[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 43741-43742]
[DOCID:fr27au09-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60555; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Extend the Delta Hedging Exemption From Equity
Options Position Limits to Customers

August 21, 2009.

    On June 19, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to extend the delta hedging
exemption from equity option position limits to positions of customers
who hedge those positions in accordance with a pricing model maintained
and operated by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''). On July 8,
2009, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 17, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60271 (July 9,
2009), 74 FR 34842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2007, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to create
an exemption from position and exercise limits \4\ applicable to equity
options (stock options and options on exchange-traded funds) for
positions held by CBOE members and certain non-member affiliates that
are ``delta neutral'' \5\ under a ``permitted pricing model'' \6\
(``Exemption'').\7\ When a position is not delta neutral, only the
option contract equivalent of the net delta \8\ of the position remains
subject to the position limits in Rule 4.11.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 4.12 establishes exercise limits for an option at the
same level as the option's position limit under Rule 4.11.
    \5\ The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in Rule 4.11.04(c)(A)
as referring to an equity option position that is hedged, in
accordance with a permitted pricing model, by a position in the
underlying security or one or more instruments relating to the
underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting the risk that the
value of the option position will change with incremental changes in
the price of the security underlying the option position.
    \6\ Under Rule 4.11.04(c)(C), ``permitted pricing model'' for
purposes of the Exemption is a pricing model: (1) Maintained and
operated by the OCC (``OCC Model''); (2) maintained and used by a
member or its non-member affiliate subject to consolidated
supervision by the Commission pursuant to Appendix E of Rule 15c3-1,
17 CFR 240.15c3-1, under the Act; (3) maintained and used by a
financial holding company (``FHC'') or a company treated as an FHC
under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or its affiliate subject
to consolidated holding company group supervision; (4) maintained
and used by a Commission-registered OTC derivatives dealer; or (5)
used by a national bank under the National Bank Act. See Rule
4.11.04(c)(C).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72428 (December 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-99)
(``Exemption Approval Order'').
    \8\ ``Net delta'' means, at any time, the number of shares
(either long or short) required to offset the risk that the value of
an equity option position will change with incremental changes in
the price of the security underlying the option position. ``Options
contract equivalent of the net delta'' means the net delta divided
by the number of shares underlying the options contract. See Rule
4.11.04(c)(B).
    \9\ The Commission notes that CBOE Rule 4.11.04 provides for
multiple, independent hedge exemptions. Of course, to the extent
that a position is used to hedge for the purpose of one exemption
from position limit requirements, such as the delta hedge exemption,
such position cannot be used to take advantage of another exemption
from position limit requirements. See Exemption Approval Order,
supra note 7, at note 11.

