toll manufacturers. Cleaning product manufacturers will also submit information about alternate product names sold by the same manufacturer. To be label-eligible, alternate products must contain ingredients identical to those in a Safer Choice-certified product. See Attachment C.

Information submitted to EPA through the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system includes:
Private label company name and website URL;
Number of employees;
Company headquarters address;
Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of candidate's marketing/outreach contact person;
Current Safer Choice-certified product that is identical to the private label product;
Product information (name(s), UPC, GSA number, sector, production volume, pH, product form, product use); and
Product label and packaging information.

      Ingredient Submissions
      Product and/or chemical manufacturers will submit ingredient information as described here, through the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system, to a qualified third-party profiler before submittal to EPA. See Attachment B. Chemicals and ingredients submitted to EPA are candidates for listing on the Safer Choice Safer Chemical Ingredients List, candidates for GreenBlue's CleanGredients(R) database, or are provided in support of customers' product reviews.

      Information submitted to third-party profilers:
Ingredient name/trade designation and alternate name(s);
Company name and website URL;
Company headquarters address;
Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of candidate's technical contact person;
Description of all chemicals, including raw materials and alternatives, in the ingredient:
CAS number;
Chemical name;
Trade name;
Percent composition;
Ingredient class;
Supplier name;
Structural and chemical identity information including particle size;
Ingredient characteristics on whether or not the ingredient:
Contains preservatives, stabilizers, or antioxidants;
Contains residuals, impurities, or by-products;
Has proprietary biodegradation or toxicity test reports;
Is dry or in solution;
An SDS for the overall ingredient and each sub-ingredient;
If available, any supplemental product or ingredient environmental health and safety information, such as:
Biodegradation tests on individual ingredients;
Acute aquatic toxicity tests on product as a whole or individual ingredients; and
Human health and safety tests.

      Information submitted to EPA:
Summary report, containing same data items as above

Respondent activities:

      Applicants for Cleaning and Non-Cleaning Product Formulation Partnerships
Review program information, including instructions on submitting information to third-party profilers
Submit information described in section 12(b) of this supporting statement to third-party profiler
Establish agreement with third-party profiler
Submit summary report to Safer Choice
Negotiate / establish Partnership Agreement with Safer Choice
Renew partnership, with no changes needed
Site and desk audit (See Attachment D)

      Adding Private Label Partners and Products and Alternate Product Names
Review program information
Submit information described in section 12(b) of this supporting statement to Safer Choice

IC #1. Safer Choice product recognition program applications
Data Element
Form
Responses
Burden
Cost
(Hour Burden Only)
Establishing partnership agreements
N/A
44
704
$55,968
Renewals and audits
N/A
36
276
$18,576
Adding private label, licensee, and toll manufacturer partners and products
N/A
77
616
$46,662
Annual Total
157
1,596
$121,206

IC #2: Safer Choice label consultations and consumer awareness

Respondents:
Respondents will be adult members of the general population who are consumers, including consumers who consider the environment when making purchasing decisions, herein called leaning green consumers.

Information Collection Activities:
Respondents screened for focus group participation will listen to questions and provide answers to those questions. Those selected to participate in the focus groups will listen to directions, be presented with materials for discussion, participate in group discussions, and complete forms. Consumer online survey participants will read directions, answer questions, and submit the online survey.

IC #2. Safer Choice label redesign consultations
Data Element
Form
Responses
Burden
Cost
(Hour Burden Only)
Screening questionnaire for consumer focus groups
XXXX-XX
300
51
$2,346
Consumer focus groups
XXXX-XX
30
60
$2,760
Awareness test of new visual mark  -  general adult population survey
XXXX-XX
          2,000
       660
$30,360
Annual Total
2,330
771
$35,466

IC #3: Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards program

Respondent NAICS Codes:
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (Primary)
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing (Primary)
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (Primary)
424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (Primary)
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
4451 Grocery Stores
445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores (Primary)
445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores
446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores
453210 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores
453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) (Primary)
454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
481 Air Transportation
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses)
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) (Primary)
561210 Facilities Support Services
561720 Janitorial Services
561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities
7211 Traveler Accommodation
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
8123 Dry cleaning and Laundry Services
813410 Civic and Social Organizations (Primary)
813910 Business Associations (Primary)
921190 Other General Government Support
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs (Primary)

Information Collection Activities:
Once a prospective organization reviews the Partner of the Year Awards materials and decides to apply, it should submit a Partner of the Year Awards Application Form (see Attachment I for complete form). All forms will be available in electronic format.  Participants can download PDF versions of the forms from the Safer Choice website at www.epa.gov/saferchoice.

