[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33541-33543]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13641]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67084; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and
Trade CBOE S&P 500 AM/PM Basis Options

May 31, 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 May 23, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend certain of its rules to provide for the
listing and trading of cash-settled CBOE S&P 500 AM/PM Basis
(``SPBAS'') options that will be P.M.-settled and have European-style
exercise. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit the Exchange
to list and trade cash-settled CBOE S&P 500 AM/PM Basis (``SPBAS'')
options, that will be P.M.-settled and will have European-style
exercise.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See proposed addition of SPBAS options to the list of
European-style index options approved for trading on the Exchange
contained in Rule 24.9(a)(3) (Terms of Index Options Contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design of the Product
    SPBAS options reflect the difference between the Special Opening
Quotation (``SOQ'') of the S&P 500 Index \4\ and the closing level of
the S&P 500 Index on the last trading day (which is typically the third
Friday of the month) for SPBAS options. The options will allow
investors to gain exposure to or hedge the basis risk between A.M.-
Settled S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options traded on CBOE and P.M.-Settled
S&P 500 Index (``SPXPM'') options traded on the C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``C2'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The SOQ is calculated per normal index calculation
procedures and uses the opening (first) reported sales price in the
primary market of each component stock in the index on the last
business day (usually a Friday) before the expiration date. If a
stock in the index does not open on the day on which the exercise-
settlement value is determined, the last reported sales price in the
primary market is used to calculate the exercise-settlement value.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008) (order
approving listing and trading of SPXPM options on C2 on a pilot
basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At expiration, SPBAS options will settle against the following
index calculation:

SPBAS = MAX (100 + (SOQ of S&P 500)--(Closing Value of S&P 500), 0)

    In other words, SPBAS is the greater of (1) the SOQ of SPX minus
the closing value of SPX plus 100 and (2) zero. This formulation
ensures that the settlement value for SPBAS options can never be less
than zero.
    Due to the nature of SPBAS options (e.g., settlement to the
difference between the SOQ of the S&P 500 Index and the closing level
of the S&P 500 Index on the third Friday of each month) an intraday
value will not be disseminated. Rather, prior to the open on all
trading days, other than the last trading day (which is typically the
third Friday of the month) CBOE will disseminate a single value of 100
for SPBAS options through the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA''), the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') tape and/or the
Market Data Index (``MDI'') feed. After the close of trading on the
last trading day (e.g., third Friday of the month), CBOE will
disseminate the exercise settlement value (calculated as described
above) for the expiring contract.
Options Trading
    SPBAS options will be quoted in points and fractions and one point
will equal $100. The contract multiplier will be $100. The minimum tick
size for series trading below $3 will be 0.05 ($5.00) and above $3 will
be 0.10 ($10.00). Exhibit 3 presents contract specifications for SPBAS
options.
    The Exchange is proposing to list series at $1 or greater where the
strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price
is greater than $200.\6\ The Exchange believes that a

