[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26634-26636]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09080]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97374; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Change To Amend Rule 915 (Criteria for Underlying
Securities) To Accelerate the Listing of Options on Certain IPOs

April 25, 2023
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 21, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 915 (Criteria for Underlying
Securities). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 915
(Criteria for Underlying Securities) (the ``Rule'') as set forth below.
Following discussions with other exchanges and a cross-section of
industry participants and in coordination with the Listed Options
Market Structure Working Group (``LOMSWG'') (collectively, the
``Industry Working Group''), the Exchange proposes to modify the
standard set forth in the Rule for the listing and trading of options
on ``covered securities'' to reduce the time to market.
    Commentary .01(4)(a) to Rule 915 sets forth the guidelines to be
considered in evaluating for option transactions underlying securities
that are ``covered securities,'' as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (hereinafter ``covered security'' or
``covered securities'').\4\ Currently, the Exchange permits the listing
of an option on an underlying covered security that, amongst other
things, has a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous
three consecutive business days preceding the date on which the
Exchange submits a certificate to The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') to list and trade options on the underlying security (the
``three-day lookback period'').\5\ Under the current rule, if an
initial public offering (``IPO'') occurs on a Monday, the earliest date
the Exchange could submit its listing certificate to OCC would be on
Thursday, with the market price determined by the closing price over
the three-day lookback period from Monday through Wednesday. The option
on the IPO'd security would then be eligible for trading on the
Exchange on Friday (i.e., within four business days of the IPO
inclusive of the day the listing certificate is submitted to OCC).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 915(a) requires that, for underlying securities to be
eligible for option transactions, such securities must be duly
registered and be an ``NMS stock'' as defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS under the Act and will be characterized by a
substantial number of outstanding shares which are widely held and
actively traded. See Rule 915(a)(1) and (2).
    \5\ See Commentary .01(4)(a) to Rule 915. The Exchange is not
proposing to make any changes to the guidelines for listing
securities that are not a ``covered security.'' See Commentary
.01(4)(b) to Rule 915.
    \6\ See proposed Commentary .01(4)(a)(ii) to Rule 915. The
Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to number the existing
and proposed criteria for covered securities as (i) and (ii) of
paragraph (4)(a). See proposed Commentary .01(4)(a)(i) to Rule 915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the three-day look back period helps ensure
that options on underlying securities may be listed and traded in a
timely manner while also allowing time for OCC to accommodate the
certification request. However, there are certain large IPOs that issue
high-priced securities--well above the $3.00 per share threshold--that
would obviate the need for the three-day lookback period. In this
regard, the Industry Working Group has recently identified proposed
changes to Commentary .01(4)(a) to Rule 915 that would help options on
covered securities that have a market capitalization of at least $3
billion based upon the offering price of its IPO come to market
earlier. The proposed change, which is intended to be harmonized across
options exchanges, is designed to provide investors the opportunity to
hedge their interest in IPO investments in a shorter amount of time
than what is currently permitted.\7\ The Exchange believes that options
serve a valuable tool to the trading community and help markets
function efficiently by mitigating risk. To that end, the Exchange
believes that the absence of options in the early days after an IPO

