INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR 1617.07) FOR SERVICING OF MOTOR
VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	Identification of Information Collection

a) 	Title:	"Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners"

OMB Control Number:  2060-0247

EPA Number: 1617.07

b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

History.  Section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act)
provides general guidelines for motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC)
refrigerant handling and MVAC servicing. It states that “no person
repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any
service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant for
such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant
recovery and/or recovery and recycling equipment (hereafter referred to
as “refrigerant handling equipment”) and no such person may perform
such service unless such person has been properly trained and
certified.” In 1992, EPA developed regulations under section 609 that
were published in 57 FR 31242, and codified at 40 CFR Subpart B (§
82.30 et seq.). The information required to be collected under the
Section 609 regulations is currently approved for use through December
31, 2008. This supporting statement is submitted to justify an extension
of the approval of use of this information. Pursuant to new requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a notice was published in the Federal
Register on October 4, 2005, announcing the intent to extend the renewal
of this Information Collection Request and requesting comment on the
renewal. Descriptions of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
mandated by section 609 and delineated in 40 CFR 82 subpart B are
summarized below in this section. The chart located at the end of this
document displays the estimated costs of these requirements.

Approved Refrigerant Handling Equipment.  In accordance with Section
609(b)(2)(A), 40 CFR 82.36 requires that refrigerant handling equipment
be certified by EPA or independent standards testing organization.
Certification standards are particular to the type of equipment and the
refrigerant to be recovered, and must be consistent with the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards for MVAC equipment.

Approved independent standards testing organizations.  Section
609(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires independent laboratory testing of
refrigerant handling equipment to be certified by EPA. The Stratospheric
Protection Division (SPD) requires independent laboratories to submit an
application that documents: the organization’s capacity to accurately
test equipment compliance with applicable standards consistent with the
SAE standards for handling refrigerant, an absence of conflict of
interest or financial benefit based on test outcomes, and an agreement
to allow EPA access to verify application information. Once an
independent laboratory has been approved by EPA, the application is kept
on file in the SPD. Two laboratories – Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
and Intertek/ETL Testing Laboratories – are currently approved to test
refrigerant handling equipment. EPA does not anticipate that any
organizations will apply to EPA in the future to become approved
independent standards testing organizations. Therefore, annual hours and
costs related to information submitted by these organizations have been
eliminated.

Technician training and certification.  According to Section 609(b)(4)
of the Act, automotive technicians are required to be trained and
certified in the proper use of approved refrigerant handling equipment.
Programs that perform technician training and certification activities
must apply to the SPD for approval by submitting verification that its
program meets EPA standards. The information requested is used by the
SPD to guarantee a degree of uniformity in the testing programs for
motor vehicle service technicians.

Due to rapid developments in technology, the Agency requires that each
approved technician certification program conducts periodic reviews and
updates of test material, submitting a written summary of the review and
program changes to EPA every two years (as per 40 CFR §82.40 (c)).
After the test has been approved by EPA, a hard copy remains on file
with SPD. Currently, 19 testing programs are approved by EPA to train
technicians in the proper use of refrigerant handling equipment. Five of
these programs are designed specifically for individual company’s own
employees.

Certification, reporting and recordkeeping.  To facilitate enforcement
under Section 609, EPA developed several recordkeeping requirements. All
required records must be retained on-site for a minimum of three years,
unless otherwise indicated (40 CFR §82.42 (b)).

Section 609(c) of the Act states that by January 1, 1992, no person may
service any motor vehicle air conditioner without being properly trained
and certified, nor without using properly approved refrigerant handling
equipment. To this end, 40 CFR 82.42(a) states that by January 1, 1993,
each service provider must have submitted to EPA on a one-time basis a
statement signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible
officer that provides the name of the equipment purchaser, the address
of the service establishment where the equipment will be located, the
manufacturer name, equipment model number, date of manufacture, and
equipment serial number. The statement must also indicate that the
equipment will be properly used in servicing motor vehicle air
conditioners and that each individual authorized by the purchaser to
perform service is property trained and certified. The information is
used by the SPD to verify compliance with Section 609 of the Act.

Any person who owns approved refrigerant handling equipment must
maintain records of the name and address of any facility to which
refrigerant is sent. Additionally, any person who owns approved
refrigerant handling equipment must retain records demonstrating that
all persons authorized to operate the equipment are currently certified
technicians.

Finally, any person who sells or distributes a class I or class II
refrigerant that is in a container of less than 20 pounds must verify
that the purchaser is a properly trained and certified technician,
unless the purchase of small containers is for resale only. In that
case, the seller must obtain a written statement from the purchaser that
the containers are for resale only, and must indicate the purchaser's
name and business address. When a certified technician purchases small
containers of refrigerant for servicing motor vehicles, the seller must
have a reasonable basis for believing the accuracy of the information
presented by the purchaser. In all cases, the seller must display a sign
where sales occur that states the certification requirements for
purchasers.

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection

a)	Authority for the Collection

The information requested for all entities that service motor vehicle
air conditioning is required by Section 609(d) of the Act and 40 CFR
82.36, 82.40, 82.42. This includes certification of both approved
equipment and properly trained personnel. Section 609(b)(2)(A) and 40
CFR 82.38 require the approval of independent standards testing
organization by EPA. Automotive air conditioning technician
certification programs are referred to in Section 609(b)(4), and
applicable requirements for program certification are detailed in 40 CFR
82.40. Reporting requirements associated with the sale of small
containers for resale only are noted in Section 609(e) of the Act and 40
CFR 82.42(b)(3). The reporting requirements for the motor vehicle
recycling program are derived from Section 114 of the Act.

b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

MVAC service establishments are required, by Section 609 of the Act, to
have purchased approved refrigerant handling equipment and to have only
properly trained and certified personnel using the equipment by January
1, 1992. They must submit certification form or statement to EPA by
January 1, 1993 certifying that the MVAC service establishment  has
acquired and is properly using, approved equipment and that each
individual authorized to use the equipment is properly trained and
certified. The Agency uses the certificates to confirm compliance with
Section 609.

i) Equipment Certification

As per 30 CFR §82.36 (a) (1), the Agency is required either to certify
refrigerant handling equipment itself or to approve independent
laboratories to test and certify equipment. In order for EPA to certify
equipment, the Agency must be provided with information that proves the
equipment’s ability to recover and/or recycle refrigerant according to
the SAE J standards adopted into the appendices at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart B. Certification standards are particular to the type of
equipment used and refrigerant being recovered.

