[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2542-2547]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 101 and 130

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0463]
RIN 0910-AI02

New Method for the Analysis of Sulfites in Foods

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the
requirements that specify the analytical method FDA uses to determine
the concentration of sulfites in food. This action, among other things,
provides a new analytical method that can be used as an alternative to
the existing analytical method and will help improve the efficiency of
FDA testing for sulfites in food.

DATES: This rule is effective February 17, 2022. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of February 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this final rule into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
240-402-7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine S. Carlos, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-706), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Costs and Benefits
II. Table of Abbreviations/Commonly Used Acronyms in This Document
III. Background
    A. Need for the Regulation/History of This Rulemaking
    B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule
    C. General Overview of the Final Rule
    D. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Legal Authority
V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response
VI. Effective/Compliance Date(s)
VII. Economic Analysis of Impacts
VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
X. Federalism
XI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
XII. Reference

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    FDA is issuing this final rule primarily to provide an alternative
to the current analytical method that is incorporated by reference and
establish a new, more efficient analytical method that FDA may use for
determining sulfite concentrations in foods.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule

    The final rule updates the current incorporation by reference of
the AOAC International Official Method of Analysis for determining
sulfite concentrations in foods and removes appendix A to part 101 (21
CFR part 101) as no longer necessary. The final rule also adds a
recently developed,

accurate, and more efficient analytical method that FDA will use to
determine sulfite concentrations in foods. The addition of this method
does not affect parties other than FDA and will not affect industry's
disclosure obligations. Manufacturers, for example, are free to use any
scientifically adequate method to determine sulfite concentrations in
their foods.

C. Legal Authority

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that
all of the ingredients in a nonstandardized food be declared on the
label of that food unless FDA has exempted the ingredients from such
requirements. The FD&C Act also states that a food is misbranded if its
labeling is false or misleading in any particular and permits FDA to
promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
The final rule amends part 101 under sections 403(i)(2), 403(a),
201(n), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(i)(2), 21 U.S.C.
343(a), 21 U.S.C. 321(n), and 21 U.S.C. 371(a)).

D. Costs and Benefits

    We estimate that this final rule will produce benefits in the form
of cost savings from time saved by using the liquid chromatography (LC)
tandem mass spectrometry (MS) method (LC-MS/MS method). Over a 10-year
time horizon, at a three percent discount rate, the present value of
estimated benefits is $1.08 million, with a lower bound of $0.57
million and an upper bound of $1.72 million. At a seven percent
discount rate, the present value of estimated benefits is $0.89
million, with a lower bound of $0.47 million and an upper bound of
$1.41 million. Annualized estimated benefits range from $0.07 million
to $0.2 million per year, with a primary estimate of $0.13 million per
year, using either a three or seven percent discount rate.

II. Table of Abbreviations/Commonly Used Acronyms in This Document

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Abbreviation                         What it means
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR.................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
FD&C Act............................  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
                                       Act.
FR..................................  Federal Register.
LC..................................  Liquid chromatography.
MS..................................  Mass spectrometry.
ppm.................................  Parts per million.
U.S.C...............................  United States Cod.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

A. Need for the Regulation/History of This Rulemaking

    FDA is updating regulations that include an outdated incorporation
by reference as specified in this final rule and adding a recently
developed, accurate, and more efficient analytical method of analysis
for determining sulfite concentrations in foods.
    FDA's food labeling regulations require that sulfites present at 10
parts per million (ppm) or more be labeled on foods. (See Sec. Sec.
101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) (21 CFR 101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a))).
Sulfites are widely used food preservatives that have been shown to
produce allergic-type responses in humans, and the presence of sulfites
in foods may have serious health implications for those persons who are
intolerant of sulfites. The analytical method we use for determining
sulfite concentrations in foods is specified at Sec. Sec.
101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a), partially through incorporation by
reference.
    In the Federal Register of September 17, 2019 (84 FR 48809), we
published a proposed rule that would:
     Provide an alternative to the current analytical method
that is incorporated by reference and establish a new, more efficient
analytical method that FDA could use for determining sulfite
concentrations in foods;
     Amend the unit of measure specified in two regulations to
be consistent with the unit of measure used in the new analytical
method;
     Update the current incorporation by reference of the AOAC
International Official Method of Analysis for determining sulfite
concentrations in foods; and
     Remove appendix A to part 101, as no longer necessary.

B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule

    Two comments to the proposed rule expressed general support. For
example, one comment said that we should ``take up this new method''
and should do all that we can ``to continue to use the best science
available'' to protect consumers. The other comment said that the rule
would benefit consumer safety. We received no other comments.