Data items:
The reporting items include:
Organization name and website URL;
Name, title, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the candidate's primary contact person;
Recognition category (or categories) for which the candidate is applying;
Indication of whether the organization is a small business;
Indication of whether the organization should be considered for sustained excellence;
Descriptions of activities taken to qualify for recognition;
Signature, name, and title of senior company or organization authority (e.g., CEO, vice president for governmental affairs, division head, or other authorized signatory).

Respondent activities:
Candidates will conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit the Partner of the Year Awards Application Form:
Review the Partner of the Year Awards information;
Decide whether to apply for recognition, and in what recognition category or categories;
Select a primary contact person for the program;
Complete the Partner of the Year Awards Application Form, including obtaining the signature of a company or organization authority (e.g., CEO, vice president for governmental affairs, division head, or other authorized signatory);
Describe how their organization meets the evaluation criteria for the relevant recognition;
Fax, e-mail, or mail the form to EPA;
Provide relevant documentation to EPA upon request.

IC #3.  Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program
Data Element
Form
Responses
Burden
Cost
(Hour Burden Only)
Partner of the Year Awards Application Form for formulators/product manufacturers
9600-023
19
285
$18,473
Partner of the Year Awards Application Form for innovators
9600-023
5
75
$4,861
Partner of the Year Awards Application Form for retailers
9600-023
3
45
$2,917
Partner of the Year Awards Application Form for supporters
9600-023
6
90
$5,834
Partner of the Year Awards Application Form for purchasers and distributors
9600-023
2
30
$1,945
Annual Total
35
525
$34,030

12(c).Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Hour Burden Costs

IC Summary Table: Annual Burden and Cost over the Three-Year ICR Period
IC Category
Responses
Burden
Cost
(Hour Burden Only)
IC #1: Safer Choice program
157
1,596
$121,206
IC #2: Safer Choice label redesign consultations
2,330
771
$35,466
IC #3: Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards
35
525
$34,030
Annual Total
2,522
2,892
$190,702

IC Summary Table: Total Burden and Cost over the Three-Year ICR Period
IC Category
Responses
Burden
Cost
(Hour Burden Only)
IC #1: Safer Choice program
471
4,788
$363,618
IC #2: Safer Choice label redesign consultations
6,990
2,313
$106,398
IC #3: Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards
105
1,575
$102,090
Total
7,566
8,676
$572,106

Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

As shown in Attachment J, the only operation and maintenance cost associated with this information collection is the respondents' cost of establishing an agreement with a third-party profiler. The cost associated with this activity is estimated to be $12,400 annually. This estimate assumes that the typical application submitted by a cleaning product manufacturer will contain four products, each with 2 ingredients ($650 each), 1 proprietary ingredient ($1,300), and a $500 administrative fee. The total cost per product is $3,100. The total will be $12,400 per company per application. Since 44 responses are expected under the Partnership Agreements collection activity (as explained in Attachment J), the total annual operation and maintenance cost is $545,600.

Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

   14(a). Agency Activities

The Safer Choice program consists of a variety of programs and initiatives that work together to meet the mission of the program. This change in name is intended to enhance public awareness of the program and its goals and increase overall participation in the program itself. As such, it is important to promote and recognize the efforts of dedicated partners.  This new ICR is part of an effort to integrate and streamline the individual collection activities across the program.

Under the Safer Choice program, EPA engages in the following activities related to the application and decision process:
Answer questions posed by potential applicants, including product manufacturers regarding recognition under the program and ingredient manufacturers regarding qualification for use in Safer Choice-certified products;
Receive the completed applications, review for accuracy, and place any necessary follow-up calls;
Apply EPA's chemical tools and expertise to understand toxicological characteristics of chemical ingredients and to ensure that they are the safest within their functional use class;
Approve candidates for recognition and notify both successful and unsuccessful applicants of the decisions; and
Make final decisions about which products may be certified and carry the Safer Choice label.

EPA has developed the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system to house applications and other information related to the Safer Choice program to reduce the public and Agency burden related to the application and decision process.

Under the Safer Choice program, EPA engages in the following activities in relation to consumer awareness and evaluation of the success of the Safer Choice label which was launched in March 2015:
Conduct consumer focus groups to test awareness and perception of the Safer Choice program;
Conduct annual consumer online surveys to evaluate consumer awareness and perceptions of the Safer Choice label;
Review and analyze consumer online survey results; and
Use results to measure consumer awareness and perceptions of the Safer Choice label.