Since EPA does not have the capabilities to test all refrigerant
handling equipment on a national scale, the Agency relies on approved
laboratories to test equipment. Currently, Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) and Intertek/ETL Testing Laboratories (ETL) certify equipment on a
voluntary basis. The Agency established an approval system at 40 CFR
§82.38 to evaluate procedures of laboratories that may request approval
in the future. Information submitted by the laboratories must include
documentation of their capacity to accurately test equipment, an absence
of a conflict of interest or financial benefit based on test results,
and agreement to allow EPA access to verify information. The SPD uses
the information provided by independent laboratories to evaluate their
capacity to properly test refrigerant handling equipment. The Agency has
required only the submission of information that will enable it to
ensure that all approved laboratories can test equipment under Agency
standards and the adopted SAE J standards.

ii) Technician Certification Programs

Technicians must pass a test at the completion of a certification
program in order to perform any service or repair on MVACs and in order
to use the approved equipment as stipulated in Section 609 and 40 CFR
82.34, 82.40. Technician certification programs must submit verification
to EPA of their compliance with standards set forth in 40 CFR 82.40.
SPD uses certification program information to ensure that Agency
standards are met, and that they are at least as stringent as the SAE J
standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

Because of the rapidly changing nature of the motor vehicle air
conditioning market, EPA requires that technician certification programs
conduct internal reviews and update their program periodically. By
requiring a written summary of the review and any program changes to be
reported to EPA every two years, the Agency ensures the accuracy of the
information, and maintains parity among testing programs.

iii) Refrigerant Sent Off-site

EPA requires service establishments to record the name and address of
any off-site facility which is reclaiming refrigerant, per 40 CFR
§82.42 (b)(1). This information is used to verify compliance with the
motor vehicle air conditioning recycling program.

iv) Purchases of Small Cans

Distributors who purchase small containers of refrigerant must be
properly trained and certified according to the standards set forth in
40 CFR §82.40, unless the purchaser provides a written statement
verifying that the small containers were purchased for resale only. The
seller may keep the initial statement from a distributor and update the
file with the amounts of refrigerant purchased in the form of small
containers. These records are used to ensure that small containers of
refrigerant are not available for non-certified technicians. By
requiring only minor additions to the existing invoice procedures, the
Agency has ensured total compliance with Section 609.

3.	Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

a)	Non-Duplication

The specific information requested by this notice is not currently
collected by any other office within EPA or any other government agency.

b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA will issue
a public notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comments for a
60-day period.

c)	Consultations

In developing the regulations under the Act, EPA established an advisory
council for issues relating to stratospheric ozone. The Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Advisory Council (STOPAC) membership included
representatives from affected industries, environmental interest groups,
and academics in related fields. Within STOPAC, subcommittees were
formed to look at the more detailed issues. The subcommittee on motor
vehicle air conditioning met several times, and discussed all aspects of
the proposed regulations for Section 609 of the Act. The Federal
Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d) soliciting comments on
this collection of information, was published on 9/4/98 (63 FR 47284);
no comments were received.

To update this ICR, information was recently obtained from six
technician certification organizations.

d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The equipment certification time table was established by Congress in
Section 609. Since the certification submission is a one-time
occurrence, a less frequent collection of this information would make it
impossible to comply with Section 609.

Verifications of applications for technician certification programs and
independent standards testing organizations are required to be submitted
to EPA under Section 609 of the Act. The review is a one-time occurrence
and must take place to allow the Agency to approve programs under the
Act.

e)         General Guidelines

The Section 609 regulations do not exceed any of the guidelines.

f)	Confidentiality

This section does not apply because this ICR does not request
information of a confidential nature.

g)	Sensitive Questions

This section does not apply because this ICR does not request
information of a sensitive nature.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

a)	Respondents / NAICS Codes

The following is a list of NAICS codes for organizations potentially
affected by the information requirements covered under this ICR. It is
meant to include any establishment that may service or maintain motor
vehicle air conditioners.

4411	   Automobile Dealers

4413	Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores

44711

45299	All Other General Merchandise Stores

811198   All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance

Other affected groups include:

	   Independent Standards Testing Organizations

	   Organizations with Technician Certification Programs

b)	Information Requested

i) Data Items, including Recordkeeping Requirements

All entities that service motor vehicle air conditioners must send to
EPA, on a one-time basis, certification of an appropriate MVAC
refrigerant handling device. This certification must include the name of
the purchaser of the equipment, address of the establishment where the
equipment will be located, name of equipment manufacturer, model number,
date of manufacture, and serial number. The statement must be signed by
the owner of the equipment or other responsible officer, and must
indicate that the equipment will be properly used in servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners, and that each individual authorized by the
purchaser to perform service is property trained and certified.

Independent laboratory testing of refrigerant handling equipment is
designed to ensure that the equipment is capable of safely meeting the
standards set forth by EPA in appendices to 40 CFR 82 Subpart B. To
establish a degree of uniformity to the equipment certification
programs, EPA requires organizations to submit applications documenting:
the equipment used for equipment testing; the expertise and technical
experience of their personnel; thorough knowledge of the standards in
the appendices to 40 CFR 82 Subpart B; test procedures to be used and
the rationale for them; absence of a conflict of interest or financial
benefit based on test results; and agreement to allow EPA access to
verify information. Specific reporting requirements may include:
equipment ability to remove moisture, oil, and non-condensable gases
from refrigerant, and a list of testing equipment used.

Technician certification programs interested in certifying technicians
are required to document that their program meets EPA standards. An
acceptable program includes the following components:  adequate training
through on-the-job or on-site instructional training, or self-study; a
test that effectively covers all relevant standards dealing with the
servicing and repair of motor vehicle air conditioners, anticipated
future technological developments, the regulatory requirements imposed
by EPA under Section 609 of the Act, the environmental consequences of
the release of refrigerant during the servicing and repair of motor
vehicle air conditioners, and the adverse effects of stratospheric ozone
depletion; a test grader who receives no benefit based on test results;
means of identifying the individual taking the test; the measures taken
at the test site to ensure that the tests are completed honestly by each
technician; individual proof of certification in the form of a
certificate or card and unique certification number.

Certification programs are required to conduct a periodic review of
their test material and submit to EPA a written program review summary
and any material changes every two years.

Service establishments that own approved refrigerant handling equipment
and send used refrigerant off-site for recycling or reclamation must
record the facility name and address to which any refrigerant is sent.
In addition, the seller of small containers to an uncertified purchaser
must be provided with a written statement that the containers are for
resale only. The statement must also contain the purchaser’s name and
address. Finally, any person who owns equipment must retain records
demonstrating that all technicians authorized to operate the equipment
are certified pursuant to the Clean Air Act. All of these records must
be kept on-site for a minimum of three years.

ii) Respondent Activities

	All Entities That Service Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners

One-Time Equipment and User Certification Forms:

Compile documentation for a certification that states the following:
The name of the purchaser of the equipment, address of the establishment
where the equipment will be located, name of equipment manufacturer,
model number, date of manufacture, and serial number. The statement must
be signed by the owner of the equipment or other responsible officer,
and indicate that the equipment will be properly used in servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners and that each individual authorized by the
purchaser to perform service is property trained and certified. In many
cases a form is provided by the manufacturer of the equipment. Prepare
and submit completed certification to EPA.

Records of Certified Technicians:

Maintain records on-site, for a minimum of three years, demonstrating
that all equipment users are properly trained and certified.