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

    CBOE now proposes to amend Rule 4.11.04(c) to extend the Exemption
to positions of customers of members. Under the proposal, to avail
themselves of the Exemption, such customers would be able to hedge
their positions only in accordance with the OCC Model.
    In connection with this amendment, CBOE proposes to add new
subparagraph (4) to Rule 4.11.04(c)(E) to set forth the obligations of
a member carrying an account that includes an equity option position
for a customer who intends to rely on the Exemption. Specifically, the
member would be required to obtain from the customer a written
certification to the Exchange that the customer is using the OCC Model.
In addition, the member would be required to obtain from the customer a
written statement confirming that such customer: (a) Is relying on the
Exemption; (b) will use only the OCC Model for purposes of calculating
the net delta of the customer's option positions for purposes of the
Exemption; (c) will promptly notify the member if the customer ceases
to rely on the Exemption; and (d) in connection with using the OCC
Model, has duly executed and delivered to the Exchange such documents
as the Exchange may require to be executed and delivered to the
Exchange as a condition to reliance on the Exemption.
    As under the current Exemption, each member that holds or carries
an account that relies on the Exemption is required to report, in
accordance with Rule 4.13,\10\ all equity option positions (including
those that are delta neutral) that are reportable under that rule, and
also is required to report on its own behalf or on behalf of a
designated aggregation unit \11\ the net delta and the options contract
equivalent of the net delta of such positions for each account that
holds an equity option position subject to the delta hedging exemption
in excess of the levels specified in Rule 4.11.\12\ Members carrying a
customer account that relies on the Exemption would be subject to this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 4.13 requires, among other things, that members report
to the Exchange aggregate long or short positions on the same side
of the market of 200 or more contracts of any single class of
options contracts dealt in on the Exchange.
    \11\ See Rule 4.11.04(c)(D), which provides, under certain
conditions, that the net delta of an options position held by an
entity entitled to rely on the exemption could be calculated without
regard to positions in or relating to the security underlying the
option position held by an affiliated entity or another trading unit
within the same entity, provided that, among other things, no
control relationship exists between such affiliates or trading units
and the entity has designated in writing in advance the affiliates
or trading units that are to be considered separate and distinct
from each other.
    \12\ See Rule 4.11.04(c)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.11.04(c)(G)
governing records so that it extends to members carrying customer
accounts. Each member relying on the Exemption would be required to
retain, and undertake reasonable efforts to ensure that its customers
relying on the Exemption retain, a list of the options, securities, and
other instruments underlying each option position net delta calculation
reported to the Exchange; and to produce such information to the
Exchange upon request.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 4.11.04(c)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.\14\
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that CBOE rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the current Exemption, the Commission noted its
previous statement in support of recognizing options positions hedged
on a delta neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits.\16\
The Commission believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the
Act to extend the current Exemption to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23,
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (File No. S7-30-97)
(adopting rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers), cited in
Exemption Approval Order, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has added provisions to Rule
4.11.04(c)(E)(4), specifically with respect to customers that seek to
rely on the Exemption, that obligate members carrying accounts for
those customers to obtain from them certain certifications and
assurances as described above, including a written statement to the
Exchange that the customer has duly executed and delivered to the
member such documents as the Exchange may require to be executed and
delivered to it.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-039), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20655 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26671-26673]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10799]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69496; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of
Exchange Directors, Officers, Employees and Others

May 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 18, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') proposes to adopt a rule codifying CBOE's current practice of
conducting fingerprint checks of directors, officers, employees,
temporary personnel, independent contractors, consultants, vendors and
service providers of the Exchange. Under the proposed rule, CBOE would
conduct these fingerprint checks by submitting the fingerprints taken
to the Attorney General of the United States or his or her designee for
identification and processing. In conducting these fingerprint checks,
CBOE would receive criminal history record information from the
Attorney General of the United States or his or her designee for
evaluation and use, in accordance with applicable law, in enhancing the
security of the Exchange's facilities, systems, data, and/or records
(collectively, ``facilities and records'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects 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 adopt a rule that would codify the
Exchange's current practice of conducting fingerprint-based criminal
records checks of (i) directors, officers and employees of the
Exchange, and (ii) temporary personnel, independent contractors,
consultants, vendors and service providers (collectively,
``contractors'') who have or are anticipated to have access to
facilities and records. A number of securities markets have filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
rules to obtain fingerprints from certain enumerated parties.\3\ The
rule proposed by CBOE in this proposed rule change is consistent with
these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 1408 of the International Securities Exchange
(``ISE''), Rule 28 of the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), Rule
0140 of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 50157 (August 5, 2004), 69 FR 49924 (August
12, 2004) (policy adopted by the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (now FINRA) to conduct fingerprint-based
background checks of NASD employees and independent contractors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (``FBI'') database
of fingerprint based criminal records is permitted only when authorized
by law. Numerous federal and state laws authorize employers to conduct
fingerprint-based background checks that make use of the FBI's
database. Notably, Section 17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (``Act''), and SEC Rule 17f-2 require partners,
directors, officers and employees of members of national securities
exchanges, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies to
be fingerprinted and authorize SROs to maintain facilities for
processing and storing fingerprint cards and criminal