may heighten volatility in the trading of IPO'd securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the Exchange acknowledges that market participants may
utilize options for speculative purposes (in addition to as a
hedging tool), the Exchange believes (as set forth below) that its
existing surveillance technologies and procedures adequately address
potential violations of exchange rules and federal securities laws
applicable to trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 915 to waive the
three-day lookback period for covered securities that have a market
capitalization of at least $3 billion based upon the offering price of
the IPO of such securities and to allow options on such securities to
be listed and traded starting on or after the second business day
following the initial public offering day (i.e., not inclusive of the
day of the IPO).\8\ The Exchange has reviewed trading data for IPO'd
securities dating back to 2017 and is unaware of any such security that
achieved a market capitalization of $3 billion based upon the offering
price of its IPO that would not have also qualified for listing options
based on the three-day lookback requirement. Specifically, the Exchange
has determined that 202 of the 1,179 IPOs that took place between
January 1, 2017, and October 21, 2022, met the $3 billion market
capitalization/IPO offering price threshold. Options on all 202 of
those IPO shares subsequently satisfied the three-day lookback
requirement for listing and trading, i.e., none of these large IPOs
closed below the $3.00/share threshold during its first three days of
its trading. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed capitalization
threshold of $3 billion based upon the offering price of its IPO is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing
Procedures Plan (or ``OLPP'') requires that the listing certificate
be provided to OCC no earlier than 12:01 a.m. and no later than 11
a.m. (Chicago time) on the trading day prior to the day on which
trading is to begin. See the OLPP, at p. 3, available here: https://ncuoccblobdev.blob.core.windows.net/media/theocc/media/clearing-services/services/options_listing_procedures_plan.pdf. The OLPP is a
national market system plan that, among other things, sets forth
procedures governing the listing of new options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, if an IPO for a company with a market
capitalization of $3 billion based upon the offering price of its IPO
occurs on a Monday, the Exchange could submit its listing certificate
to OCC (to list and trade options on the IPO'd security) as soon as all
the other requirements for listing are satisfied. If, on Tuesday, all
requirements are deemed satisfied, the IPO'd security could then be
eligible for trading on the Exchange on Wednesday (i.e., starting on or
after the second business day following the IPO day). Thus, the
proposal could potentially accelerate the listing of options on IPO'd
securities by two days.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change would allow options on
IPO'd securities to come to market sooner without sacrificing investor
protection. The Exchange represents that trading in IPO'd securities--
like all other securities traded on the Exchange--is subject to
surveillances administered by the Exchange and to cross-market
surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange. Those
surveillances are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and
applicable federal securities laws.\9\ The Exchange represents that
those surveillances are adequate to reasonably monitor Exchange trading
of IPO'd securities in all trading sessions and to reasonably deter and
detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws
applicable to trading on the Exchange.\10\ As such, the Exchange
believes that its existing surveillance technologies and procedures,
coupled with its findings related to the IPOs reviewed as described
herein, adequately address potential concerns regarding possible
manipulation or price stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
    \10\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The proposed rule change will become operative within six months
following the approval of the proposed Rule change to coincide with
implementation on other options exchanges. The Exchange will announce
the effective date of the proposed change by Trader Update distributed
to all ATP Holders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An ``ATP Holder'' refers to a natural person, sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company
or other organization, in good standing that has been issued an ATP.
See Rule 900.2NY. An ``ATP'' is an American Trading Permit issued by
the Exchange for effecting approved securities transactions on the
Exchange. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed change would
facilitate options transactions and would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, which would, in turn, protect investors and the public interest
by providing an avenue for options on IPO'd securities to come to
market earlier. The Exchange notes that the three-day look back period
helps ensure that options on underlying securities may be listed and
traded in a timely manner while also allowing time for OCC to
accommodate the certification request. However, there are certain large
IPOs that issue high-priced securities--well above the $3.00 per share
threshold--that would obviate the need for the three-day lookback
period. As noted above, the Exchange has reviewed trading data for
IPO'd securities dating back to 2017 and is unaware of an IPO'd
security with a market capitalization of $3 billion or more (based upon
the offering price of its IPO) that subsequently would have failed to
qualify for listing and trading as options under the three-day lookback
requirement. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment, which
would be harmonized across options exchanges, would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system by providing an avenue for investors to hedge their
interest in IPO investments in a shorter amount of time than what is
currently permitted. The Exchange believes that options serve a
valuable tool to the trading community and help markets function
efficiently by mitigating risk. To that end, the Exchange believes that
the absence of options in the early days after an IPO may heighten
volatility to IPO'd securities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as noted herein, the Exchange believes the proposed change
would allow options on IPO'd securities to come to market sooner (i.e.,
at least two business days post-IPO not inclusive of the day of the
IPO) without sacrificing investor protection. The Exchange represents
that trading in IPO'd securities--like all other securities traded on
the Exchange--is subject to surveillances administered by the Exchange
and to cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of
the Exchange. Those surveillances are designed to detect

violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities
laws.\15\ The Exchange represents that those surveillances are adequate
to reasonably monitor Exchange trading of IPO'd securities in all
trading sessions and to reasonably deter and detect violations of
Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the
Exchange, including wrongful efforts to manipulate the prices of those
securities in order to bring them in compliance with the $3.00/share
threshold for the listing of options. As such, the Exchange believes
that its existing surveillance technologies and procedures, coupled
with its findings related to the IPOs reviewed as described herein,
would adequately address potential concerns regarding possible
manipulation or price stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange anticipates that the other options exchanges will
adopt substantively similar proposals, such that there would be no
burden on intermarket competition from the Exchange's proposal.
Accordingly, the proposed change is not meant to affect competition
among the options exchanges. For these reasons, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment and
does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-27. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do
not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-27 and
should be submitted on or before May 22, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09080 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36157-36159]
[DOCID:fr23jn06-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54011; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Amended
by Amendment No. 1 Relating to the Exchange's Business Conduct
Committee and Disciplinary Rules

June 16, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On November 2, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to amend the Exchange By-Law Article X, Section
10-11 (``Business Conduct Committee'') and Exchange Rules 960 and 970,
the disciplinary rules. The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change on May 16, 2006. The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 26, 2006 for a 15-
day comment period, which ended on June 12, 2006.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53846 (May 19,
2006), 71 FR 30462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Phlx proposes to create the new staff position of a ``Hearing
Officer,'' who, along with two other Hearing Panelists, would hear
contested disciplinary matters that are currently heard by a Panel
appointed by the Chairman of the Business Conduct Committee (``BCC'' or
``Committee''). In connection with creating the Hearing Officer
position, the Phlx proposes to amend Exchange By-law Article X, Section
10-11, which governs the BCC, and Exchange Rules 960 and 970, the
disciplinary rules.

Background

    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 960.5(a), a hearing on a Statement of
Charges is currently held before a Hearing Panel composed of three
persons appointed by the Chairman of the BCC or the Chairman's
designee. The presiding person of each Hearing Panel is a member of the
Committee. The other two persons on the Hearing Panel are members of
the Exchange, or general partners or officers of member organizations,
or such other persons whom the Chairman of the BCC or the Chairman's
designee considers to be qualified.
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 960.5(a)(4), Hearing Panelists currently
may be compensated in extraordinary cases, as determined by the
Chairman of the BCC, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board of
Governors. Exchange Rule 960.5(a)(4) provides factors to be considered
when determining whether a case is extraordinary, which include but are
not limited to the anticipated length of time of the hearing, the
complexity and seriousness of the matter, and the magnitude of the
potential penalty.
    Currently, pursuant to Exchange Rule 960.5(d), after the conclusion
of the hearing, the Hearing Panel reviews the entire record of the
proceeding and submits a written hearing report to the Committee
containing proposed findings of fact concerning the allegations in the
Statement of Charges, conclusions as to whether a violation within the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange has occurred and an
enumeration of such violations, and recommendations as to appropriate
sanctions, to be considered by the Committee at the next Committee
meeting after the report is completed.
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 960.8, currently, after reviewing the
entire record of the disciplinary proceeding,

the BCC, by a majority of the members voting, determines whether the
Respondent has committed violations and the appropriate sanctions, if
any. The BCC then issues a written decision, including in its decision
a statement of findings and conclusions, with the reasons therefor,
upon all material issues presented in the record, and whether each
violation within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange alleged
in the Statement of Charges has occurred.