Records of Refrigerant Sent Off-site:

Record and file the facility address to which any refrigerant is sent
for off-site reclamation or recycling. Recordkeeping is required for a
minimum of three years.

Records of Class I or Class II Refrigerant in Small Containers Sold for
Re-Sale:

Verify that purchaser is properly trained and certified.

Compile, file, and keep for a minimum of three years written statements
from uncertified purchasers verifying their intent to only resell the
small containers of refrigerant.

	Independent Standards Testing Organizations

New Independent Standards Testing Organization Certification

Research SAE J standards on MVAC refrigerant handling equipment.

Compile test methodology, a list of required equipment, and other
information regarding the SAE standards for the application to EPA.

Prepare and submit application to EPA that documents capacity to
accurately test whether refrigerant handling equipment complies with the
applicable standards, an absence of conflict of interest or financial
benefit based on test results and an agreement to allow EPA access to
verify information to ensure that the testing program fulfills the
applicable SAE J standards, adopted in the appendices at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart B, for recycling and recovery equipment.

Substantially Identical Equipment

Substantially Identical Equipment Owners or Manufacturers

Locate information that will verify that the equipment can perform to
the applicable SAE J standards, including process flow sheets and a list
of components.

Compile supporting information and submit it to EPA.

	Technician Certification Programs

New Technician Certification Program Certification:

Compile documents and submit to EPA verification that training program
meets EPA requirements.

Technician Certification Program Review:

Conduct periodic program reviews.

Prepare and submit summary of program review to EPA every two years.

5.	The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

a)	Agency Activities

One-Time Equipment and User Certification Forms:

Review and store certification applications and supporting documents
from all entities that have purchased approved refrigerant handling
equipment.

Records of Certified Technicians:

No Agency action required.

Records of Refrigerant Sent Off-site:

No Agency action required.

Records of Refrigerant Sold for Re-Sale:

No Agency action required.

New Independent Standards Testing Organization Certification:

Review applications from independent labs that request approval to
certify refrigerant handling equipment.

New Technician Certification Program Certification:

Review applications from new technician certification programs.

Technician Certification Program Review:

Review summaries of certification program updates every two years.

b)	Collection Methodology and Management

SPD and the EPA regional offices have planned and allocated resources
for the efficient and effective management and use of this information.
The Agency has developed a sample form that manufacturers may distribute
to service establishments that have purchased approved refrigerant
handling equipment. An establishment may submit the form provided by the
manufacturer of the equipment. Entities are not required to use the
manufacturer's form, but they must submit the required information. The
information submitted by each service establishment is maintained by the
EPA Regional offices.

Independent standards testing organizations must submit to the Agency an
application documenting their capacity to accurately test whether
refrigerant handling equipment complies with the applicable standards,
an absence of conflict of interest or financial benefit based on test
results, and an agreement to allow EPA access to verify information. The
Agency examines the submitted test procedures for their ability to meet
the SAE standards as specified in Section 609 of the Act. These
applications may be submitted manually or electronically, as long as
they are made available for Agency review.

Equipment manufacturers or equipment owners that are interested in
having their equipment determined substantially identical must submit
information to the Agency for an evaluation of the equipment. The
information provided is kept on file at EPA for reference.

Technician certification programs must submit to the Agency a
verification of their compliance with EPA regulations for review and
approval by the SPD. Program materials include, but are not limited to:
video tapes, scripts, manuals, booklets, and software or other forms of
electronic information. Testing of technicians may be performed either
manually or electronically. The certification programs and their review
reports are kept on file at EPA for reference.

The Agency has determined that periodic on-site inspection is the most
effective method to ensure compliance with Section 609. Records should
be kept at the location where service involving refrigerant is performed
or where small containers of refrigerant are distributed for resale.

c)	Small Entity Flexibility

Section 609 contains a provision that allowed small entities (i.e.,
those which performed service on fewer than 100 motor vehicle air
conditioners during the calendar year 1990) an additional year to comply
with the provisions of Section 609.

EPA expects a small number of technician certification programs and
independent

equipment standard testing organizations to apply for approval. The
requirement to submit the program application for Agency approval is not
burdensome and is not expected to prevent small entities from developing
programs. The Act does not require programs to be developed, only that
once developed they be submitted to EPA.

The substantially identical determination is designed to examine
equipment sold before the regulations were proposed and that had not
been certified by an approved independent laboratory. This provision
will benefit small entities that may have purchased recycling or recover
equipment in a good faith effort to recover refrigerant prior to a
regulatory mandate.

EPA does not expect any new independent standards testing programs to
apply for approval.

The name and address of the refrigerant handling facility to which
refrigerant is sent by an establishment with recovery-only capabilities
is a standard part of existing recordkeeping procedures for business
transactions. The regulations regarding records maintained by persons
who sell small containers of refrigerant solely require that the
resale-only statement be added into invoicing procedures for sales to
uncertified purchasers.

d)	Collection Schedule

All entities operating at the time the regulations were introduced were
required to submit certification forms to EPA by January 1, 1993. The
certification for refrigerant handling equipment is intended as a
one-time information request for the life of the equipment.

After the initial EPA approval, technician training programs must review
their programs periodically to account for technological developments. A
summary of the program review and any changes must be submitted to EPA
every two years.

6. 	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

a) 	Estimating Respondent Burden

	The basis of the analysis is the identification of the principal steps
involved in complying with EPA recordkeeping and reporting requirements
and the estimated burden associated with each step. The burden has been
estimated by identifying the number of times the step will be undertaken
and the number of hours required to complete each step.   REF
_Ref197863544 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Appendix 1  presents the estimated
annual respondent burden and costs for information collection activities
associated with Section 609 of the Act.

	Time required for completion of each activity is derived from the
estimates in the previous ICR, with several exceptions. In this ICR, the
maintenance of records of technician certification (of photocopying and
filing the technician’s certification card) is estimated to require
0.083 clerical work hours per establishment (5 minutes), which remain
unchanged from the previous ICR. Additionally, in this ICR, the one-time
equipment and user certification for compilation, preparation, and
submission is estimated to require 0.17 hours (10 minutes) per
establishment, which remain unchanged from the previous ICR. Generally,
this one-time certification is submitted by a new motor vehicle service
facility, or by first-time refrigerant handling equipment owners or
lessees, or when there’s been a change in ownership on an existing
service facility, consistent with the recordkeeping a and reporting
requirements on 40 CFR 82.42. This labor burden includes completion and
mailing of a prepared form. The form requires information on
establishment name, name of the equipment owner or lessee, address, and
telephone number, as well as equipment manufacturer, model number,
serial number, and year.

	In this ICR, 1.5 hours has been allotted per establishment to conduct
the reviews, and 0.5 hours has been allotted per establishment to
prepare and submit the summary, which are unchanged from the time
allotted in the previous ICR.