record information received from the FBI database with respect to such
cards. Section 17(f)(2) explicitly directs the Attorney General of the
United States (i.e., the FBI) to provide SROs designated by the
Commission with access to criminal history record information. Section
17(f)(2) was amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act'') to also require partners,
directors, officers and employees of registered securities information
processors, national securities exchanges and national securities
associations to be fingerprinted.\4\ The Exchange believes, therefore,
that a proposed rule change for a fingerprinting program for directors,
officers, employees and contractors is a necessary component of the
Exchange's business plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 929S of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that fingerprint-based background checks of Exchange
directors, officers, employees and contractors will promote the
objectives of investor protection, business continuity and workplace
safety and its other responsibilities under the Act by providing CBOE
with an effective tool for identifying and excluding persons with
felony or misdemeanor conviction records that may pose a threat to the
safety of Exchange personnel or the security of facilities and records.
The proposed rule would permit CBOE to conduct fingerprint-based
background checks of all Exchange directors, officers, employees and
contractors. All Exchange directors, officers, employees and
contractors would be subject to fingerprinting at any time.
Fingerprint-based background checks of contractors would be performed
prior to providing a contractor with access to facilities and records.
The Exchange would also conduct fingerprint-based background checks of
Exchange director candidates that are not already serving on the
Exchange's Board before they are formally nominated and of employee
candidates after an offer of employment has been made by the Exchange.
    Any employee who refuses to submit to fingerprinting would be
subject to progressive discipline up to and including the termination
of employment. Any person who is given an offer of employment with the
Exchange who refuses to submit to fingerprinting would have the offer
withdrawn. A contractor who refuses to submit to fingerprinting would
be denied access to facilities and records. The Exchange may choose to
not obtain fingerprints from, or to seek fingerprint-based information
with respect to, any contractor due to that contractor's limited,
supervised, or restricted access to facilities and records, or the
nature or location of his or her work or services, or if the
contractor's employer conducts fingerprint based criminal records
checks of its personnel.
    Through access to state-of-the-art information systems administered
and maintained by the FBI and its Criminal Justice Information Services
Division, CBOE would receive centrally-maintained ``criminal history
record information,'' which is arrest-based data and derivative
information, and may include personal descriptive data; FBI number;
conviction status; sentencing, probation and parole information; and
such other information as the FBI may now or hereafter make available
to CBOE. This information is supplied to the FBI by various local,
state, federal and/or international criminal justice agencies. Thus,
the information obtained through fingerprint-based background checks
provides a profile of a candidate's criminal record and facilitates
risk assessment with respect to the candidate.
    Access to the FBI's nationwide database is particularly crucial
with respect to the screening of contractors, who are not employees of
the Exchange and who therefore are not subject to the pre-hire review
that the Exchange conducts with respect to employees but whose work
frequently requires the same or similar access to facilities and
records as that provided to employees of the Exchange. In furtherance
of its commitment to utilize and improve technology and systems
applications to better serve investors, disseminate market information,
and ensure reliable order handling and execution for all market
participants, CBOE regularly retains outside vendors whose specialized
expertise is required for the development, installation and servicing
of this technology. Such vendors complement the work of CBOE systems
staff in providing the investment community with an efficient and
technologically advanced marketplace. Examples of persons from whom
fingerprints may be obtained under the proposed rule change include the
following (the plan does not include the fingerprinting of SEC staff),
all of whom are anticipated to need CBOE-issued photo badges or other
identification permitting them access to facilities and records for
more than one day: personnel providing temporary services to CBOE but
who are employed and provided by a staffing service and non-employee
technicians whose work with CBOE software and equipment, although
temporary, necessitates broad access to CBOE facilities.
    The proposed access to criminal history information is consistent
with federal law. Section 17(f)(2) of the Act and Rule 17f-2 thereunder
require, subject to certain exemptions, a variety of securities
industry personnel to be fingerprinted, including partners, directors,
officers and employees of every member of a national securities
exchange, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies. As
noted above, Section 17(f)(2) was amended by the Dodd-Frank Act to also
require partners, directors, officers and employees of registered
securities information processors, national securities exchanges and
national securities associations to be fingerprinted. Although Section
17(f)(2) does not require CBOE or other SROs to fingerprint
contractors, the statute specifically permits SROs designated by the
SEC to have access to ``all criminal history record information.''
    The proposed access to criminal history information is consistent
with rules of other SROs \5\ and is also consistent with New York's
General Business Law, which, among other things, requires SROs in New
York to fingerprint their employees and those non-employee service
providers whose access to facilities or records places the self-
regulatory organization at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra Footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE will comply with all applicable laws relating to the use and
dissemination of criminal history record information obtained from the
FBI.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes fingerprint-based background
checks of Exchange directors, officers, employees and contractors is
consistent with the