Hearing Officer

    The Exchange proposes to establish a new permanent professional
position of Hearing Officer. The responsibilities of the Hearing
Officer would include, but not be limited to: presiding over hearings
in contested disciplinary cases authorized by the Exchange's BCC,
conducting pre-hearing conferences, ruling on procedural or discovery
matters, scheduling hearing sessions, making all necessary evidentiary
or other rulings (in consultation with the Hearing Panelists),
regulating the conduct of the hearing, imposing appropriate sanctions
for improper conduct by a party or a party's representative, drafting
and issuing decisions on behalf of the Hearing Panel and rendering
decisions in connection with Summary Disposition Proceedings. The
Hearing Officer would not be permitted to be involved in any manner in
the investigation of possible misconduct, to participate in the
consideration by the BCC of whether to institute a disciplinary action,
to render a decision following a hearing without the concurrence of a
majority of the Hearing Panel, to rule upon requests to disqualify the
Hearing Officer or any member of the Hearing Panel, or to issue
citations for violations of Exchange rules or floor procedure
advices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition, in accordance with By-Law Article X, Section
10-11, the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer and Hearing Panel
shall not extend to the enforcement of rules and regulations of the
Floor Procedure Committee or the Options Committee relating to
order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the trading floors, or
to hearings held by and sanctions imposed by such committees
relating to such matters, except as permitted by the rules of the
Exchange or any interpretation thereof, and any regulations
promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hearing Officer would report to the Audit Committee for all
performance and compensation purposes to help ensure that the Hearing
Officer is completely neutral and accountable to the Audit Committee
alone. The Hearing Officer would merely report to the General Counsel
or his or her designee to comply with policies and procedures
applicable to all employees of the Exchange, such as reporting vacation
time or sick leave.

Hearing Panelists

    The BCC Chair, or the Chair's designee, would select two Hearing
Panelists for each matter from a pool of qualified individuals.\5\
Consistent with current practice, the Hearing Panelists would be
selected based on their background, experience and training, which
should qualify them to consider and make determinations regarding the
subject matter to be presented to the Hearing Panel. The Chair would
also consider other factors, including the availability of the
individual Hearing Panelists, the extent of their prior service on
Hearing Panels and any relationship between such persons and the
Respondent, which might make it inappropriate for such persons to serve
on the Hearing Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange intends to form a ``pool'' of pre-qualified
Hearing Panelists for contested disciplinary cases. In order to form
this pool, the staff intends to develop a questionnaire, using as a
model the questionnaire currently used by the NASD for potential
members of arbitration panels. Members of the BCC would not be
eligible to serve as Hearing Panelists. However, as discussed in
proposed Exchange Rule 960.5(a)(7), if the Hearing Officer is unable
to preside over the hearing for any reason, the Chair of the BCC
shall appoint a qualified replacement Hearing Officer for that
hearing from a pre-screened pool of qualified candidates, which
could possibly include a member of the BCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After being designated as a qualified Hearing Panelist, the
Exchange intends to have each prospective Hearing Panelist complete a
mandatory training session to be conducted by the Hearing Officer.
Qualified Hearing Panelists would serve for three-year terms. After
that time, if a Hearing Panelist wished to continue serving, the
Hearing Panelist would be required to submit an updated application for
review and approval by the BCC.
    The Exchange proposes that Hearing Panelists be compensated for all
hearing sessions and for one deliberation session per disciplinary
proceeding for which a Hearing Panel renders a decision. A hearing
session would be defined as any meeting between the parties and Hearing
Panel, including pre-hearing conferences, but no compensation would be
paid for ``study time'' (i.e., reviewing materials in preparation for a
pre-hearing conference or hearing). Hearing Panelists would be
compensated at a fixed and non-negotiable rate for each hearing session
that lasts four hours or less and for one deliberation session.\6\ For
example, if a hearing on a given day lasted a total of six hours,
Hearing Panelists would be compensated for two hearing sessions. If a
case settled prior to a hearing, Hearing Panelists would not receive
any compensation, unless a pre-hearing conference (which is included in
the definition of a hearing session and for which compensation would be
given) was held. If a hearing were cancelled, the Hearing Panelists
would not be entitled to compensation, but would be reimbursed for any
travel-related expenses incurred, if applicable. If a Hearing Panelist
is also a member of the Board, any Board or Standing Committee meetings
that are held on the same day as the hearing would be considered a
single meeting for the purposes of compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Compensation for Hearing Panelists would be subject to a cap
amount per day, regardless of the number of hearing sessions (or
Board or Committee meetings attended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offers of Settlement and Issuance of Decisions