	It should be noted that minimal records need to be developed by
industry establishments, and these records can be stored as hard copies;
there is no need for the creation (or maintenance) of a database system.
Therefore, no additional hours or costs are required for these
activities.

b) 	Estimating Respondent Costs

i) Estimating Labor Costs

	Respondent labor costs (hourly rate plus overhead and fringe) are
estimated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average hourly
wages are multiplied by a factor of 2.1 to reflect the estimated
additional costs for overhead and fringe. General recordkeeping tasks
are assigned to administrative assistants, whereas preparations of
applications and reports are assigned to managers. The following job
characterizations were used in   REF _Ref197859080 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Table 1 :

General and Operations Manager: $45.74/hr x 2.1 = $96.05

Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants: $21.91/hr x 2.1 =
$46.01

Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics: $17.39hr x 2.1 = $36.52

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 . Average Hourly Establishment Labor
Costs

Managerial	Clerical	Technical

$96.05	$46.01	$36.52

ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	The Agency estimates that there are no capital/operations and
maintenance costs associated with the requirements of Section 609, and
therefore, with the renewal of this information collection request.

c) 	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The basis of this analysis is the identification of the steps involved
in implementing and operating the system. The costs associated with each
step have been estimated by identifying the number of times the step
will be undertaken, the number of hours required to complete each step,
and the total dollar cost.   REF _Ref197863572 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Appendix 2  presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs
associated with the information collection activities for this ICR.
Agency labor costs are based on the 2011 GS Salary Schedule for the
locality pay area of Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia,
DC-MD-PA-WV, which are multiplied by 1.6, the standard government
benefits multiplier. See   REF _Ref197792538 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2
 for EPA estimates of average hourly labor costs for managerial and
clerical staff, whose wage estimates are based on GS 12 step 2, and GS 7
step 2 hourly rates respectively. As shown, EPA estimates that the
annual Agency burden for all activities covered in this ICR is 188.38
hours at a total cost of $6,223.98 per year.

Wage estimates are based on the following characterizations of
occupations:

GS 12 Step 2 - Managerial: $36.04/hr x 1.6 = $57.65/hr

GS 7 Step 2 – Clerical (43-4199): $19.57/hr x 1.6 = $31.31/hr

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 . Average Hourly Agency Labor Costs

Managerial	Clerical

$57.65	$31.31

	Estimates of burden hours are based on assumptions that filing and
recording information will take very little time. Specific estimates are
detailed in Appendix 2. No additional hours or costs will be incurred
for preparation or development of a recordkeeping database. For the
establishment activities that simply require on-site recordkeeping, EPA
has no correlated burden. Similarly, for the activities currently not
applicable to any establishments, EPA has no correlated burden.

d) 	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	An average estimate of 180 equipment certification forms are received
and processed by EPA each month. Therefore, it is estimated that 2,200
establishments will compile and submit one-time certification forms to
EPA each year. While these certification forms were historically sent by
respondents to EPA Headquarters and then forwarded on to EPA Regional
offices, as appropriate, they are now sent directly from establishments
to EPA Regional offices.

	The previous ICR estimated that there will be 55,000 records of
technicians maintained in establishments per year demonstrating that all
equipment users are properly trained and certified. However, based a
decrease of number of technician certification programs and on data
collected in March 2012 from 6 out of 19 technician certification
centers, it is estimated that 50,000 new MVAC technicians are certified
each year. Assuming that MVAC service establishments will hire these
newly certified technicians and maintain records demonstrating their
certification, this ICR estimates that there will be 50,000 records
regarding certified technicians using proper refrigerant handling
equipment will be maintained each year.

	The previous ICR estimated that 5,000 establishments per year that send
refrigerant off-site for handling, assuming all establishments sent
refrigerant fro reclamation. However, because most service
establishments recycle refrigerant on-site, the number of entities that
send refrigerant off-site for recycling/reclamation is very low. The
agency estimates that 3% of the total servicing establishments currently
operating in the United States (4100), will send the refrigerant
off-site for reclamation. Therefore, 120 facilities are estimated to
keep record and file off sire facility address of refrigerant sent for
reclamation.

	It is estimated that there are 275purchases of small class I or class
II refrigerant containers made by uncertified purchasers for resale
only. This number is reduced from the estimate of 1,370 purchases in the
previous ICR, derived from an estimate of CFC-12 vehicles on road, which
estimated about 80% reduction of the existing CFC-12 vehicle fleet
estimated in 2008.

	There are currently two independent standards testing organizations,
and it is unlikely that any others will apply for approval.
Additionally, no significantly identical equipment is expected to be
submitted to the Agency for review.

	There are currently 19 technician certification programs that must
submit program reviews every other year. It is estimated that EPA will
review 1 program per year.  .

e) 	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

i) Respondent Tally

	Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,522.75 hrs.

	Total Annual Cost: $208,307.40

ii) The Agency Tally

	Total Annual Burden Hours: 188.38 hrs.

	Total Annual Cost: $6,223.98

iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

	Changes to the annual bottom line are due to a more accurate estimate
in hourly wages and a shift in the time requirements and number of
reporting establishments. See below for a more complete discussion of
these changes.

f) 	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The previously approved ICR’s supporting statement described an
estimated burden or estimated a total annual respondent burden of
2,865 hours. By comparison, this ICR estimates a total
annual burden of 4,522.75 hours. Hence, there is a decrease of
2,177.25 hours and a decrease of $54,637.07 since the previously
approved ICR. This change can be attributed to the following factors.

In the previous ICR, respondent hourly wages were $47.73, $18.83, and
$17.53 for managers, administrative assistants, and technicians,
respectively.  In this ICR, to increase accuracy, wages have been
estimated based on the most current Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011)
national averages for managers, administrative assistants, and
technicians to be $45.74, $21.91, and $17.39, respectively. These
baseline wages were then multiplied by a factor of 2.1 to incorporate
overhead and fringe costs into the hourly cost estimate, resulting in
estimated hourly costs of $96.05, $46.01, and $36.52.

The number of technician certification programs decreased from 24 to 19
since the previous ICR because several programs went out of business.

In this ICR, time requirements for each EPA activity related to
establishments’ report submissions have been estimated. Additionally,
wages for clerical and managerial EPA work has been estimated based on
the 2011 GS Salary Schedule for the locality pay area of
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-WV. These baseline
wages were multiplied by a factor of 1.6, the standard government
benefits multiplier, to arrive at an accurate hourly cost.

The previous ICR estimated that 55,000 new technician certifications
would be recorded and filed by owners of approved refrigerant handling
equipment each year. However, this ICR estimates the number to be
50,000.  Based on data collected in March 20123 from some technician
certification centers, it is estimated that 50,000 new MVAC technicians
are certified each year. The time allotted to this activity in the last
ICR was 0.083 hours per certification; no change in time allotted per
certification is expected on this ICR. 0.083 hours.

The previous ICR estimated that equipment and user certification form
compilation and submission would require 0.17 hours per establishment.
That estimate remains unchanged in this ICR.