granular strike price increment will provide investors with greater
flexibility by allowing them to establish positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed amendment to Rule 24.9.01(e) (Terms of Index
Options Contracts). The Exchange also proposes to add new
Interpretation and Policy .21 to Rule 5.5 (Series of Option
Contracts Open for Trading), which will be an internal cross
reference stating that the intervals between strike prices for SPBAS
option series will be determined in accordance with Interpretation
and Policy .01(e) to Rule 24.9.
    CBOE has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes
the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of $1 strikes (where the
strike price is less than $200) for SPBAS options.
    Similar $1 strike price setting provisions currently exist for
options on: Units (exchange-traded notes) (Rule 5.5.08), Index
Linked Securities (exchange-traded notes) (Rule 5.5.09), HOLDRS
(Rule 5.5.17) and Volatility Indexes (Rule 24.9.01(l)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the underlying interest for SPBAS options
reflects the difference between the SOQ of the S&P 500 Index and the
closing level of the S&P 500 Index on the last trading day for SPBAS
options. As such, the Exchange believes that the exercise settlement
value for SPBAS options will be constrained to a relatively narrow band
of possible values. In fact, from January 1993 though [sic] February
2012, there have been 230 third-Friday expiration dates on which
Standard & Poor's has reported a SOQ of the S&P 500 Index. The Exchange
notes that on 131 of those dates (57%) the exercise settlement values
for SPBAS options would have ranged between 95 and 105. On 187 of those
dates (82%) the exercise settlement values for SPBAS options would have
ranged between 90 and 110. The highest value during the sample period
would have been 139.19, and the lowest value would have been 62.46.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting
parameters (and demand for strikes) will be naturally bounded because
of the limited range of settlement values.
    Initially, the Exchange will list in-, at- and out-of-the-money
strike prices (where the ``at-the-money'' strike price is 100) and may
open for trading up to twelve near term expiration months.\7\ New
series will be added in accordance with Rule 29.4.01(d), which requires
exercise prices to be reasonably related to the current value of the
underlying index at the time new series are first opened for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed amendment to Rule 24.9(a)(2) (Terms of Index
Options Contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to additional series, Rules 24.9.01(d) and 24.9.04 shall apply
to the listing of additional series for SPBAS options; however, for
purposes of those provisions the ``current index value'' shall be 100,
since that is the single value for SPBAS option that CBOE will
disseminate during the life of an option. Generally, Rule 24.9.04
bounds the listing of additional series to within 30% of the current
index value. At this time, CBOE believes that this strike setting
parameter will be sufficient to meet demand since the difference
between the opening value of the S&P 500 and the closing value of the
S&P 500 on third Fridays has typically fluctuated around 10 index
points. Larger spreads between the opening and closing S&P 500 values
have occurred in the past, for example in February 2000 (39 points),
November 2008 (36.5 points) and May 2010 (37.5 points). In the event
customer demand exists for strikes below 70 and above 130 exists [sic],
Rule 24.9.04 provides CBOE with the flexibility to add strikes that
would be more than 30% away from the current index value of 100 for
SPBAS options. LEAPS may also be listed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ While the Exchange does not anticipate listing LEAPS
routinely, the Exchange believes that permitting LEAPS creates
flexibility in the event the Exchange receives a customer request to
list a LEAP. See Rule 24.9(b) (Long-Term Index Options Series
(``LEAPS'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of the date of this filing, the Exchange intends to trade SPBAS
options electronically on the Hybrid Platform with a Designated Market
Maker appointed to the class. After receipt of Commission approval and
prior to the product launch, the Exchange will issue a circular
announcing the specific trading platform and other relevant trading
information concerning SPBAS options.
Trading Hours, Exercise and Settlement
    The proposed options will expire on the Saturday following the
third Friday of the expiring month. The trading hours for SPBAS options
will be from 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) to 3:15 p.m. (Chicago time),
except that trading in expiring SPBAS options will close at 3:00 p.m.
(Chicago time) on their last trading day.\9\ When the last trading day
is moved because of an Exchange holiday (such as when CBOE is closed on
the Friday before expiration), the last trading day for expiring
options will be Thursday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 24.6
(Days and Hours of Business). Trading in expiring SPXPM options
closes at 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time) on their last day of trading. The
Exchange is proposing to match the trading hours of SPBAS options
with SPXPM options. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No.
65630 (October 26, 2011), 76 FR 67510 (November 1, 2011) (SR-C2-
2011-030) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change to close trading at 3 p.m. Chicago time on the last day
of trading of expiring SPXPM options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exercise will result in delivery of cash on the business day
following expiration. The exercise-settlement amount will be equal to
the difference between the exercise-settlement value and the exercise
price of the option, multiplied by the contract multiplier ($100).
SPBAS options will be P.M.-settled. The Exchange is proposing P.M.-
settlement for SPBAS options because the exercise settlement value is
based on the difference between the SOQ of the S&P 500 Index on the
third Friday of the month and the closing value of the S&P 500 Index on
the third Friday of the month. Since, one of the values needed to
determine the exercise settlement value for SPBAS options will not be
determined until the close of trading on the third Friday of the month,
SPBAS options necessarily must be P.M.-settled.
    If the exercise settlement value is not available or the normal
settlement procedure cannot be utilized due to a trading disruption or
other unusual circumstance, the settlement value will be determined in
accordance with the rules and bylaws of the OCC.
Surveillance
    The Exchange will use the same surveillance procedures currently
utilized for each of the Exchange's other index options to monitor
trading in SPBAS options. The Exchange further represents that these
surveillance procedures shall be adequate to monitor trading in options
on these option products. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange will
have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent
underlying securities (i.e., S&P 500 Index component securities). The
Exchange accomplishes regulatory information sharing under the auspices
of the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement.
Position Limits
    The Exchange is not proposing to establish any position or exercise
limits for SPBAS options.\10\ Because the SPBAS value measures the
difference between the opening and closing values of the S&P 500 Index
on the third Friday of the month, the Exchange believes that the
position and exercise limits for this new product (which is based on
the S&P 500 Index) should be the same as those for SPX and SPXPM
options, for which there are no position limits. SPBAS options will be
subject to the same reporting and other requirements triggered for
other options dealt in on the Exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed amendments to Rules 24.4 (Position Limits for
Broad-Based Index Options) and 24.5 (Exercise Limits).
    \11\ See Rule 4.13 (Reports Related to Position Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rules Applicable
    Except as modified herein, the rules in Chapters I through XIX,
XXIV,