C. General Overview of the Final Rule

    The final rule:
     Amends Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) to replace
the existing incorporation by reference with ``AOAC Official Method
990.28, Sulfites in Foods, Optimized Monier-Williams Method,'' Section
47.3.43, Official Methods of Analysis, 21st Edition (2019), and to
remove appendix A to part 101. The existing incorporation by reference
was to the 14th edition, which was published in 1984;
     Amends Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) to add an LC-
MS/MS method for determining sulfite concentrations in foods; and
     Amends the unit of measure specified in Sec. Sec.
101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) to include milligrams per kilogram, which is
equivalent to parts per million, to be consistent with the unit of
measure specified in the new LC-MS/MS method.

D. Incorporation by Reference

    FDA is incorporating by reference ``AOAC Official Method 990.28,
Sulfites in Foods, Optimized Monier-Williams Method,'' Section 47.3.43,
Official Methods of Analysis, 21st Edition (2019). A copy of the
material can be obtained from AOAC International, 2275 Research Blvd.,
Ste. 300, Rockville, MD 20850-3250,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 170, https://www.aoac.org/. This method is an updated version of the method
currently referenced in FDA's regulations as the method that FDA uses
to determine sulfite concentrations in foods.
    FDA is also incorporating by reference ``Determination of Sulfite
in Food by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry:
Collaborative Study,'' Katherine S. Carlos and Lowri S. De Jager,
Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 100, No. 6 pp. 1785-1794. A copy of
the material can be obtained from AOAC International, 2275 Research
Blvd., Ste. 300, Rockville, MD 20850-3250,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 170,
https://www.aoac.org/. The study describes an LC-MS/MS method that FDA
can use as an alternative to AOAC Official Method 990.28 to determine
sulfite concentrations in foods.
    On our own initiative, we have revised the rule to add another
location where the referenced materials can be found. For example, the
proposed rule, at Sec.  101.100(a)(4)(i) and (ii), stated that the
referenced materials are available from AOAC International and are
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). The final rule now contains a new Sec.
101.100(j), which states that the referenced materials are available
from AOAC International, are available for inspection at NARA, and also
are available at FDA's Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852. We made a similar change to Sec.  130.9.

IV. Legal Authority

    FDA is issuing this final rule to amend part 101 under sections
403(i)(2), 403(a), 201(n), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act. Specifically,
FDA is amending Sec.  101.100(a)(4), which describes the analytical
method FDA uses to determine whether there is a detectable

amount of sulfite in a finished nonstandardized food.
    Section 403(i)(2) of the FD&C Act requires that all of the
ingredients in a nonstandardized food be declared on the label of that
food unless FDA has exempted the ingredients from such requirements.
FDA established such an exemption in Sec.  101.100(a)(3) for
``incidental additives'' that are present in foods at insignificant
levels and that do not have any technical or functional effect in the
foods. Under Sec.  101.100(a)(4), sulfiting agents will be considered
to be present in foods in insignificant amounts only if no detectable
amount of sulfite is present in the finished food; a detectable amount
of a sulfiting agent is 10 parts per million (ppm) or more.
Additionally, section 701 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to promulgate
regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. Updating the
analytical method FDA will use to determine whether there is a
detectable amount of sulfites in a finished nonstandardized food will
allow FDA to use current scientific technology for the efficient
enforcement of the food labeling requirements.
    We also are amending parts 101 and 130 under sections 403(a) and
201(n) of the FD&C Act. Pursuant to Sec.  130.9, standardized foods
containing sulfiting agents that are functional or that are present in
the finished food at a detectable amount (10 ppm or more) are deemed
misbranded unless the presence of the sulfiting agents is declared on
the label. This provision also describes the analytical methods, which
are the same as in part 101, for determining the presence of sulfiting
agents in food. Section 403(a) of the FD&C Act states that a food is
misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
Under section 201(n) of the FD&C Act, the extent to which labeling
fails to reveal material facts with respect to the consequences that
may result from the use of an article under the conditions of use in
the labeling or as customary or usual shall be taken into account in
determining whether the labeling of that article is misleading. Because
sulfiting agents can cause allergic-type responses of unpredictable
severity, the presence of a detectable amount of sulfites (as defined
at Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and 130.9 as 10 ppm or more of sulfites) in
a food is a material fact. Therefore, the failure to label a food as
containing sulfiting agents renders that label misleading and the food
misbranded under sections 403(a) and 201(n) of the FD&C Act.
    The final rule updates the incorporation by reference for the
current analytical method in parts 101 and 130 and also identifies a
new analytical method that we can use in testing for sulfites in foods
to determine compliance. The final rule does not require other entities
to use these methods. Other entities are free to determine the
correlation between the official FDA-designated methods and the
entity's scientifically appropriate method of choice for determining
sulfite concentrations in foods and to use their method of choice as
they see fit, recognizing that FDA will rely on the methods established
by this rulemaking.

V. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response

    There were two comments to the proposed rule. Both comments
expressed general support for the rule.
    As the comments did not raise any issues, we have not revised the
rule in response to the comments. However, as mentioned earlier, we
have, on our own initiative, revised the citation to refer to the
``Official Methods of Analysis'' instead of ``Official Methods of
Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL'' to correspond to how the publication
is named currently.
    We describe the final rule as follows:
     Our regulations at Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a)
specify the analytical method that FDA uses for determining sulfite
concentrations in food. Both regulations establish the method of
analysis in two steps. The first step incorporates by reference
Sections 20.123-20.125, ``Total Sulfurous Acid,'' in ``Official Methods
of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,'' 14th
Ed. (1984); this method is known as the Monier-Williams method. The
second step refines the Monier-Williams method to improve accuracy and
reproducibility and make the method suitable for detecting sulfite
concentrations as low as 10 ppm; the modifications are included in
appendix A at part 101. Collectively, the Monier-Williams method with
the appendix A at part 101 modifications is referred to as the
``optimized Monier-Williams method.''
    After we incorporated by reference the Monier-Williams method and
implemented the modifications to that method in appendix A at part 101,
the AOAC amended the Official Methods of Analysis to include ``Official
Method 990.28, Optimized Monier-Williams Method,'' which is the same as
the two-step process in FDA's regulations; i.e., the Monier-Williams
method and the refinements to the Monier-Williams method in appendix A
at part 101. Consequently, the final rule revises our regulations to
reflect the citation to the current AOAC method for determining sulfite
concentrations in food but does not result in a change in FDA
methodology. Specifically, the final rule amends Sec. Sec.
101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) to replace the existing incorporation by
reference with ``AOAC Official Method 990.28, Sulfites in Foods,
Optimized Monier-Williams Method,'' Section 47.3.43, Official Methods
of Analysis, 21st Edition (2019), and to remove appendix A at part 101.
(On our own initiative, we also revised the citation to refer to the
Official Methods of Analysis instead of Official Methods of Analysis of
AOAC INTERNATIONAL to correspond to how the publication is named
currently.)
     The final rule also amends Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and
130.9(a) to add an LC-MS/MS method for determining sulfite
concentrations in foods. This method is a faster and more sensitive way
to determine sulfite concentrations in foods. FDA's current methodology
is an acceptable method for quantifying sulfites, but (among other
things) is time-consuming, has a method detection limit of 10 ppm, and
is unable to accurately determine sulfite concentrations in some
samples. The LC-MS/MS method is a more rapid, specific alternative to
Official Method 990.28, with a lower detection limit, and has been
validated by other labs to ensure its accuracy for widespread use.
Sample preparation using the LC-MS/MS method involves routine
extraction techniques that can easily be batched, allowing for the
completion of as many as 30 samples by a single analyst in a single
day. By using the LC-MS/MS method, FDA can improve efficiency in
testing and better enforce the labeling requirements for sulfites.
     The final rule also amends the unit of measure specified
in Sec. Sec.  101.100(a)(4) and 130.9(a) to include milligrams per
kilogram, which is equivalent to parts per million, to be consistent
with the unit of measure specified in the new analytical method.
     As explained earlier in section III, we also revised the
final rule to restate where the referenced materials can be found and
included FDA's Dockets Management Staff as a location where the
referenced materials can be found.

VI. Effective/Compliance Date(s)

    The preamble to the proposed rule said that we would make any final
rule resulting from the rulemaking effective 30 days after its date of
publication in the Federal Register (84 FR 48809 at 48812).
    We did not receive any comments on the proposed effective date.
Therefore, the final rule will become effective on February 17, 2022.