    If an Offer of Settlement (``Offer'') is submitted to the BCC
before a hearing commences, even if the Hearing Panelists are selected,
the Committee would still consider the Offer and, if accepted, issue a
decision. The Exchange proposes that, if an Offer is submitted after a
hearing commences, however, the Exchange staff would promptly submit
its position with respect to such Offer. The Hearing Panel would then
determine whether to consider the Offer and, if considered, whether to
accept or reject the Offer.
    The Hearing Panel would review the entire record of the
disciplinary proceeding (or the written submissions, if applicable) \7\
and, by a majority vote, determine whether the Respondent has committed
violations and the appropriate sanctions, if any. The Hearing Panel
would then issue a written decision, including in its decision a
statement of findings and conclusions, with the reasons therefor, upon
all material issues presented in the record, and whether each violation
within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange alleged in the
Statement of Charges has occurred. The Hearing Panel would be required
to prepare its decision, absent extraordinary circumstances, within 60
days after Exchange staff has served the Hearing Officer and/or members
of the Hearing Panel with a copy of the transcript of the hearing. A
decision issued by the Hearing Panel would be considered final. Any
appeal of the decision would

be taken directly to the Exchange's Board of Governors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In lieu of requesting a hearing, a Respondent may request
that the matter be decided upon written submissions. The Hearing
Officer shall decide whether to grant the request and determine a
schedule for each party to make its respective submissions. See
proposed Exchange Rule 960.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ which requires that the
rules of the exchange provide that its members and persons associated
with its members shall be appropriately disciplined for violation of
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, or the
rules of the exchange, and with section 6(b)(7) of Act,\11\ which
requires that the rules of the exchange provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should
streamline and expedite the hearing process by having a permanent
Hearing Officer and pre-screened, qualified Hearing Panelists, and by
having the Hearing Panel issue a final decision itself, without having
to go to the BCC for review and approval. In addition, the Commission
notes that the Exchange proposes to place restrictions on the
activities of the Hearing Officer, and to require a Hearing Officer or
Hearing Panelist to remove himself from consideration of a matter if he
cannot render a fair and impartial decision. The Commission believes
that these measures should help to ensure to that the Hearing Officer
and Hearing Panelists are completely neutral and that their decisions
are fair and impartial. Furthermore, the Commission believes that
having a single Hearing Officer preside over all hearings will increase
the likelihood that more uniform sanctions will be imposed for similar
misconduct by members, making the Exchange's disciplinary process more
fair.
    The Commission finds good cause for accelerating approval of the
proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th
day after the date of publication of notice of the filing in the
Federal Register. The Commission published the proposed rule change for
public comment on May 26, 2006 for a 15-day comment period and received
no comments on the proposal. The Commission believes that accelerated
approval should expedite the appointment of a hearing officer and allow
the Exchange to implement a more efficient disciplinary process.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that
the BCC will hear any current matters through their completion if a
hearing commenced prior to the date of this approval order. Thus,
any ongoing hearing will be heard by the BCC through its completion
and the BCC will issue a decision accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2005-65), as amended,
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9934 Filed 6-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27406-27408]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9387; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-182-AD;
Amendment 39-18926; AD 2017-12-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a report that the equipment racks were not designed to support the
actual weight of all the equipment and the secondary direct current
power centers under all loading conditions. This AD requires modifying
the equipment racks. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 20, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 20,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9387.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9387; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.,
Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on March 23, 2017 (82 FR 14837). The NPRM was prompted by a recent
design review of the equipment racks which revealed that the left-hand
side (LHS) and right-hand side (RHS) equipment racks were not designed
to support the actual weight of all the equipment and the secondary
direct current power centers under all loading conditions. The NPRM
proposed to require modifying the equipment racks. We are

issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the LHS or RHS
equipment racks in the event of a high energy emergency landing or
runway excursion, which could result in blockage of the emergency exit
for the flightcrew.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2016-26, dated September 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-
1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a recent design review, a Bombardier equipment supplier
discovered that the weight of the Secondary Direct Current (DC)
Power Center was incorrectly reported to the structural partner(s)
via their equipment interface drawing. Consequently, the left-hand
side (LHS) and right-hand side (RHS) equipment racks were not
designed to support the actual weight of all the equipment and the
Secondary DC Power Centers under all loading conditions. In the
event of a high energy emergency landing or runway excursion, the
structural failure of the LHS or RHS equipment racks may result in
the blockage of the emergency escape route for the pilot(s) and crew
if this condition is not corrected.

    Required actions include modifying the equipment racks. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9387.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-39, dated October
26, 2015; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-25-002, dated October 26,
2015. This service information describes procedures for modifying the
equipment racks. These documents are distinct since they apply to
airplanes having different serial numbers. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 161 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Cost per
            Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost        product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify equipment racks.......  Up to 10 work-hours           $1,755  Up to $2,605...  Up to $419,405.
                                x $85 per hour =
                                $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-12-11 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18926; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9387; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-182-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 20, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 20003
through 20532 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the left-hand side (LHS)
and right-hand side (RHS) equipment racks were not designed to
support the actual weight of all the equipment and the secondary
direct current power centers under all loading conditions. We are
issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the LHS or RHS
equipment racks in the event of a high energy emergency landing or
runway excursion, which could result in blockage of the emergency
exit for the flightcrew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification of the Equipment Racks

    Within 90 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
modification required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20500 inclusive:
Modify the equipment racks having part numbers (P/Ns) K1000070316-
003 (LHS) and K1000070316-004 (RHS), in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-
39, dated October 26, 2015.
    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 20501 through 20532 inclusive:
Modify the equipment rack having P/N K1000070316-004 (RHS only), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 350-25-002, dated October 26, 2015.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-26, dated September
14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9387.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171,
FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
516-794-5531.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-25-39, dated October 26,
2015.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-25-002, dated October 26,
2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-
855-7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12169 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70180-70181]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0588]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Exceptions or
Alternatives to Labeling Requirements for Products Held by the
Strategic National Stockpile

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by December 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0614. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Exceptions or Alternatives to Labeling Requirements for Products Held
by the Strategic National Stockpile

OMB Control Number 0910-0614--Extension

    Under the Public Health Service Act, the Department of Health and
Human Services stockpiles medical products that are essential to the
health security of the Nation (see 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b). This collection
of medical products for use during national health emergencies, known
as the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), is to provide for the
emergency health security of the United States, including the emergency
health security of children and other vulnerable populations, in the
event of a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency.
    It may be appropriate for certain medical products that are or will
be held in the SNS to be labeled in a manner that would not comply with
certain FDA labeling regulations given their anticipated circumstances
of use in an emergency. However, noncompliance with these labeling
requirements could render such products misbranded under section 502 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352).
    Under Sec. Sec.  201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11 (21 CFR
201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11), the appropriate FDA Center
Director may grant a request for an exception or alternative to certain
regulatory provisions pertaining to the labeling of human drugs,
biological products, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostics that
currently are or will be included in the SNS if certain criteria are
met. The appropriate FDA Center Director may grant an exception or
alternative to certain FDA labeling requirements if compliance with
these labeling requirements could adversely affect the safety,
effectiveness, or availability of products that are or will be included
in the SNS. An exception or alternative granted under the regulations
may include conditions or safeguards so that the labeling for such
products includes appropriate information necessary for the safe and
effective use of the product given the product's anticipated
circumstances of use. Any grant of an exception or alternative will
only apply to the specified lots, batches, or other units of medical
products in the request. The appropriate FDA Center Director may also
grant an exception or alternative to the labeling provisions specified
in the regulations on his or her own initiative.
    Under Sec. Sec.  201.26(b)(1)(i) (human drug products),
610.68(b)(1)(i) (biological products), 801.128(b)(1)(i) (medical
devices), and 809.11(b)(1)(i) (in vitro diagnostic products for human
use) an SNS official or any entity that manufactures (including
labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging), distributes, or stores
such products that are or will be included in the SNS may submit, with
written concurrence from a SNS official, a written request for an
exception or alternative to certain labeling requirements to the
appropriate FDA Center Director. Except when initiated by an FDA Center
Director, a request for an exception or alternative must be in writing
and must:
     Identify the specified lots, batches, or other units of
the affected product;
     identify the specific labeling provisions under the
regulations that are the subject of the request;
     explain why compliance with the specified labeling
provisions could adversely affect the safety, effectiveness, or
availability of the product subject to the request;
     describe any proposed safeguards or conditions that will
be implemented so that the labeling of the product includes appropriate
information necessary for the safe and effective use of the product