XXIVA, and XXIVB will equally apply to SPBAS options.
    SPBAS options will be margined as ``broad-based index'' options,
and under CBOE rules, especially, Rule 12.3(c)(5)(A), the margin
requirement for a short put or call shall be 100% of the current market
value of the contract plus up to 15% of the aggregate contract value.
Additional margin may be required pursuant to Exchange Rule 12.10.
    The Exchange hereby designates SPBAS options as eligible for
trading as Flexible Exchange Options as provided for in Chapters XXIVA
(Flexible Exchange Options) and XXIVB (FLEX Hybrid Trading System).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed amendments to Rules 24A.7 (Position Limits and
Reporting Requirements), 24A.8 (Exercise Limits), 24B.7 (Position
Limits and Reporting Requirements) and 24B.8 (Exercise Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity
    CBOE has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the
Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that will
result from the introduction of SPBAS options.
Technical Change
    CBOE proposes to correct an erroneous cross-reference in Rule
24.9.01(d) that was unintentionally created. In SR-CBOE-2006-41, among
other things, obsolete Interpretations and Policies to Rule 24.9 were
deleted and renumbering changes were made.\13\ Specifically, current
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 24.9 was formerly Interpretation
and Policy .05 to Rule 24.9. A cross-reference in Rule 24.9.01(d) to
former Interpretation and Policy .05 in Rule 24.9.01(d) should have
been similarly renumbered (from .05 to .04) in SR-CBOE-2006-41;
however, it was not. CBOE now proposes to update Rule 24.9.01(d) with
the correct cross-reference to Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule
24.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54000 (June 15,
2006), 71 FR 35961 (June 22, 2006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
to Amend Obsolete, Outdated and/or Unnecessary Rules) (SR-CBOE-2006-
41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular
in that it will permit trading in options based on the index pursuant
to rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and
thereby will provide investors with the ability to gain exposure to or
hedge the basis risk between SPX options traded on CBOE and SPXPM
options traded on C2.

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

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

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

    No written comments were 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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-042 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-CBOE-2012-042. 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-CBOE-2012-042 and should be
submitted on or before June 27, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13641 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Appendix A Literature Search Regarding Detection and Quantitation Limit Approaches Introduction Beginning in 2001, DynCorp staff conducted a search of published literature to identify articles that discuss detection and quantitation limit approaches. This literature search effort was conducted under EPA Contract No. 68 C 01 091 to support an evaluation of detection and quantitation limit approaches by the EPA Office of Water.

The principal goal of this literature search effort was to determine if any new detection or quantitation limit approaches had been published in the literature since an earlier search conducted for EPA by Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC) in 1997 and 1998. That search resulted in an annotated bibliography developed by SAIC and delivered to EPA in 1998.

In August 2002, EPA included the literature search results in a draft Technical Support Document ( TSD) that was submitted for formal peer review. As part of the charge to the peer reviewers, EPA asked them to identify any additional references. Following EPA's review of the suggested additional references, DynCorp included those relevant to the TSD in the literature search results summarized in Attachment 1.

How the search was conducted This search was conducted using two major techniques:

  a search of an on line citation index ( an index of articles cited by other authors), and   a general on line search of literature.

On line citation index search Because the search was intended to identify detection and quantitation limit approaches and not specific numeric limits associated with a particular analytical method, DynCorp began by searching for references to the major approaches known to EPA. These included the Agency s method detection limit ( MDL) and any other terms that have been suggested to the Agency as alternative detection or quantitation limit approaches. In addition to searching for these approaches, DynCorp also searched the citation index to identify references to the original authors of these approaches and for any other authors who either cited the original approaches, the original papers underlying those approaches, or the authors of those approaches. DynCorp used a similar approach to find any papers that cited the references identified in the earlier literature search by SAIC.