Under the Safer Choice program, EPA engages in the following activities in relation to the Partner of the Year Awards:
Distribute the Awards Application Form to potential participants and maintain a downloadable PDF version on the Safer Choice website;
Answer questions posed by potential applicants regarding Partner of the Year Awards recognition;
Receive the completed forms, review for completeness, and place any necessary follow-up calls;
Screen award applicants to determine their history of civil or criminal EPA enforcement actions; and
Approve candidates for Partner of the Year Awards recognition based on evaluation criteria (see Attachment I, Section 2) and notify both successful and unsuccessful applicants of the decisions.

   14(b).Estimated Agency Costs

EPA estimates that it costs the agency approximately $214,523 ($71,508 annually) to carry out the activities associated with the information collection activities covered by this ICR. Agency labor costs are calculated based on hourly basic rates for federal employees in the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2021. The average hourly labor rate for managerial staff is estimated as the rate for a GS-13 Step 5 employee, for technical staff as a GS-10 Step 10 employee, and for clerical staff as GS-5 Step 1. These GS-level assumptions are consistent with those used in past EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) ICRs. The hourly rates were multiplied by an assumed loading factor of 1.639 to reflect federal fringe benefits. This loading factor is from a study by the Congressional Budget Office, which is recommended in EPA's Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other U.S. EPA Actions as a useful source for estimating benefit values for federal government workers.

14(c).Collection Schedule

Collection schedules under each part of the ICR are as follows:
For the Safer Choice program, organizations may submit applications at any time during the three-year period. Once approved, the Safer Choice recognition lasts for a three-year period.
Consumer online surveys will be distributed at yearly intervals during the course of the three-year approval period.
For the Partner of the Year Awards program, organizations can submit an application for each of the three years.

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.

This information collection combines the burdens from two previously approved ICRs, EPA ICR No. 2302.03 and EPA ICR No. 2487.02. The total combined burden from these two previously approved ICRs was 7,118 hours. The total burden requested for this ICR is 8,676 hours, or an increase of 1,558 hours from the previous total burden. The difference between the current burden request and the previously approved requests is primarily due to the inclusion of Partner of the Year Awards collection activities when calculating the burden of this ICR.  Additionally, minor adjustments were made in EPA's estimates of the number of respondents and of the burden.

The total combined cost burden from these two previously approved ICRs was $2,045,616. The total cost burden requested for this ICR is $2,208,906. The difference between the current cost burden request and the previously approved requests are due to the inclusion of Partner of the Year Awards collection activities when calculating the burden, as well as adjustments in EPA's estimates of the number of respondents and of the burden. In addition to the adjustments listed above, the wage rates and material costs were revised to reflect 2020 dollars for this information collection request.

Detailed breakdowns of the calculations for burden and cost estimates are available in Attachment J.

For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Not applicable.

If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.

Not applicable.

Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

Supplemental Information

Under the PRA, burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b), The response burden for this ICR is estimated to range between 0.33 and 16 hours per response, depending on the particulars associated with the individual Data Call-In (DCI). The total annualized burden for this ICR is estimated to be 2,892 hours per year. The response cost is estimated to range between $15 and $4,247 per response, depending on the particulars associated with the individual DCI. The total annualized cost for this ICR is estimated to be $736,302 per year.

List of Attachments

The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0245.

Ref.
Title
A
42 USC 13103  -  Pollution Prevention Act Section 6604
B
Safer Choice Program: Product and Ingredient Submissions in the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system
C
Safer Choice Program: Private Label Submissions in the Safer Choice Community cloud-based Salesforce system
(Private Label Companies, Licensees, or Toll Manufacturers)
D
Safer Choice Program: Audit Process Guidance
E
Screening Questionnaire for General Adult Consumer Focus Group
F
Screening Questionnaire for "Leaning Green" Consumer Focus Group
G
Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group Session
H
Survey to Test Awareness and Perceptions of EPA's Safer Choice Label: General Adult Population Survey
I
Safer Choice Program Partner of the Year Awards Application Form
J
Detailed Calculations of Burden and Cost Estimates