In 2008 it was estimated that there would be 1,370 purchases of small
containers of class I and class II refrigerant for resale only by
uncertified purchasers. It is estimated that at the time (in 2008),
there were an estimated 3 million R-12 MVACs on the road. Today, it is
estimated that there are only 600 thousand R-12 MVACs on the road, or
roughly 80% less than there were in 2008. Therefore, to account for the
decreased market for small containers of CFC-12 refrigerant, this ICR
estimates that the number of purchases for resale only by uncertified
purchasers of small cans will be 80% less than in 2008, or 275
purchases.

Finally, the substantially identical equipment approval process is no
longer

applicable for CFC-12 and HFC-134a refrigerant handling equipment
manufactured prior proposal of refrigerant equipment handling
regulations. This portion of Section 609(b)(2)(B) of the Act and 40 CFR
82.36(b) allowed for equipment that was purchased before the proposal of
the regulations to be approved by EPA if it was substantially identical
to equipment that had been certified by the EPA or approved independent
laboratory. The substantially identical equipment regulation only
relates to CFC-12 recovery and recycling equipment initially purchased
before September 4, 1991; CFC-12 recovery-only equipment initially
purchased before April 22, 1992; HFC-134a recovery and recycling, or
recovery-only equipment initially purchased before March 6, 1996;
equipment that recovers but does not recycle any single, specific
refrigerant other than CFC-12 or HFC-134a that was initially purchased
before March 6,1996; or equipment that recovers and recycles HFC-134a
and CFC-12 refrigerant using common circuitry that was initially
purchased before March 6, 1996. Because the average lifetime of such
equipment is roughly 7 years, all such equipment is obsolete today.
Therefore, documentation requirements related to this section for CFC-12
and HFC-134a have been removed from this ICR.

g) 	Burden Statement

The industry reporting burden for this collection is estimated in
Appendix 1. It includes the time needed to comply with EPA's
certification requirements and Agency reviews. The total respondent
burden is estimated at 4,522.75 hours.

The Agency burden for this collection is estimated in Appendix 2. It
includes the time needed to record, review, and file all certification
applications and related materials. The total Agency burden is estimated
at 188.38 hours.

	Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.Appendix 1

Industry Reporting Burden

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY	Frequency/ Number of Responses per Year
Labor Hours per Response	Costs

General and Operations Manager

$96.05 	Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics

$36.52 	Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants

46.01	Total Labor Hours 	Average Total Hours	 Total Labor Costs per
Response	Average Cost/Year

ENTITIES THAT SERVICE MVACs

One-Time Equipment and User Certification Forms

Compile, Prepare, and Submit Certification	2200	-

0.17	0.17	374	$ 7.82	$ 17,207.74

Records of Technician Certification

Maintain Records On-Site of Certification of Technicians	50,000

	0.08	0.08	4000	$ 3.68	$ 184.040.00

Records of CFC-12 Refrigerant Sent Off-Site

Record and file off-site facility address	120	-	0.25

0.25	30	$ 9.13	$ 1,095.60

Records of CFC-12 Refrigerant Sold

Verify certification of purchaser	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Obtain and file written statements from purchaser verifying intent to
only resell small containers	275

	0.25	0.25	68.75	$ 11.50	$ 3163.20

Subtotal	52700

0.75	4472.75	$ 32.13	$ 205,506.50

INDEPENDENT STANDARDS TESTING ORGANIZATIONS

New Independent Standards Testing Organization Certification

Research SAE standards on MVAC recovery equipment	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A

Compile information for application to EPA	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Prepare and submit application to EPA	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Subtotal

N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS

New Technician Certification Program Certification

Compile documents and submit to EPA for verification of program	1	N/A
N/A	40	40	40	$ 1,840.40	$ 1,840.40

Technician Certification Program Review

Conduct periodic program reviews	10	0.5

	0.5	5	$ 48.03	$ 480.25

Prepare and Submit summary of program review to EPA every two years	10
0.50

	0.50	5	$ 48.03	$ 480.25

Subtotal	21	2.00

-	2.00	50	$ 1936.46	$ 2,800.90

ANNUAL TOTAL 	N/A

	4522.75	$ 1968.59	$ 208,307.40

Appendix 2

Agency Reporting Burden

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY	Frequency/ Number of Responses per Year
Labor Hours per Response	 Costs

Manager	Clerical	Total Labor Hours 	Average Total Hours	  Total Labor
Costs per Response 	 Average Cost/Year

$57.65 	$31.31

One-Time Equipment and User Certification Forms

	Review and file applications	2,200

0.08	0.08	176	$ 2.50	$ 5,510.56

New Independent Standards Testing Organization Certification

	Review applications from testing organizations who request to certify
equipment	0

	-	-	$ -	$ -

New Technician Certification Program Certification

	Review applications from new technician certification programs	1	10

10	10	$ 576.50

	$ 576.50

Technician Certification Program Review

	Review summaries of certification program updates every two years	9.5
0.25

0.25	2.375	$ 14.41	$ 136.90

Annual Total

	188.38	$ 593.41	$ 6,223.98

 Labor rates were retrieved from the “May 2011 National
Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates” for the
General and Operations Manager (11-1021), Executive Secretaries and
Administrative Assistants (43-6011), and Automotive Service Technicians
and Mechanics (49-3023) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
at,   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oes_nat.htm#43-0000"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oes_nat.htm#43-0000 .

 Labor rates were retrieved from the “May 2011 National
Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates” for the
Federal Executive Branch (NAICS Code 999100) provided by the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics at,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm.

 BLS, 2011

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE  3


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13822]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-36-016]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 10, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 22, 2006, Dauphin Island Gathering
Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing additional information in
compliance with an order (114 FERC ] 61,121) issued by the Commission
on February 8, 2006, which relates to Dauphin Island's January 8, 2006
Negotiated Rate and Nonconforming Tariff Filing.
    Dauphin Island is providing additional information explaining the
specific changes made to each contract. Dauphin Island also tendered
for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1,
two revised tariff sheets.
    Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served
contemporaneously on all participants listed on the service list in
this proceeding.
    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 and 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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3884 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10586-10589]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4003]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66397; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2011-56; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Amex LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Codify Certain Traditional Trading
Floor Functions That May Be Performed by Designated Market Makers and
To Permit Designated Market Makers and Floor Brokers Access to
Disaggregated Order Information

February 15, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On October 31, 2011, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') (collectively, the ``SROs'') each 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\ proposed rule changes (the ``SRO
Proposals'') to amend certain of their respective rules relating to
Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') \3\ and Floor brokers. The SRO
Proposals were published for comment in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2011.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See NYSE Rule 98(b)(2). ``DMM unit'' means any member
organization, aggregation unit within a member organization, or
division or department within an integrated proprietary aggregation
unit of a member organization that (i) has been approved by NYSE
Regulation pursuant to section (c) of NYSE Rule 98, (ii) is eligible
for allocations under NYSE Rule 103B as a DMM unit in a security
listed on the Exchange, and (iii) has met all registration and
qualification requirements for DMM units assigned to such unit. The
term ``DMM'' means any individual qualified to act as a DMM on the
Floor of the Exchange under NYSE Rule 103. See also NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 2(i). Rule 2(i) defines the term ``DMM'' to mean an
individual member, officer, partner, employee or associated person
of a DMM unit who is approved by the Exchange to act in the capacity
of a DMM. NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2(j) defines the term ``DMM unit''
as a member organization or unit within a member organization that
has been approved to act as a DMM unit under NYSE Amex Equities Rule
98.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65735 (November 10,
2011), 76 FR 71405 (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86) and 65736 (November 10,
2011), 76 FR 71399 (SR-NYSE-2011-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2011, the Commission extended the time period in
which to either approve the SRO Proposals, disapprove the SRO
Proposals, or to institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the