VII. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of this rule under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We believe
that the final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because the scope of this rule is limited to FDA, we certify
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``any rule that includes
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $158
million, using the most current (2020) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. The final rule will not result in an
expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
    The final rule amends the regulations that specify the method of
analysis that FDA uses to determine the concentration of sulfites in
foods. The currently specified method of analysis is the optimized
Monier-Williams method. The final rule updates the incorporation by
reference for FDA's current methodology and adds to this a recently
developed, accurate, and more efficient analytical method of analysis,
referred to as the LC-MS/MS method. The LC-MS/MS method will serve as
the primary method used by FDA to determine sulfite concentrations in
foods.
    The benefits of this final rule are the cost savings, in the form
of time savings, associated with use of the LC-MS/MS method. There is
no impact from the update to the incorporation by reference for FDA's
current methodology (i.e., the optimized Monier-Williams method)
because only the reference will change, not the method. Over a 10-year
time horizon, at a three percent discount rate, the present value of
estimated benefits is $1.08 million, with a lower bound of $0.57
million and an upper bound of $1.72 million. At a seven percent
discount rate, the present value of estimated benefits is $0.89
million, with a lower bound of $0.47 million and an upper bound of
$1.41 million. In table 1, annualized estimated benefits range from
$0.07 million to $0.2 million per year, with a primary estimate of
$0.13 million per year, using either a three or seven percent discount
rate.
    The cost of this final rule consists of both one-time validation
costs and recurring materials costs associated with use of the LC-MS/MS
method. Over a 10-year time horizon, at a three percent discount rate,
the present value of total estimated costs is $0.20 million, with a
lower bound of $0.19 million and an upper bound of $0.21 million. At a
seven percent discount rate, the present value of total estimated costs
is $0.17 million, with a lower bound of $0.16 million and an upper
bound of $0.18 million. In table 1, estimated annualized costs are
$0.02 million per year, using either a three or seven percent discount
rate.
    The estimated net benefits of this final rule are defined as the
difference between the estimated benefits and the estimated costs of
the rule. Over a 10-year time horizon, at a three percent discount
rate, the present value of estimated net benefits ranges from $0.38
million to $1.51 million, with a primary estimate of $0.88 million. At
a seven percent discount rate, the present value of estimated net
benefits ranges from $0.31 million to $1.24 million, with a primary
estimate of $0.72 million. Using either a three or seven percent
discount rate, annualized estimated net benefits range from $0.04
million to $0.18 million per year, with a primary estimate of $0.10
million per year.

                                  Table 1--Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Distributional Effects of the Proposed Rule
                                                                   [Millions of 2019$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Units
                                                                              ------------------------------------
                 Category                    Primary       Low        High                               Period                    Notes
                                            estimate    estimate    estimate      Year      Discount     covered
                                                                                dollars    rate  (%)    (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
    Annualized Monetized $millions/year..       $0.13       $0.07       $0.20        2019           7          10  Are cost savings.
                                                 0.13        0.07        0.20        2019           3          10  Are cost savings.
    Annualized Quantified................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           7  ..........  .....................................
                                           ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           3  ..........  .....................................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative..............................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Annualized Monetized $millions/year..        0.02        0.02        0.03        2019           7          10  .....................................
                                                 0.02        0.02        0.02        2019           3          10  .....................................
    Annualized Quantified................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           7  ..........  .....................................
                                           ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           3  ..........  .....................................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative..............................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:
    Federal Annualized Monetized           ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           7  ..........  .....................................
     $millions/year.                       ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           3  ..........  .....................................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From/To..............................  From:
                                           To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Annualized Monetized $millions/  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           7  ..........  .....................................
     year.                                 ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........           3  ..........  .....................................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From/To..............................  From:
                                           To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects:
    State, Local or Tribal Government....
    Small Business.......................
    Wages................................
    Growth...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that
assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic
impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 1) and at
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/economic-impact-analyses-fda-regulations.

VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

X. Federalism

    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects 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. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule
does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined
in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required.

XI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does
not contain policies that would have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that
have tribal implications as defined in the Executive order and,
consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

XII. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website address, as of the date this document publishes in
the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

1. FDA, ``Amendment to Add a New Method for the Analysis of Sulfites
in Foods: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' 2020. Also available
at https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/economic-impact-analyses-fda-regulations.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 101

    Food labeling, Incorporation by reference, Nutrition, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 130

    Food additives, Food grades and standards, Incorporation by
reference.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR
parts 101 and 130 are amended as follows:

PART 101--FOOD LABELING

0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

0
2. Amend Sec.  101.100 by revising paragraph (a)(4) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  101.100  Food; exemptions from labeling.

    (a) * * *
    (4) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, any
sulfiting agent (sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite, sodium bisulfite,
potassium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and potassium metabisulfite)
that has been added to any food or to any ingredient in any food and
that has no technical effect in that food will be considered to be
present in an insignificant amount only if no detectable amount of the
agent is present in the finished food. A detectable amount of sulfiting
agent is 10 parts per million (ppm or mg/kg) or more of the sulfite in
the finished food. Compliance with this paragraph (a)(4) will be
determined using either:
    (i) Determination of Sulfite in Food by Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry; or
    (ii) AOAC Official Method 990.28.
* * * * *
    (j) The standards required in this section are incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved
material is available for inspection at the Food and Drug
Administration's, Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and available from the other
sources listed in this paragraph (j). It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (1) AOAC International, 2275 Research Blvd., Ste. 300, Rockville,
MD 20850-3250.
    (i) AOAC Official Method 990.28, Sulfites in Foods, Optimized
Monier-Williams Method, Section 47.3.43,

Official Methods of Analysis, 21st edition, 2019.
    (ii) Determination of Sulfite in Food by Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Collaborative Study, Katherine S. Carlos and
Lowri S. De Jager; Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 100, No. 6,
2017, pp. 1785-1794.
    (2) [Reserved]

Appendix A to Part 101 [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve appendix A to part 101.