foregoing requirements of Section 6(b)(5) in that they would help CBOE
identify and exclude persons with felony or misdemeanor conviction
records that may pose a threat to the safety of Exchange personnel or
the security of facilities and records, thereby enhancing business
continuity, workplace safety and the security of the Exchange's
operations and helping to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule is substantially similar to fingerprinting rules of
other SROs and would conform the Exchange's fingerprinting practices
with recent amendments to Section 17(f)(2) of the Act.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
enhance the security of the Exchange's facilities and records without
adding any burden on market participants. The proposed rule change
would conform the Exchange's fingerprinting rules with Section 17(f)(2)
of the Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. As discussed below, the
Exchange notes the proposed rule change is based on fingerprinting
rules of other SROs.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because it will conform CBOE's fingerprinting practices with Section
17(f)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires
national securities exchanges, among other entities, to fingerprint
their officers, directors, and employees, and to submit such
fingerprints to the Attorney General of the United States for
identification and processing. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2013-044 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 No. SR-CBOE-2013-044. 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 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2013-044 and should be
submitted on or before May 28, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10799 Filed 5-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50088-50089]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17414]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-1633]

Soliciting Public Comment on Appendix A of the Food and Drug
Administration's July 2018 Guidance Entitled ``Abbreviated New Drug
Application Submissions--Amendments To Abbreviated New Drug
Applications Under Generic Drug User Fee Amendments;'' Notice;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing the establishment of a docket to solicit comments on the
content of Appendix A in the July 2018 guidance for industry entitled
``ANDA Submissions--Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications
Under GDUFA'' (ANDA Amendments Guidance). We are soliciting comments on
the content of Appendix A. The Agency is taking this action to fulfill
the Agency's commitment described in section IX.B. of the GDUFA
Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancements Fiscal Years
2023-2027 Commitment Letter (GDUFA III Commitment Letter).