given the anticipated circumstances of use of the product;
     provide copies of the proposed labeling of the specified
lots, batches, or other units of the affected product that will be
subject to the exception or alternative; and
     provide any other information requested by the FDA Center
Director in support of the request.
    If the request is granted, the manufacturer may need to report to
FDA any resulting changes to the new drug application, biologics
license application, premarket approval application, or premarket
notification (510(k)) in effect, if any. The submission and grant of an
exception or an alternative to the labeling requirements specified in
the regulations may be used to satisfy certain reporting obligations
relating to changes to product applications under Sec. Sec.  314.70,
601.12, 814.39, or 807.81 (21 CFR 314.70 (human drugs), 601.12
(biological products), 814.39 (medical devices subject to premarket
approval), or 807.81 (medical devices subject to 510(k) clearance
requirements)). The information collection provisions in Sec. Sec.
314.70, 601.12, 807.81, and 814.39 have been approved under OMB control
numbers 0910-0001, 0910-0338, 0910-0120, and 0910-0231, respectively.
On a case-by-case basis, the appropriate FDA Center Director may also
determine when an exception or alternative is granted that certain
safeguards and conditions are appropriate, such as additional labeling
on the SNS products, so that the labeling of such products would
include information needed for safe and effective use under the
anticipated circumstances of use.
    Respondents to this collection of information are entities that
manufacture (including labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging),
distribute or store affected SNS products. Based on data from fiscal
years 2017, 2018, and 2019, FDA estimates an average of one request
annually for an exception or alternative received by FDA. FDA estimates
an average of 24 hours preparing each request. The average burden per
response for each submission is based on the estimated time that it
takes to prepare a supplement to an application, which may be
considered similar to a request for an exception or alternative. To the
extent that labeling changes not already required by FDA regulations
are made in connection with an exception or alternative granted under
the regulations, FDA is estimating one occurrence annually in the event
FDA would require any additional labeling changes not already covered
by FDA regulations. FDA estimates 8 hours to develop and revise the
labeling to make such changes. The average burden per response for each
submission is based on the estimated time to develop and revise the
labeling to make such changes.
    In the Federal Register of July 2, 2020 (85 FR 39914), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. One comment was received but was not
responsive to the four information collection topics solicited and is
therefore not addressed in this document.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual    per response     Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses      (in hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201.26(b)(1)(i),                               1               1               1              24              24
 610.68(b)(1)(i),
 801.128(b)(1)(i), and
 809.11(b)(1)(i)................
201.26(b)(1)(i),                               1               1               1               8               8
 610.68(b)(1)(i),
 801.128(b)(1)(i), and
 809.11(b)(1)(i)................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Consistent with the PRA, our current estimate of the burden of the
information collection is based on our evaluation over the past 3
years. However, in light of recent consumption of products from the
SNS, we expect future adjustments may be necessary and invite specific
comment in this regard.

    Dated: October 30, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-24427 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P