PART 130--FOOD STANDARDS: GENERAL

0
4. The authority citation for part 130 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 336, 341, 343, 371.

0
5. Amend Sec.  130.9 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (c)
to read as follows:

Sec.  130.9  Sulfites in standardized food.

    (a) Any standardized food that contains a sulfiting agent or
combination of sulfiting agents that is functional and provided for in
the applicable standard or that is present in the finished food at a
detectable concentration is misbranded unless the presence of the
sulfiting agent or agents is declared on the label of the food. A
detectable amount of sulfiting agent is 10 parts per million (ppm or
mg/kg) or more of the sulfite in the finished food. The concentration
of sulfite in the finished food will be determined using either:
    (1) Determination of Sulfite in Food by Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry; or
    (2) AOAC Official Method 990.28.
* * * * *
    (c) The standards required in this section are incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved
material is available for inspection at the Food and Drug
Administration, Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and available from AOAC
International, 2275 Research Blvd., Ste. 300, Rockville, MD 20850-3250.
It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (1) AOAC Official Method 990.28, Sulfites in Foods, Optimized
Monier-Williams Method, Section 47.3.43, Official Methods of Analysis,
21st edition, 2019.
    (2) Determination of Sulfite in Food by Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Collaborative Study, Katherine S. Carlos and
Lowri S. De Jager; Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 100, No. 6,
2017, pp. 1785-1794.

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Janet Woodcock,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2022-00816 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44470-44472]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0699]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, Seattle,
WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the waters of
Lake Washington, Seattle, WA. This action is necessary to safeguard
participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance which include low flying high
speed aircraft and will do so by prohibiting entry into the safety zone
is unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his
Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:00 a.m. on August 2, 2012 through
4:00 p.m. on August 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0699. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ensign Nathaniel P. Clinger, Coast Guard Sector Puget
Sound Waterways Management Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is establishing this rule because the current
regulation associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show performance
(33 CFR 165.1319) is not large enough to safeguard participants and
spectators from the safety hazards of this air performance.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable
since the event would be over before notice could be given and comments
taken. Notice and comment would also be contrary to the public interest
because the public expects to be provided a safe area to observe the
Seafair Blue Angels air show. Absent this temporary final rule, the
zone provided in 33 CFR 165.1319 will be too small to encompass the
anticipated safe flight pattern of the demonstrating aircraft, and
would expose spectators to hazards associated with low-flying aircraft
over water.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register, because to do so would be contrary
to the public interest since the event would be over before notice
could be given and comments taken, and it is immediately necessary to
protect the event's spectators from the hazards associated with the
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C.1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define regulatory safety zones.
    The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone to ensure the
safety of the maritime public during the Seattle Blue Angels Air Show.
The safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 has been determined to be too small
to accommodate the anticipated flight pattern of the Blue Angels. This
temporary final rule extends the northern boundary line of the existing
regulation northward by 500 yards. The remainder of the safety zone
contained at 33 CFR 165.1319 remains unchanged.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    As described in 69 FR 35249, the Coast Guard established a final
rule for the Blue Angels Air Show Performance. This rule was meant to
protect the public from dangers including excessive noise and falling
objects from any potential accidents caused by these low-flying
military aircraft. The regulation contained in 33 CFR 165.1319
encompasses ``[a]ll waters of Lake Washington, Washington State,
enclosed by the following points: Near the termination of Roanoke Way
47[deg]35'44'' N, 122[deg]14'47'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'48'' N,
122[deg]15'45'' W; thence to 47[deg]36'02.1'' N, 122[deg]15'50.2'' W;
thence to 47[deg]35'56.6'' N, 122[deg]16'29.2'' W; thence to
47[deg]35'42'' N, 122[deg]16'24'' W; thence to the east side of the
entrance to the west highrise of the Interstate 90 bridge; thence
westerly along the south side of the bridge to the shoreline on the
western terminus of the bridge; thence southerly along the shoreline to
Andrews Bay at 47[deg]33'06'' N, 122[deg]15'32'' W; thence northeast
along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast point at
47[deg]33'44'' N, 122[deg]15'04'' W; thence easterly along the east-
west line drawn tangent to Bailey Peninsula; thence northerly along the
shore of Mercer Island to the point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983]''
    However, the aircraft in question have a flight pattern that will
extend past the northern boundary of the regulation in 33 CFR 165.1319.
As such, an extension is necessary in order to protect the spectating
public.
    This rule encompasses the northern portion of the Seafair Blue
Angels Air Show Performance Safety Zone, starting at point
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'58.56'' W, thence east to point
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W, thence south to point
47[deg]35'45.3'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W, thence south west along the
shore line to the I-90 bridge at point, 47[deg]35'23.16'' N,
122[deg]15'17.1'' W, thence west along the I-90 bridge to point,
47[deg]35'25.44'' N, 122[deg]17'9.48'' W, and north along the shoreline
back to the point of origin. This rule is effective from 9:00 a.m. on
August 2, 2012 through 4:00 p.m. on August 5, 2012.
    During the periods the safety zone is in effect no person or vessel
may enter into, transit, or remain in the safety zone without the
permission of the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This expectation is
based on the fact that the regulated area established by the regulation
is not frequented by commercial navigation, and it is small in size,
and short in duration.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit this portion of Lake Washington during the time
this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant
economic impact because it is limited in size and short in duration.
The only vessels likely to be impacted will be recreational boaters and
small passenger vessel operators.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-226 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-226  Safety Zone; Seafair Blue Angels Air Show
Performance, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated as a safety zone:
Lake Washington, Seattle, WA. All waters of Lake Washington encompassed
by the following points: 47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'58.56'' W,
thence east to point 47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W, thence
south to point 47[deg]35'45.3'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W, thence south
west along the shore line to the I-90 bridge at point,
47[deg]35'23.16'' N, 122[deg]15'17.1'' W, thence west along the I-90
bridge to point, 47[deg]35'25.44'' N, 122[deg]17'9.48'' W, and north
along the shoreline back to the point of origin.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
safety zone created by this section without the permission of the
Captain of the Port (COTP) or his Designated Representative. Designated
Representatives are Coast Guard Personnel authorized by the Captain of
the Port to grant persons or vessels permission to enter or remain in
the safety zone created by this section. See 33 CFR part 165, subpart
C, for additional information and requirements. The COTP may be
assisted by other federal, state or local agencies with the enforcement
of this safety zone.
    (c) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 9:00 a.m. on
August 2, 2012 through 4:00 p.m. on August 5, 2012.