DATES: Either electronic or written comments must be submitted by
October 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 14, 2022. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-N-1633 for ``Soliciting Public Comment on Appendix A of FDA's
July 2018 Guidance Entitled `ANDA Submissions--Amendments to
Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA'; Notice; Establishment
of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Office of Generic
Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, the President signed the Generic Drug User Fee
Amendments (GDUFA I) into law. GDUFA must be reauthorized every 5 years
so FDA can continue to assess and collect GDUFA fees, and was most
recently authorized in the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Public Law
115-52 (GDUFA II) on August 18, 2017, for fiscal years 2018-2022. In a
joint effort in anticipation of GDUFA reauthorization in 2022, the
Agency and representatives from the generic drug industry negotiated
the draft agreement reflected in the GDUFA III Commitment Letter.\1\
Specifically, FDA agreed to performance goals and program enhancements
regarding aspects of the generic drug assessment program that build on
the GDUFA program established and enhanced through previous
authorizations. New enhancements to the program are designed to
maximize the efficiency and utility of each assessment cycle, with the
intent of reducing the number of assessment cycles for abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs) and facilitating timely access to quality,
affordable, safe, and effective generic medicines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program
Enhancements Fiscal Years 2023-2027,'' available at https://www.fda.gov/media/153631/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the GDUFA III Commitment Letter, FDA agreed to issue a Federal
Register notice on or before April 30, 2023, to solicit public comment
on the content of Appendix A in the ANDA Amendments Guidance.\2\ The
ANDA Amendments Guidance describes amendment classifications (``major''
or ``minor'' amendments) and categories (amendments subject to
``priority'' or ``standard'' review goals) and explains how amendment
submission classification and category may affect an amendment's
performance goal date. The guidance superseded a 2001 guidance entitled
``Major, Minor, and Telephone Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug
Applications'' (2001 guidance), which contained descriptions of major
and minor amendments; however, these descriptions were considered
during GDUFA II negotiations and were incorporated into the GDUFA II
Commitment Letter.\3\ Accordingly, the ANDA Amendments Guidance
incorporates the descriptions from the 2001 guidance, and provides
further description of these amendments, including general descriptions
and examples of the types of deficiencies that would classify an
applicant's response to these deficiencies as a major or minor
amendment. Appendix A in the ANDA amendments guidance (Appendix A:
Major Deficiencies) is a non-exhaustive list of examples of
deficiencies that the FDA may consider major.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the guidance for industry entitled ``ANDA Submissions--
Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA,''
available at https://www.fda.gov/media/89258/download.
    \3\ See ``GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program
Enhancements Fiscal Years 2018-2022,'' available at https://www.fda.gov/media/101052/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, FDA is seeking comments on the examples of major
deficiencies listed in Appendix A of the ANDA amendments guidance, as
well as comment on how any proposed revisions to that list could be
beneficial to industry in understanding ANDA amendment classification.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice contains no new collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 9, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-17414 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1716]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-4-000]

BP West Coast Products LLC, Chevron Products Company, and
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Complainants, v. SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan
GP, Inc., and Kinder Morgan Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

January 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 5, 2007, BP West Coast Products LLC
(BPWCP) and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil) (together,
Complainants) hereby submit both jointly and severally, a Fifth
Original Complaint against SFPP, L.P. (SFPP), Kinder Morgan GP, Inc.
(KMGP Inc) and Kinder Morgan Inc. (KIM) and First Amended Fourth
Complaint, challenging the justness and reasonableness of rates on
SFPP's West Line, Sepulveda Line, North Line, Oregon Line and East
Line, and (conditionally only), the Watson Vapor Recovery Facilities
rate. Chevron Products Company joins in this complaint as a
complainant, tendering its Fifth Original Complaint, supplementing all
prior Chevron and Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. complaints. On
January 8, 2007, the Complainants and Chevron Products Company filed a
revised Table of Contents and Table of Authorities with corrected page
references, and a transmittal letter to the Secretary that was
inadvertently omitted from the January 5, 2007 filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 5, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-448 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

06/20/2007 04:05 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet McDonald/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Change pages

Rob,

Here are the change pages for the subjects we discussed earlier today.   Have you heard anything back yet from USDA?  Also, have you heard whether they are going to want a supplemental notice on the alternative approach for the secondary standard?  Thanks.