SRO Proposals, to February 15, 2012.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether
to disapprove the SRO Proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66036, 76 FR 82011
(December 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    The SRO Proposals seek to amend the SROs' rules in several ways.
First, the SROs propose to codify certain Trading Floor functions that
may be performed by DMMs. Second, the SROs propose to allow DMMs to
access Exchange systems that would provide DMMs with additional order
information about the securities in which they are registered. Third,
the SROs propose to make certain conforming amendments to their rules
to reflect the additional order information that would be available to
DMMs through Exchange systems, and to specify what information about e-
Quotes is available to the DMM. Finally, the SROs propose to modify the
terms under which DMMs would be permitted to provide market information
to Floor brokers and others.

A. Trading Floor Functions

    The SROs propose to codify certain Trading Floor functions formerly
performed by specialists that are to be performed by DMMs, and were
described in each SRO's respective Floor Official Manual.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 2004 Floor Official Manual, Market Surveillance June
2004 Edition, Chapter Two, Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would specify four categories of Trading Floor
functions that DMMs could perform: (1) Maintaining order among Floor
brokers manually trading at the DMM's assigned panel; \7\ (2) bringing
Floor brokers together to facilitate trading; \8\ (3) assisting Floor
brokers with respect to their orders by providing information regarding
the status of a Floor broker's orders, helping to resolve errors or
questioned trades, adjusting errors, and cancelling or inputting Floor
broker agency interest on behalf of a Floor broker; \9\ and (4)
researching the status of orders or questioned trades.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. at Section I.A. at 7 (``specialist helps ensure that
such markets are fair, orderly, operationally efficient and
competitive with all other markets in those securities'').
    \8\ See id. at Section I.B.3. at 10-11 (``[i]n opening and
reopening trading in a listed security, a specialist should * * *
[s]erve as the market coordinator for the securities in which the
specialist is registered by exercising leadership and managing
trading crowd activity and promptly identifying unusual market
conditions that may affect orderly trading in those securities,
seeking the advice and assistance of Floor Officials when
appropriate'' and ``[a]ct as a catalyst in the markets for the
securities in which the specialist is registered, making all
reasonable efforts to bring buyers and sellers together to
facilitate the public pricing of orders, without acting as principal
unless reasonably necessary'').
    \9\ See id. at Section I.B.4. at 11 (``In view of the
specialist's central position in the Exchange's continuous two-way
agency auction market, a specialist should proceed as follows * * *
[e]qually and impartially provide accurate and timely market
information to all inquiring members in a professional and courteous
manner.'').
    \10\ See id. at Section I.B.5. at 12 (A specialist should
``[p]romptly provide information when necessary to research the
status of an order or a questioned trade and cooperate with other
members in resolving and adjusting errors.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. DMM Access to Additional Order Information

    Each SRO proposes to make systems available to a DMM at the post
that display the following types of information about securities in
which the DMM is registered: (A) Aggregated information about buying
and selling interest; \11\ (B) disaggregated information about the
price and size of any individual order or Floor broker agency interest
file (also known as ``e-Quotes),'' and the entering and clearing firm
information for such orders, except that Exchange systems would not
make available to DMMs information about any order or e-Quote, or
portion thereof, that a market participant has elected not to display
to a DMM; and (C) post-trade information.\12\ The proposals would make
available to DMMs disaggregated information about the following
interest in securities in which the DMM is registered: (a) The price
and size of all displayable interest submitted by off-Floor
participants; and (b) all e-Quotes, including reserve e-Quotes, that
the Floor broker has not elected to exclude from availability to the
DMM.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Exchange systems currently make available to DMMs aggregate
information about the following interest in securities in which the
DMM is registered: (a) All displayable interest submitted by off-
Floor participants; (b) all Minimum Display Reserve orders,
including the reserve portion; (c) all displayable Floor broker
agency interest files (``e-Quotes''); (d) all Minimum Display
Reserve e-Quotes, including the reserve portion; and (e) the reserve
quantity of Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes, unless the Floor broker
elects to exclude that reserve quantity from availability to the
DMM.
    \12\ For the latter two categories, the DMM also would have
access to entering and clearing firm information for each order and,
as applicable, the badge number of the Floor broker representing the
order. According to the SROs, the systems would not contain any
information about the ultimate customer (i.e., the name of the
member or member organization's customer) in a transaction.
    \13\ The SROs previously permitted DMMs to have access to
Exchange systems that contained the disaggregated order information
described above. The SROs stopped making such information available
to DMMs on January 19, 2011. See NYSE and NYSE Amex Information Memo
11-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conforming Amendments and Floor Broker e-Quote Information

    The SROs also propose to make conforming amendments to their rules
to reflect the additional order information that would be available to
DMMs through Exchange systems, and to specify what information about e-
Quotes is available to the DMM. Specifically, the SROs propose to
revise NYSE Rule 70 and NYSE Amex Rule 70 governing Floor broker e-
Quotes to reflect that disaggregated order information would be
available to the DMM except as elected otherwise. The SROs would allow
a Floor broker to enter e-Quotes with reserve interest (``Reserve e-
Quote'') with or without a displayable portion.
    A Reserve e-Quote with a displayable portion would participate in
manual and automatic executions. Order information at each price point,
including the reserve portion, would be included in the aggregate
interest available to the DMM. Order information at each price point
would be available to the DMM on a disaggregated basis as well. If the
Floor broker chooses to exclude the Reserve e-Quote with a displayable
portion from the DMM, then the DMM would have access to the entire
portion on an aggregated basis but would not have access to any of that
interest on a disaggregated basis.
    A Floor broker Reserve e-Quote with an undisplayable portion would
also participate in manual and automatic executions. Like the Reserve
e-Quote with a displayable portion, order information at each price
point would be included in the aggregate interest available to DMM.
Again, like the Reserve e-Quote with a displayable portion, order
information at each price point would be available to DMM on a
disaggregated basis as well. If the Floor broker chooses to exclude the
Reserve e-Quote with an undisplayable portion from the DMM, however,
then the DMM would not have access to such interest on either an
aggregated basis or a disaggregated basis. Such interest would not
participate in manual executions.
    In addition, the SROs propose to delete rules which currently
prohibit DMMs from using the Display Book system to access information
about Floor broker agency interest excluded from the aggregated agency
interest and Minimum Display Reserve Order information, other than for
the purpose of effecting transactions that are reasonably imminent
where such Floor broker agency and Minimum Display