    Dated: July 19, 2012.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-18450 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 16189]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0004-N-4]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and
its expected burden. On December 20, 2019, FRA published a notice
providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 20, 2020.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On December 20, 2019, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR 70265. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.10(b); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Services.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0593.
    Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to enable FRA
to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, consistent with its commitment to improving service delivery.
The information collected from FRA's customers and stakeholders will
help ensure users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying
experience with FRA's programs. This feedback will provide insights
into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations,
provide an early indicator of issues with service, and focus attention
on areas where communications, training or changes in operations might
improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow
ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between FRA and
its customers and stakeholders. It also allows feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Frequency of Submission: Once per request.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 2,100.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 354 hours.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-05941 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 120 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37333-37335]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1024; Product Identifier 2019-CE-002-AD; Amendment
39-21126; AD 2020-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVI
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the primary flight
control actuation system (PFCAS) linear variable displacement
transducer (LVDT) mechanical disconnect monitor may not trigger the
disconnect of the affected control surfaces as required in the event of
a control surface failure. This AD requires updating the software of
each PFCAS remote electronics unit (REU), which includes an improvement
to the LVDT. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 27, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 27,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For the Gulfstream and Parker service information identified
in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical
Publications Dept., P.O Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone:
(800) 810-4853; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: https://www.gulfstream.com/customer-support. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1024.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1024; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVI airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2019 (84 FR 68363).
    The NPRM was prompted by a report from Gulfstream that the PFCAS
LVDT mechanical disconnect monitor may not trigger the disconnect of
the affected control surfaces as required in the event of a control
surface failure. The Model GVI flight control computer actuator LVDT
disconnect monitor should disable the control surface for ailerons,
elevators, and rudder in the event that one of those control surfaces
fails. Gulfstream developed an REU software update that provides
improvements to the LVDT of the PFCAS, which addresses the LVDT
disconnect monitor problem.
    This condition, if not addressed, could lead to spoiler hard-over
or loss of structural integrity due to excessive surface deflection and
result in loss of control of the airplane.
    The NPRM proposed to require updating the software of each PFCAS
REU, which includes an improvement to the LVDT. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 201,
dated September 28, 2017, and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin
Number 201, dated September 28, 2017; which specify incorporating
Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 069, dated September 28, 2017,
or Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change 069, dated September 28,
2017. This service information differs because each document applies to
a different airplane designation.
    The FAA also reviewed Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 069,
dated September 28, 2017, and Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change
069, dated September 28, 2017, which provide and reference procedures
for preparing the REU for a software update.
    The FAA reviewed Parker Service Bulletin 469000-27-003, Revision 1,
dated October 11, 2017, which contains procedures for updating the
software of the REU from Label 34 to Label 35. This update includes
improved LVDT disconnect and oscillatory monitoring, force fight
mitigation, troubleshooting, and rectification of other reported
problems.
    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