Lydia

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 06/20/2007 04:02 PM -----

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

06/20/2007 04:00 PM

To

Wegman Lydia@EPA

cc

Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Stone Susan@EPA, Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

change pages

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71163-71164]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration
Record of Decision and Adoption of Department of Navy's Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness Activities at the
Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
decision to adopt the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Military Readiness Activities
at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon, EIS No.
20150355. In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), the Council on Environmental Quality's
(``CEQ'') regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and
other applicable authorities, including The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2K, ``Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters,'' paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an
independent review and evaluation of the DoN's Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Military Readiness Activities at the at
Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman, Oregon, dated
December 2015. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for
approving special use airspace under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA
provided subject matter expertise and closely coordinated with the DoN
during the environmental review process, including preparation of the
Draft EIS and the Final EIS. Based on its independent review and
evaluation, the FAA has determined the Final EIS, including its
supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference, adequately
assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the for Military
Readiness Activities at the at NWSTF Boardman, Oregon, and that
adoption of the Final EIS by the FAA is authorized under 40 CFR 1506.3,
Adoption. Accordingly, the FAA adopts the FEIS, and takes full
responsibility for the scope and content that addresses the proposed
changes to special use airspace for NWSTF Boardman.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

    In August 2012, in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the DoN released a Draft
EIS. The Draft EIS presented the potential environmental consequences
of the DoN's proposal to achieve and maintain military readiness by
analyzing the military training activities at NWSTF Boardman, Oregon.
As a result of public, agency, and tribal comments during the 60-day
public comment period on the Draft EIS, and the FAA aeronautical review
process, the DoN, FAA, other federal and state agencies, and tribal
governments have consulted to mitigate concerns while continuing to
meet national defense training requirements. The DoN is the proponent
for the NWSTF Boardman and is the lead agency for the preparation of
the FEIS. The FAA is a cooperating agency responsible for approving
special use airspace as defined in 40 CFR 1508.5.

Implementation

    As a result of the public comments received, the aeronautical
studies, environmental analysis, the FAA is establishing the Boardman
Low Military Operations Area (MOA) and amending the Boardman MOA. The
Boardman MOA legal description has been modified from the description
circularized to the public from July 18 through August 31, 2014. After
the conclusion of the Aeronautical Study comment period, the FAA
changed the coordinates of the airspace action to incorporate the
proposed expansion that was circularized to the public consistent with
the intent of the proposal stated in the circular and Aeronautical
Study recommendation. The result is the change amends the existing
Boardman MOA's description instead of creating a separate MOA for the
expansion area. One coordinate in the Boardman Low MOA was changed to
more accurately

reflect the airspace action. The revised legal descriptions do not
change the special use airspace request or the analysis done in the
Final EIS and the Aeronautical Study. The modification to the legal
description did not change the area of analysis; therefore, the
environmental and aeronautical analyses are still valid. The legal
descriptions for the Boardman MOAs being established, as noted in this
notice, will be published in the NFDD with a November 10, 2016
effective date. A copy of the FAA Record of Decision is available on
the FAA Web site.

Right of Appeal

    The Adoption/ROD for the changes to the Boardman MOAs constitutes a
final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to exclusive
judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision
resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having
substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the decision
by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court of
Appeals no later than 60 days after the date of this notice in
accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110. Any party seeking to
stay implementation of the action as stated in the ROD must file an
application with the FAA prior to seeking judicial relief as provided
in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    Dated: October 6, 2016.
Richard Roberts,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-24890 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49789-49791]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0394; Product Identifier 2018-NM-036-AD; Amendment
39-19441; AD 2018-20-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 7,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet
http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards 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 on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0394.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0394; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21953). The NPRM was prompted by a determination
that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new
and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations.
    We are issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2018-0026, dated January 30, 2018 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance
instructions for the Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 aeroplanes,
which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in
the Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM) chapter 5-40. These instructions have been identified as
mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [i.e, reduced structural integrity of the
airplane].
    Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2016-0067 [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2017-09-03, Amendment 39-18865 (82 FR 21467, May 9, 2017)]
to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and
implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in
Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 Revision 23.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault issued Revision 24 of
the Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40, which
introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or

airworthiness limitations. For the reason described above, this
[EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0067, which is
superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in
Revision 24 of the Dassault Myst[egrave]re Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-
40 * * * .