Reserve Order interest information is necessary to effect such
transaction.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed deletions to NYSE Rule 104(a)(6) and NYSE Amex
Rule 104(a)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Ability of DMMs To Provide Market Information on the Trading Floor

    The SROs also propose to modify the manner under which DMMs would
be permitted to provide market information to Floor brokers and
visitors on the Trading Floor. Specifically, the proposed rules would
permit a DMM to provide the market information to which he or she has
access to a: (1) Floor broker in response to an inquiry in the normal
course of business; or (2) visitor to the Trading Floor for the purpose
of demonstrating methods of trading. As such, Floor brokers would be
able to access disaggregated order information that market participants
have not otherwise elected to be hidden from the DMM. A Floor broker
would not be able to submit such an inquiry for market information by
electronic means, and the DMM's response containing market information
could not be through electronic means.
    Because the proposed rule expands on and incorporates the current
SRO rules regarding disclosure of order information by DMMs, the SROs
are proposing to delete these rules.\15\ The current rules provide that
a DMM may disclose market information for three purposes. First, a DMM
may disclose market information for the purpose of demonstrating the
methods of trading to visitors to the Trading Floor. This aspect of the
current rule is replicated in the proposed rules. Second, a DMM may
disclose market information to other market centers in order to
facilitate the operation of the Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'').
According to the SROs, this text is obsolete as the ITS Plan has been
eliminated and therefore the SROs are proposing to delete it. Third, a
DMM may, while acting in a market making capacity, provide information
about buying or selling interest in the market, including (a)
aggregated buying or selling interest contained in Floor broker agency
interest files other than interest the broker has chosen to exclude
from the aggregated buying and selling interest, (b) aggregated
interest of Minimum Display Reserve Orders and (c) the interest
included in DMM interest files, excluding Capital Commitment Schedule
(``CCS'') interest as described in Rule 1000(c), in response to an
inquiry from a member conducting a market probe in the normal course of
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The SROs are also proposing conforming amendments to
correct cross-references to the former rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would permit DMMs to provide Floor brokers not
only with the same aggregated order information that DMMs currently are
permitted to provide under current rules, but also with the
disaggregated and post-trade order information described above.\16\ In
the SROs' view, broadening the scope of information that DMMs can
provide Floor brokers would assist DMMs with carrying out their
historical function of bringing Floor brokers together to facilitate
trading.\17\ The SROs believe, among other things, that providing Floor
brokers access to disaggregated order information would increase their
ability to source liquidity and provide price discovery for block
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because DMMs on the Trading Floor do not have access to CCS
interest information, the proposed rule does not specify that DMMs
would not be disseminating such information.
    \17\ According to the SROs, prior to adoption of the Hybrid
Market, Exchange specialists historically had been permitted to
provide disaggregated order information to Floor brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would permit a DMM to provide market information
to a Floor broker in response to a specific request by the Floor broker
to the DMM at the post, rather than specifying that the information
must be provided ``in response to an inquiry from a member conducting a
market probe in the normal course of business,'' as currently provided
in the SRO rules. According to the SROs, the term ``market probe'' no
longer accurately reflects the manner in which DMMs and Floor brokers
interact on the Trading Floor. Rather, the SROs stated that the Floor
broker's normal course of business, as an agent for customers, includes
both seeking market probes into the depth of the market as well as
seeking out willing contra-side buyers and sellers in a particular
security. Under the proposed rule change, Floor brokers would not have
access to Exchange systems that provide disaggregated order
information, and they would only be able to access such market
information through a direct interaction with a DMM at the post.

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NYSE-2011-56 and
SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the SRO Proposals should be
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the SRO Proposals
that are discussed below. Institution of disapproval proceedings does
not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater
detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the SRO Proposals.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B), the Commission is providing notice
of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. In particular,
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ requires that the rules of an exchange
be designed, among other things, 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. In addition, Section 6(b)(5)
prohibits the rules of an exchange from being designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission has previously recognized, the participation of
market makers in exchange markets may benefit public customers by
promoting more liquid and efficient trading, and an exchange may
legitimately confer benefits on market participants willing to accept
substantial responsibilities to contribute to market quality.\19\ While
the rules of an exchange may confer special or unique benefits upon
certain types of participants, however, such rules still must ensure,
among other things, that investors and the public interest are
protected.\20\ Accordingly, the Commission carefully reviews trading
rule proposals that seek to offer special advantages to market makers
and others. Although an exchange may reward such participants for the
benefits they provide to the exchange's market, such rewards must not
be disproportionate to the services provided.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845
(October 24, 2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46)
(``New Market Model Order''), at 64388. See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 58092 (July 3, 2008), 73 FR 40144 (July 11, 2008) at
40148.
    \20\ See New Market Model Order at 64388. See also 15 U.S.C.
78f(b)(5).
    \21\ See New Market Model Order at 64388. At the time NYSE
adopted its New Market Model, the Commission believed that the rules
reflected ``an appropriate balance of DMM obligations against the
benefits provided to DMMs under [the] proposal.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their proposals, the SROs take the position that providing DMMs
with disaggregated order information would

assist them in carrying out their trading floor functions, such as
maintaining order among Floor brokers manually trading at the DMM's
assigned panel, bringing Floor brokers together to facilitate trading,
assisting Floor brokers with respect to their orders, and researching
the status of orders or questioned trades. The SROs also believe that
providing this information to Floor brokers would serve a valuable
function by increasing the ability of Floor brokers to source liquidity
and provide price discovery for block transactions.
    While the SRO proposals may improve the ability of DMMs and Floor
brokers to trade on the SROs, they also would provide DMMs and Floor
brokers access to potentially valuable information about individual
orders on the SROs that is not available to other exchange members or
market participants. This information would include the price and size
of individual orders on the SROs, as well as the entering and clearing
firm for such orders. It also would include information about trading
interest that is not available to other exchange members or market
participants even in aggregated form, such as Floor broker Reserve e-
Quotes (unless there has been an affirmative election to withhold this
information). As noted above, while the Commission has recognized that
exchanges may legitimately confer special benefits on market
participants willing to accept substantial responsibilities to
contribute to market quality, such benefits must not be
disproportionate to the services provided. In this case, the SROs have
not proposed to require of DMMs or Floor brokers any additional
obligations to the market that might correspond to the proposed
informational benefits.\22\ Nor have the SROs clearly explained how the
proposals might materially improve the quality of the SROs' markets,
particularly given the increasing amount of automated transactions on
the SROs and the reduced role of the Exchange floors. As a result, the
Commission is concerned that the SROs' proposals, among other things,
may unfairly discriminate in favor of DMMs and Floor brokers, may not
be designed to protect the broad group of investors that trade on the
SROs, and otherwise may be inequitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission further notes that, while DMMs have certain
special obligations to the SROs, including those relating to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, Floor brokers do not have
similar obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission therefore believes that questions remain as to
whether the SRO Proposals are consistent with the requirements of
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether they would promote just
and equitable principles of trade, perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and the national market system, protect investors and the
public interest, and not permit unfair discrimination.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
SRO Proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views
of interested persons concerning whether the SRO Proposals are
inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments regarding whether the SRO Proposals should be disapproved by
March 14, 2012. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other
person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 28, 2012. 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2011-56 and SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2011-56 and SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-86. These file numbers 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 SRO Proposals
that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications
relating to the SRO Proposals between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchanges. 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 Numbers SR-
NYSE-2011-56 and SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86 and should be submitted on or
before March 14, 2012. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March
28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4003 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4076-4078]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-4417]