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84674-84675]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Bob Hope Airport,
Burbank, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by Burbank-
Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47501 et seq. (formerly the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act,
hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150'').
These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal
and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1990). On
October 10, 2013, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps
submitted by Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority under Part 150
were in compliance with applicable requirements. On October 24, 2016,
the FAA approved the Bob Hope Airport noise compatibility program.
Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) total number of recommendations of
the program were approved. Two (2) of the eighteen (18) total number of
recommendations of the program were approved in part. For one (1) of
the eighteen (18) program measures there was no action required at this
time. No program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures
for noise abatement were proposed by the airport operator.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
noise compatibility program for Bob Hope Airport is October 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Globa, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports
District Office, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles,
California 90009-2007. Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard,
Lawndale, California 90261. Telephone: 310/725-3637. Documents
reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Bob Hope
Airport, effective October 24, 2016.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does
not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with
respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's
approval or disapproval of Part 150 program recommendations is measured
according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is
limited to the following determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself
constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required. Prior to an FAA decision on a request to implement the
action, an environmental review of the proposed action may be required.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that
all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for
project grants must be submitted to the FAA Los Angeles Airports
District Office in the Western-Pacific Region.
    Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority submitted to the FAA on
June 27, 2013 the noise exposure maps, descriptions and other
documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study
conducted from September 13, 2011 through October 24, 2016. The Bob
Hope Airport noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in
compliance with applicable requirements on October 10, 2013. Notice of
this determination was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 64048)
on October 25, 2013.
    The Bob Hope Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility
program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by
airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from December 30, 2014 to
the year

2017. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material
as a noise compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the
Act. The FAA began its review of the program on May 11, 2016, and was
required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program
within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight
procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such
program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of
such program.
    The submitted program contained 18 proposed actions for noise
abatement, noise mitigation, land use planning and program management
measures on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and
determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act
and Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved by
the FAA, effective October 24, 2016.
    FAA approval was granted for fifteen (15) specific program
measures. The approved measures included such items as: Continue
Requiring All Transport Category and Turbojet Aircraft to Comply with
Federal Aircraft Noise Regulations; Continue Requiring Compliance with
the Airport's Engine Test Run-up Policy; Continue Promoting Use of AC
91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Procedures by Air Carrier Jets as
voluntary only; Continue Promoting Use of NBAA Noise Abatement
Procedures, or Equivalent Manufacturer Procedures, by General Aviation
Jet Aircraft as voluntary only; Continue Working with the FAA Airport
Traffic Control Tower to Maintain the Typical Traffic Pattern Altitude
of 1,800 feet MSL as voluntary only; Continue the Placement of New
Buildings on the Airport North of Runway 8-26 to Shield Nearby
Neighborhood From Noise on Runway; Designate Runway 26 as Nighttime
Preferential Departure Runway as voluntary only; Build Engine
Maintenance Run-Up Enclosure; Revise Residential Acoustical Treatment
Program to Include Single Family Homes Within 65 Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contour Based on 2017 NEM that were constructed
or existed before October 1, 1998; Establish Acoustical Treatment
Program for Multi-Family Dwelling Units Within the 2017 Acoustical
Treatment Eligibility Area that were constructed or existed before
October 1, 1998; Provision for Retention or an Easement Preventing
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses of Property Located in the Northeast Quadrant
of the Airport within the 2017 65 CNEL Noise Exposure Contour (This
measure would prevent the development of noise-sensitive land uses
within the 65 CNEL noise contour and that would jeopardize the long-
term viability of the airport.); Continue Noise Abatement Information
Program (For the purpose of aviation safety, this approval does not
extend to the use of monitoring equipment for enforcement purposes by
in-situ measurement of any pre-set noise thresholds.); Monitor
Implementation of Updated Noise Compatibility Program; Update Noise
Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program (In order to comply with
14 CFR part 150, the proposed changes should be submitted to FAA for
approval after local consultation and a public hearing has been
conducted.); Maintain Log of Nighttime Runway Use and Operations by
Aircraft Type.
    FAA approved in part, disapproved in part on two (2) specific
program measures. The first approved in part, disapproved in part
measure is: Continue Existing Acoustical Treatment Program for Single
Family Homes. The portion of this measure that is approved is limited
to single family homes that are located within the 65 CNEL noise
contour for the forecasted year 2017 accepted by the FAA on October 10,
2013. The portion that is disapproved is acoustical treatment of homes
that previously were within the 65 CNEL contour for the forecast year
2000 NEM submitted in 1988, but that are now outside of the 65 CNEL
contours for the NEMs submitted with this Part 150 update; The second
approved in part, disapproved in part measure is: For Otherwise
Qualified Property Owners Who Have Been Unable to Participate in the
Residential Acoustical Treatment Program (RATP) Due to Building Code
Deficiencies, Offer to Purchase a Noise Easement as an Option for
Owners of Single Family and Multi-Family Properties in the 2017
Acoustical Treatment Eligibility Area That Have Not Been Treated. The
portion of this measure that is approved is the Airport Authority may
offer avigation easements to property owners within the 2017 65 CNEL
noise contour accepted by the FAA on October 10, 2013. The portions
that are disapproved are the additional local requirements proposed for
easement eligibility.
    FAA determined that there is no action required at this time on one
(1) specific program measure. This measure is Establish Noise Abatement
Departure Turn for Jet Takeoffs on Runway 26. This measure relates to
flight procedures under Section 104(b). Additional review by FAA is
necessary to evaluate the operational safety, feasibility, and
environmental effects of this proposal.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Director, Office of Airports, Western-Pacific
Region (AWP-600) on October 24, 2016. The Record of Approval, as well
as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the
submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and
at the administrative offices of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport
Authority.
    The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on November 17, 2016.
Mark A. McClardy,
Director, Office of Airports, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-28291 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7180]
[DOCID:fr13fe09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Tiamulin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Novartis Animal Health US, Inc. The
supplemental NADA provides for removal of a 250-pound weight
restriction and the addition of a reproductive caution statement to
labeling of tiamulin concentrate solution used in drinking water for
the treatment of certain bacterial respiratory and enteric diseases in
swine.