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0394.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault
Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual. This service information describes
instructions applicable to airworthiness and safe life limitations.
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 the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although this
figure may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have
estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since
operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for
their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator
estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we
estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85
per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 (AD):

2018-20-07 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19441; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0394; Product Identifier 2018-NM-036-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05''); AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-
16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012) (``AD 2012-02-18''); and AD
2017-09-03, Amendment 39-18865 (82 FR 21467, May 9, 2017) (``AD
2017-09-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/
50EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance times for doing the
tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113872, Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the
Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-09-03.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-26-05 and AD 2012-02-18
for the Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes
specified in those ADs.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0026, dated January 30,
2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0394.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113872,
Revision 24, dated July 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX
Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 21, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21343 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14719-14722]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0205; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-226-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 747SP series airplanes, and certain The Boeing
Company Model 747-100B SUD and 747-300 series airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH)
indicating that the fuselage skin just above certain lap splice
locations is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed
AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage
skin above certain lap splice locations, and repair if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane and sudden loss of cabin pressure.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0205;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-226-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely
occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough
without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent catastrophic failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    We recognize that the WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) is
unusual in that it might depend on future rulemaking to fully achieve
its safety objectives. In the context of WFD, this approach is
necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the
longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that
WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy
that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service
information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators
with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    Two operators of Model 757 airplanes have reported cracking on two
airplanes that initiated at multiple locations on the inboard surface
of the skin, along the edge of the chem-milled step just above the skin
lap splice (which was addressed by AD 2011-01-15, Amendment 39-16572
(76 FR 1351, January 10, 2011)). No cracking of this kind has been
reported on Model 747 airplanes, but analysis has determined that the
Model 747 fuselage skin in certain areas might be susceptible to
similar cracking. Such fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin could
result in

reduced structural integrity of the airplane and sudden loss of cabin
pressure. The skin at the edge of chem-milled steps above certain skin
lap splices has been determined to be structure that is susceptible to
WFD.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2854, dated
September 17, 2012. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0205.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that: (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2854, dated September 17,
2012, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to
repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing
those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Action                 Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..............  Up to 57                            $0  Up to $4,845, per       Up to $19,380, per
                           work[dash]hours x $85                   inspection cycle.       inspection cycle.
                           per hour = $4,845,
                           per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
proposed 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0205; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-226-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 22, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
this AD.
    (1) All Model 747SP airplanes.
    (2) Model 747-100B SUD airplanes, line numbers 636 and 655.
    (3) Model 747-300 airplanes, line numbers 692 through 695
inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage skin just above certain
lap splice locations is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD).
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane and sudden loss of cabin pressure.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspection

    Perform external sliding probe eddy current inspections of the
fuselage skin for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2854, dated
September 17, 2012, except where this service bulletin specifies to
contact Boeing for inspection instructions, this AD requires doing
the inspection using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do the inspection
at the applicable initial compliance time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2854,
dated September 17, 2012, except where this service bulletin
specifies a compliance time after the ``original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (1) If no cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the
applicable compliance time intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2854, dated
September 17, 2012.
    (2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD.

 (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05191 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65066-65067]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22650]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0024; OMB No. 1660-0149]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Requests for Special Priorities Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: 30 Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Office of Policy and Program
Analysis, Marc Geier, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street
SW, Washington, DC 20472, (telephone)<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2020 at 85 FR
46688 with a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Requests for Special Priorities Assistance.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0149.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 009-0-142, Requests for Special
Priorities Assistance.
    Abstract: Contractors may request Special Priorities Assistance
(SPA) when placing rated orders with suppliers, to obtain timely
delivery of products, materials or services from suppliers, or for any
other reason under the EMPAS, in support of approved national programs.
Additionally, when responding to COVID-19, State and local governments,
owners, operators, and the private sector may request SPA. FEMA Form
009-0-142 is used to apply for such assistance.
    Affected Public: For-Profit Business; Private Non-Profit; State,
local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 20.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $288.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: None.

    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $52,857.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-22650 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P