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 161 products installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update REU software...............  386 work-hours x $85   None.................         $32,810      $5,282,410
                                     per hour = $32,810.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this d AD may
be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in this 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2020-11-01 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-21126;
Docket No. FAA-2019-1024; Product Identifier 2019-CE-002-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 27, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 6001 through
6111, 6113 through 6133, and 6135 through 6274.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model GVI airplanes are also
referred to by the marketing designations G650 and G650ER.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the primary flight control
actuation system (PFCAS) linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) mechanical disconnect monitor may not trigger the disconnect
of the affected control surfaces as required in the event of a
control surface failure. This condition, if not addressed, could
lead to spoiler hard-over or loss of structural integrity due to
excessive surface deflection and result in loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Software Upgrade

    Within the next 24 months after July 27, 2020 (the effective
date of this AD), update

the software for each PFCAS remote electronics unit (REU) from Label
34 to Label 35 by following the Accomplishment Instructions in
Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 201, dated September 28,
2017, or Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 201, dated
September 28, 2017; the Modification Instructions, sections A
through C, in Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change No. 069, dated
September 28, 2017, or Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change No.
069, dated September 28, 2017; and the Accomplishment Instructions
in Parker Service Bulletin 469000-27-003, Revision 1, dated October
11, 2017; except you are not required to submit information to the
manufacturer.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Myles Jalalian,
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(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 5.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 201, dated
September 28, 2017. (ii) Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number
201, dated September 28, 2017.
    (iii) Gulfstream G650 Aircraft Service Change 069, dated
September 28, 2017.
    (iv) Gulfstream G650ER Aircraft Service Change 069, dated
September 28, 2017.
    (v) Parker Service Bulletin 469000-27-003, Revision 1, dated
October 11, 2017
    (3) For Gulfstream and Parker service information identified in
this AD, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications
Dept., P.O Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-
4853; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
https://www.gulfstream.com/customer-support.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. In
addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-1024.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 15, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-12799 Filed 6-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7225-7227]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66335; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