DATES: This rule is effective February 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Novartis Animal Health US, Inc., 3200
Northline Ave., suite 300, Greensboro, NC 27408, filed a supplement to
NADA 140-916 for DENAGARD (tiamulin) Liquid Concentrate used for the
treatment of certain bacterial respiratory and enteric diseases in
swine. The supplemental NADA provides for removal of a 250-pound weight
restriction and the addition of a reproductive caution statement to
labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of January 27, 2009, and
21 CFR 520.2455 is amended to reflect the approval.
    Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of
additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a
freedom of information summary is not required.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  520.2455, remove paragraph (d), redesignate paragraph (e)
as paragraph (d), and revise newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  520.2455  Tiamulin.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Limitations. Use as only source of drinking water. Prepare
fresh medicated water daily. Withdraw medication 3 days before
slaughter following treatment at 3.5 mg/lb and 7 days before slaughter
following treatment at 10.5 mg/lb of body weight. Swine being treated
with tiamulin should not have access to feeds containing polyether
ionophores (e.g., lasalocid, monensin, narasin, salinomycin, or
semduramycin) as adverse reactions may occur. The effects of tiamulin
on swine reproductive performance, pregnancy, and lactation have not
been determined.

    Dated: February 10, 2009.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-3131 Filed 2-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3064-3065]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68607; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Increasing the Fees Paid by Participants in the Exchange's Medallion
Signature Program From $1,000 per Year to $1,300 per Year

January 9, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 28, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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 increase the fees paid by participants in
the Exchange's medallion signature program from $1,000 per year to
$1,300 per year. 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 change the application and annual charge
to be paid by participants in the medallion signature program (``MSP'')
maintained by the NYSE from $1,000 to $1,300 per year. In 1992, the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') approved NYSE's
conversion of its existing signature service program to a signature
guarantee program, now referred to as the MSP.\3\ At that time, the
NYSE specified that participants in the MSP would bear the
administrative expenses in connection with the program, which at that
time was a charge of $300 to be paid upon filing an application to the
program and annually thereafter. The $300 charge to participants in the
MSP was increased to $1,000 as of January 1, 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31388 (October 30,
1992), 57 FR 53366 (November 9, 1992) (SR-NYSE-92-16) (order
approving implementation of a signature guarantee program). The MSP
is governed by NYSE Rule 200.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51190 (February 11,
2005), 70 FR 8867 (February 23, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently entered into a new agreement with the
outside vendor that administers the MSP and the fees paid by the
Exchange to that outside vendor have increased significantly. In
addition, the Exchange's internal administrative and regulatory costs
in relation to the MSP have increased significantly since the fees were
last increased eight years ago. Consequently, effective January 1,
2013, the Exchange will increase the charge to members participating in
the MSP to $1,300. This charge will be payable upon a participant's
filing of an application to the MSP and annually thereafter. The NYSE
will bill MSP participants the increased fee for 2013 in January 2013.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other problem, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem
that the affected market participants would have in complying with the
proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \5\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4)
\6\ and 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act, 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. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged only to those member
organizations that voluntarily participate in the MSP. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee is reasonable in that it is closely
related to the Exchange's actual costs in administering the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of the Act. In particular, the proposed
fee only will be charged to those member organizations that voluntarily
participate in the MSP. In addition, the increased fee amount
correlates to the increased costs to the Exchange for administering the
program.

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) \8\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \9\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 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.

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-2012-80 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-2012-80. 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
10:00 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; 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-2012-80 and should be
submitted on or before February 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00679 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P