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's Program for the
Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical
Quality; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``CDER's
Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to
Pharmaceutical Quality.'' This guidance describes a proposed program at
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to make public a
comprehensive listing of informally recognized voluntary consensus
standards related to pharmaceutical quality. This program, once
established, will facilitate submissions by external stakeholders and
CDER staff proposing voluntary consensus standards related to
pharmaceutical quality for informal recognition. CDER believes that
this informal program, which is different than the formal recognition
standards program in FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
will help promote innovation in pharmaceutical development and
manufacturing and streamline the compilation and assessment of
marketing applications for products regulated by CDER. CDER is issuing
this draft guidance to obtain public comments on the proposed program.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 15, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance. Submit either electronic or written comments
concerning the collection of information proposed in the draft guidance
by April 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

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-2018-D-4417 for ``CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary
Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality.'' 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 office between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     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.gpo.gov/fdsys/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.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Thomas, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-003), Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4334, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
301-796-4853.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus
Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality.'' This program, once
established, will facilitate submissions by external stakeholders and
CDER staff proposing voluntary consensus standards related to
pharmaceutical quality for informal recognition.
    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-113) and Circular A-119 by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) have established Federal Government policies to improve the
internal management of the executive branch by directing agencies to
use voluntary consensus standards developed or adopted by a standards
developing organization--rather than Government-unique standards--
except where these standards are inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. FDA's development and use of standards have been
integral to the execution of FDA's mission.
    CDER believes that this informal program, which is different than
the formal recognition standards program in FDA's Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, will help promote innovation in pharmaceutical
development and manufacturing and streamline the compilation and review
of marketing applications for products regulated by CDER. CDER also
believes that this program will: (1) Allow CDER to communicate to
external stakeholders that its relevant expert(s) have evaluated a
consensus standard and determined if that standard is potentially
useful both to industry and CDER staff and (2) provide transparency to
industry regarding CDER's thinking about a method or approach.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on CDER's Program
for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to
Pharmaceutical Quality. It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520),
Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection
of information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information''
is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency
requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal
Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning
each proposed collection of information before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this

requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Request for Recognition of a Voluntary Consensus Standard

OMB Control Number 0910-NEW
    The draft guidance for industry entitled ``CDER's Program for the
Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical
Quality'' provides guidance to industry about the procedures the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research follows when a request for recognition
of a voluntary consensus standard is received. The guidance outlines
justifications for why a standard may be recognized wholly, partly, or
not at all. The guidance also provides that any interested party may
request recognition of a standard. Specifically, this process will
allow CDER to:
     Receive a candidate consensus standard, with relevant
information (e.g., the scope of the standard and the purpose), from
internal or external parties for informal recognition.
     Determine whether to informally recognize a standard in
whole or in part following an internal scientific evaluation.
     List the informally recognized standards in a publicly
searchable database on CDER's website, accompanied by an information
sheet describing the scope and the extent of CDER's informal
recognition of that standard and any other relevant information about
it.

Request for Recognition of a Voluntary Consensus Standard

    We estimate that FDA will receive nine requests annually. We
estimate that each request will take less than 1 hour to prepare.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for recognition of a voluntary consensus standard..........               9                1                9                1                9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02326 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74398-74400]
[DOCID:fr31de07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57034; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. To Require a Non-
Streaming Quote Trader Registered Option Traders (``non-SQT ROT'') To
Submit a List of Options for Intended Assignment

December 21, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 12, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') 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
Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(C) to require
Exchange ``non-SQT ROTs'' (as defined below) to submit to the Exchange
a list

of the options in which such non-SQT ROT intends to be assigned to make
markets.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Phlx's
principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.Phlx.com
.

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to enable the Exchange
to better track the activities of non-SQT ROTs on the Exchange.
    Currently there are a number of categories of Exchange Registered
Options Traders that make markets in various options on the Exchange.
These categories include Exchange Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'')
\3\ and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \4\ that submit
continuous electronic option quotations to the Exchange's electronic
trading platform for options, Phlx XL.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ An SQT is a Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically through an electronic interface with AUTOM
via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting device in
eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \4\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 44612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are a number of ROTs on the Exchange's options
floor that do not stream electronic quotations into the Phlx XL system,
known as ``non-SQT ROTs.'' Instead, non-SQT ROTs make verbal markets
when called upon to do so, and also have the ability to send limit
orders to the limit order book via electronic interface with Phlx XL.
    There are several rules that include certain requirements for non-
SQT ROTs, such as minimum quarterly in-person trading requirements \6\
and the obligation of a non-SQT ROT who transacts more than 20% of his/
her contract volume electronically (i.e., by way of placing limit
orders on the limit order book that are executed electronically and
allocated automatically in accordance with Exchange Rule 1014(g)(vii))
versus in open outcry during any calendar quarter, to submit electronic
quotations in a designated percentage of series in such option during
the following calendar quarter, depending on the Exchange's total
contract volume traded electronically during the affected calendar
quarter.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 1014, Commentary .01.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(E)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to enable the Exchange to better track the above-mentioned
non-SQT ROT activity, non-SQT ROTs would be required to notify the
Exchange of each option, on an issue-by-issue basis, in which such non-
SQT ROT intends to be assigned to make markets. Such notification would
be in writing on a form prescribed by the Exchange (an ``ROT Assignment
Form''). Any change to such ROT Assignment Form must be made in writing
by such non-SQT ROT prior to the end of the trading session in which
such change is to take place. The purpose of the ``end of the trading
session'' requirement is to permit non-SQT ROTs to provide additional
liquidity to issues not listed on the ROT Assignment Form (especially
during periods of peak market activity) without the burden and delay of
seeking out a new ROT Assignment Form and appropriate Exchange staff,
which could cause the non-SQT ROT to miss out on a trading opportunity.
    Receipt of the properly completed ROT Assignment Form from a duly
qualified non-SQT ROT applicant would constitute acceptance by the
Exchange of such non-SQT ROT's assignment in, or termination of
assignment in (as indicated on the ROT Assignment Form), the options
listed on such ROT Assignment Form. All such assignments would not be
effective, and would be terminated, in the event that such non-SQT ROT
applicant fails to qualify as an ROT on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposal should enable it to
better monitor the activities of non-SQT ROTs, which should enhance the
fair and orderly market of the Exchange, which would benefit investors
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which Phlx consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve such
proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2007-91 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2007-91. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. 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-Phlx-2007-91 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2008.

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

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25375 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P