DynCorp staff evaluated the full title of each identified citation to determine its relevance to EPA s objective. Where available electronically and at no additional cost, DynCorp staff also reviewed the abstract and/ or full paper to further characterize relevance. All papers that were determined to be relevant, or even possibly relevant, were obtained in hardcopy or electronic format for evaluation by EPA.

After reviewing all papers determined to be relevant to EPA s objective, DynCorp examined all of the references cited in those papers to identify additional papers of interest. These, too, were obtained in hardcopy or electronic format for evaluation by EPA, except where noted below.

February 2003 A 1 Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches General on line literature search DynCorp performed an on line direct search of published literature ( e. g., a literature database of published articles, not a citation index) using general terms such as " detection limit," " quantitation limit," or " calibration." As expected, this approach returned a very large numbers of papers that mention these terms, even if the focus of the paper was on something far removed from the development or assessment of approaches about detection and quantitation, and proved to be of limited value in serving EPA s objectives for the search. Therefore, DynCorp discontinued this effort and narrowed our on line literature search to a search for additional, uncited works by authors of the approaches known to EPA or identified through the citation index approach.

Papers determined to be relevant to EPA s objective were obtained in electronic or hardcopy format for evaluation by EPA, except where noted below.

How the results are presented DynCorp identified a total of 161 relevant publications using the approach described above. Thirty three ( 33) of these publications were also identified in the earlier search by SAIC. Of the 128 remaining publications, 35 were published since the SAIC search was completed.

The peer reviewers suggested additional publications covering a variety of topics, including: quality control, analysis of mercury, and approaches to dealing with censored data. EPA reviewed the citations from the peer reviewers and determined that 20 directly addressed detection or quantitation approaches. In particular, EPA noted that the issue of censored data applies regardless of the specific detection or quantitation limit associated with the data, so those citations dealing with censored data were not included.

Each of the 181 publications identified in the search is listed in Attachment 1, which provides the title, year of publication, authors, and source citation. The citations for the 33 papers identified in the earlier search by SAIC are included in the attachment, and can be identified by the phrase " annotated only" in parentheses after the title of the paper.

The final column of the attached spreadsheet is labeled " Category." All of the citations identified in the SAIC literature search and the current search conducted by DynCorp were placed in one of the six following categories, based on the principal characteristic of the article:

  Background  The citation discusses background information ( including early works by Currie, Kaiser, and others).   Calibration concept  The citation primarily deals with calibration of analytical instrumentation   Critique  The major thrust of the citation is to critique one or more approaches, as opposed to introducing a new approach   Multi laboratory approach  The citation describes an approach to developing detection and/ or quantitation limits that relies on multi laboratory measurements   Single laboratory approach  The citation describes an approach to developing detection and/ or quantitation limits that relies on single laboratory measurements   Single laboratory, multi level approach  The citation describes an approach to developing detection and/ or quantitation limits that relies on single laboratory measurements but explicitly includes multiple concentrations.

A 2 February 2003 Appendix A Although there is some degree of overlap between categories, and some papers could probably be classified in more than one category, each citation was classified into only one category for the purposes of this search.

A seventh category called " Not found" was used for three papers that were identified in the literature search, but copies of which could not readily be obtained. One paper is from a German journal that was not available via interlibrary loan. A second article was also not available via interlibrary loan. The third citation is an abstract by Currie, from 1983. Given that the work of Currie is well represented in the other citations and the fact that this citation appears to be only an abstract, additional efforts were not expended to obtain a copy.

The 20 publications suggested by the peer reviewers were all included at the end of the list, under an eighth category called " Suggested by a peer reviewer."

The references presented in the table were sorted by category and year of publication and are displayed with the most recent citations in each category first.

Summary The principal goal of this literature search effort was to determine if any new detection or quantitation limit approaches had been published in the literature since the search by SAIC in 1997  1998. As anticipated, citations were identified that relate to the recent efforts of the International Organization for Standardization ( ISO), the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists ( IUPAC), and the ASTM International. Additional articles critiquing various approaches were identified as well.

However, no previously unknown detection or quantitation limit approaches were uncovered as a result of this effort.

Likewise, the references suggested by the peer reviewers provided additional details and applications of existing detection and quantitation approaches, but did not suggest any approaches that had not already been identified.