February 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 31, 2012, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') 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\ 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 its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may
be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-
regulatory organization 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In SR-EDGA-2011-40,\4\ the Exchange amended several routing options
contained in Rule 11.9(b)(3) to allow Users \5\ more discretion if
shares remain unexecuted after routing. In particular, Rule 11.9(b)(3)
was amended to provide that Users may elect that any remainder of an
order be posted to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') for any of the
routing options listed in the rule, except those listed.\6\ As a result
of this amendment, the Exchange proposes to make a corresponding
amendment to Flag P of its fee schedule. The subject amendment provides
a rebate of $0.0027 per share for any order that after passing through
EDGA and other destinations adds liquidity to EDGX (including during
the Pre-Opening Session \7\ and Post-Closing Sessions) \8\ and yields
Flag P. This would occur as a result of the Member's order using any of
the routing strategies listed in Rule 11.9(b)(3) where the residual of
the order posts to EDGX.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66231 (January 24,
2012), 77 FR 4605 (January 30, 2012).
    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(cc) [sic].
    \6\ Routing options listed in Rules 11.9(b)(3)(a) and (n)-(q)
are not altered as a result of this amendment. The routing option in
Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a) already posts to EDGX and no amendment to the
rule was needed as no discretion is provided to the User. The
routing options in Rules 11.9(b)(3)(n)-(q) do not have the option to
post the remainder of an order to EDGX.
    \7\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(s).
    \8\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(r).
    \9\ This includes all routing strategies in Rule 11.9(b)(3),
except for (n)-(q), that do not have the option to post the
remainder of an order to EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this change, the Exchange proposes to revise the
description on the Flag P to broaden its applicability to several
routing strategies, instead of just an EDGA-originated ROUC routing
strategy. The Flag P is thus proposed to state ``Adds liquidity on
EDGX, including pre & post market.''
    The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its fee
schedule on February 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rebate for Flag P of $0.0027 per
share is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges. First, the rebate is designed to incentivize Members to route
through EDGA using any of the applicable strategies listed in Rule
11.9(b)(3), as discussed above, to reach multiple sources of liquidity
on EDGA before routing to other destinations, and thereby potentially
increases volume on EDGA to the extent an order using any of these
routing strategies executes on EDGA. The routing strategy allows
Members to reach multiple sources of liquidity by routing order flow
through EDGA rather than going directly to various venues. The rebate
provides Members with a flat rate of $0.0027 per share rebate if the
particular routing strategy posts to EDGX and is later executed. When
the Exchange's routing broker/dealer, Direct Edge ECN LLC d/b/a DE
Route (``DE Route'') achieves certain tiers on EDGX using any of the
applicable routing strategies in Rule 11.9(b)(3) that post residual on
EDGX, it is able to pass through a better rebate than if it had not
achieved a tier.\12\ For example, if the Member had routed to EDGX
directly and the order had added liquidity to EDGX, the Member could
receive rebates ranging from $0.0023-$0.0034, depending on if a volume
threshold were satisfied. \13\ The $0.0027 per share rebate thus
represents a rate in between these various tiered and non-tiered
rebates provided for adding liquidity to EDGX. This allows EDGA Members
to share in potential volume tier savings realized by DE Route when it
achieves certain tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EDGX fee schedule, footnote 1.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This type of rate is also similar to EDGA's rate for removing
liquidity from LavaFlow (Flag U). The standard removal rate of $0.0029
per share is reduced to $0.0023 per share for orders routed to LavaFlow
that achieve certain volume thresholds, as EDGA Members are able to
share in potential volume tier savings realized by EDGA when routing to
LavaFlow.\14\ This rebate is also comparable to other rebates offered
by the Exchange that add liquidity, such as the ROOC \15\ routing
strategy, which yields Flags 8 and 9.\16\ For Flags 8 and 9, the
Exchange passes through the default rebate (i.e., non-tier) from the
primary listing market (i.e., NYSE Arca, NYSE Amex) to Members because
DE Route does not generally achieve a favorable tier rate. This rate is
also consistent with the processing of similar routing strategies by
EDGA's competitors where EDGA takes into account the rates that it is
charged or rebated when routing to other low cost destinations.\17\
Finally, as another example, when EDGA routes to a primary exchange's
opening cross, (Flag O), the Exchange passes through the tier savings
that DE Route achieves on an away exchange to its Members.\18\ This
tier savings takes the form of a cap of Members' fees at $10,000 per
month for using Flag O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See footnote 6 of the EDGA fee schedule.
    \15\ See EDGA Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(3)(n).
    \16\ See the EDGA Fee Schedule where Flag 8 offers a rebate of
$.0015 where a member routes an order to NYSE Amex using the ROOC
routing strategy and adds liquidity, and Flag 9 offers a rebate of
$.0021 where a member routes an order to NYSE Arca using the ROOC
routing strategy and adds liquidity.
    \17\ See also BATS BZX fee schedule, describing Discounted
Destination Specific Routing (``One Under'') to NYSE, NYSE ARCA and
NASDAQ. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62858, 75 FR 55838
(September 14, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-023) (modifying the BATS fee
schedule in order to amend the fees for its BATS + NYSE Arca
destination specific routing option to continue to offer a ``one
under'' pricing model).
    \18\ See footnote 5 of the EDGA fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rebate is consistent with how other
Exchanges rebate Members for routing through an affiliated Exchange.
For example, when a Member removes liquidity from Nasdaq BX, it is
rebated $0.0005 per share if it does not achieve any tiers, or $0.0014
per share if it does achieve certain tiers.\19\ However, when the
Member removes liquidity from Nasdaq BX by routing through Nasdaq OMX
using any number of strategies such as SAVE/SOLV/CART, and removes
liquidity from Nasdaq BX as a result, it is rewarded a higher rebate of
$0.0014 per share.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Nasdaq OMX BX Rule 7018.
    \20\ See Nasdaq OMX Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rebate of $0.0027 is also reasonable
as it is consistent with how other exchanges pass through charges or
rebates for orders routed to a different exchange that add or remove
liquidity. For example, when Nasdaq routes to Nasdaq PSX, Nasdaq passes
back Nasdaq PSX's standard charge of $0.0027 per share. When NYSE Arca
routes to NYSE, NYSE Arca passes back the standard NYSE rebate of
$0.0015 per share. These charges or rebates generally

approximate what the originating exchange receives from the exchange
that is routed to plus or minus a certain differential. EDGA's pricing
is consistent with this premise.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is non-
discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \22\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2012-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-03 and should be
submitted on or before March 2, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3095 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P