February 2003 A 3 Results of the 2001 Literature Search Title Year Author Source Category L. A. Currie Fresenius Journal of Analytical Chemistry 370: 705 718 BackgroundSome Case Studies of Skewed ( and other ab normal) Data Distributions Arising 2001 in Low Level Environmental Research Legislative Limits Below Detection Capability 2000 S. L. R. Ellison, V. J. Barwick, A. Williams Accreditation Quality Assurance 5: 308 313 Background International Recommendations Offered on Analytical Detection and Quantification Concepts and Nomenclature 1999 L. A. Currie Analytica Chimica Acta 391: 103 Background Detection and Quantitation Limits: Origins and Historical Overview 1999 L. A. Currie Analytica Chimica Acta 391: 127 134 Background 1996 ASMS Fall Workshop: Limits to Confirmation, Quantitation, and Detection 1997 R. Baldwin, R. A. Bethem, R. K. Boyd, W. L.

Budde, T. Cairns, R. D. Gibbons, J. D.

Henion, M. A. Kaiser, Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 8:

1180 1190 Background Measurement precision and 1/ f Noise in Analytical Instruments 1996 Y. Hayashi, R. Matsuda, R. B. Poe Journal of Chromatography A 722: 157 167 Background Fossil and Bio mass Combustion: C 14 for Source Identification, Chemical Tracer Development, and Model Validation 1994 L. A. Currie, G. A. Klouda, D. B. Klinedinst,

A. E. Sheffield, A. J. T. Jull, D. J. Donahue,

M. V. Connolly Nuclear Instr. And Methods in Physics Res. B 92: 404 409 Background Interlaboratory Comparison of Instruments Used for the Determination of Elements in Acid Digestates of Solids 1994 D. E. Kimbrough, J. Wakakuwa Analyst 119: 383 388 Background Throwaway Data 1994 L. H. Keith Environmental Science & Technology 28: 389A 390A Background EPA's Office of Water Surges Toward MDL Solution 1994 Larry Keith Radian Background In Pursuit of Accuracy: Nomenclature, Assumptions, and Standards 1992 L. A. Currie Pure & Applied Chemistry 64: 455 472 Background Interlaboratory Aspects of Detection Limits Used for Regulatory and Control 1988 L. B. Rogers ACS Symposium Series 361: 94 108 Background Purposes Noise and Detection Limits in Signal Integrating Analytical Methods 1988 Effects of Analytical Calibration Models on Detection Limit Estimates 1988 H. C. Smit, H. Steigstra ACS Symposium Series 361: 126 148 Background K. G. Owens, C. F. Bauer, C. L. Grantr ACS Symposium Series 361: 194 207 Background Real World Limitations to Detection 1988 D. Kurtz, J. Taylor, L. Sturdivan, W.

Crummett, C. Midkiff, R. Watters Jr, L.

Wood, W. Hanneman, W. Horwitz ACS Symposium Series 361: 288 316 Background Detection Limits  A Systematic Approach to Detection Limits is Needed When Trace Determinations are to be Performed 1986 S. A. Borman Analytical Chemistry 58: A986 Background Chemometrics and Analytical Chemistry 1984 L. A. Currie Chemometrics 56: 115 146 Background Quality Control in Water Analyses 1983 C. Kirchmer ES& T 17: 174A 181A Background Validation of Analytical Methods 1983 J. K. Taylor Analytical Chemistry 55: 600A 602A, 608A Background Trace Analyses for Wastewaters  Author's response 1982 D. Foerst Envir. Sci. & Tech. 16: 430A  431A Background A 4 A 5 Title Year Author Source Category Zur Theorie der Eichfunktion bei der spektrochemischen Analyse 1982 V. H. Kaiser DK 535: 309 319 Background The Reliability of Detection Limits in Analytical Chemistry 1980 J. D. Winefordner, J. L. Ward Analytical Letters 13: 1293 1297 Background A Review and Tutorial Discussion of Noise and Signal to Noise Ratios in Analytical Spectrometry  I. Fundamental Principles of Signal to Noise Ratios 1978 C. T. J. Alkemade, W. Snelleman, G. D.

Boutilier, B. D. Pollard, J. D. Winefordner,

T. L. Chester, N. Omenetto Spectrochimica Acta 33B: 383 399 Background A Review and Tutorial Discussion of Noise and Sign to Noise Ratios in Analytical Spectrometry  II. Fundamental Principles of Signal to Noise Ratios 1978 G. D. Boutilier, B. D. Pollard, J. D.

Winefordner, T. L. Chester, N. Omenetto Spectrochimica Acta 33B: 401 415 Background A Tutorial Review of Some Elementary Concepts in the Statistical Evaluation of Trace Element Measurements 1978 P. W. J. M. Boumans Spectrochimica Acta 33B: 625 634 Background Analysis of Lead in Polluted Coastal Seawater 1976 C. Patterson, D. Settle, B. Glover Marine Chemistry 4: 305 319 Background Multielement Analysis with an Inductively Coupled Plasma/ Optical Emission System 1976 R. M. Ajhar, P. D. Dalager, A. L. Davison American Laboratory 72 78 Background Interlaboratory Lead Analyses of Standardized Samples of Seawater 1974 P. Brewer, N. Frew, N. Cutshall, J. J.

Wagner, R. A. Duce, P. R. Walsh, G. L.

Hoffman, J. W. R. Dutton, W. F. Fitzgerald Marine Chemistry 2: 69 84 Background Statistical and Mathematical Methods in Analytical Chemistry 1972 L. A. Currie, J. J. Filliben, J. R. DeVoe Anal. Chem. 44: 497R 512R Background Studies of Flame and Plasma Torch Emission for Simultaneous Multi Element Analysis I. Preliminary Investigations 1972 P. W. J. M. Boumans, F. J. De Boer Spectrochimica Acta 27B: 391 414 Background Quantitative Determination: Application to Radiochemistry 1968 Lloyd Currie Anal. Chem. 40: 586 593 Background Qualitative and Quantitative Sensitivity in Flame Photometry 1966 J. Ramirez Munoz Talanta 13: 87 101 Background The Limit of Detection of Analytical Methods 1962 J. B. Roos Analyst 87: 832 833 Background A Careful Consideration of the Calibration Concept 2001 S. D. Phillips, W. T. Estler, T. Doiron, K. R.

Eberhardt, M. S. Levenson Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 106: 371 379 Calibration Weighted Random Effects Regression Models with Application to Interlaboratory Calibration 2001 R. D. Gibbons, D. K. Bhaumik Technometrics 43: 192 198 Calibration Guidelines for Calibration in Analytical Chemistry Part I. and Single Component Calibration ( IUPAC recommendations 1998) 1998 K. Danzer, L. A. Currie Pure and Applied Chemistry 70: 993 1014 Calibration A Comparison of Uncertainty Criteria for Calibration 1996 R. W. Mee, K. R. Eberhardt Technometrics 38: 221 229 Calibration Constant Width Calibration Intervals for Linear Regression 1994 K. R. Eberhardt, R. W. Mee Journal of Quality Technology 26: 21 29 Calibration Regression and Calibration with Nonconstant Error Variance 1990 M. Davidian, P. D. Haaland Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 9: 231

248 Calibration Calibration with Randomly Changing Standard Curves 1989 D. F. Vecchia, H. K. Iyer, P. L. Chapman Technometrics 31: 83 90 Calibration Fundamentals A 6 Title Year Author Source Category Linear Calibration When the Coefficient of Variation is Constant 1988 Y. C. Yao, D. F. Vecchia, H. K. Iyer Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Franklin A.

Graybill, 297 309 Calibration Analytical Method Comparisons by Estimates of Precision and Lower Detection Limit 1986 D. M. Holland, F. F. McElroy Environmental Science & Technology 20: 1157 1161 Calibration Design Considerations for Calibration 1986 J. P. Buonaccorsi Technometrics 28: 149 155 Calibration Multivariate Calibration when the Error Covariance Matrix is Structured 1985 T. Naes Technometrics 27: 301 311 Calibration An Implementation of the Scheffé Approach to Calibration Using Spline Functions, Illustrated by a Pressure Volume Calibration 1982 J. A. Lechner, C. P. Reeve, C. H.

Spiegelman Technometrics 24: 229 234 Calibration Measuring and Maximizing Precision in Analyses Based on Use of Calibration Graphs 1982 D. G. Mitchell, J. S. Garden Talanta 29: 921 929 Calibration Calibration in Quantitative Analysis: Part2. Confidence Regions for the Sample Content in the Case of Linear Calibration Relations 1981 J. Agterdenbos, F. J. M. J. Maessen, J.

Balke Analytica Chimica Acta 132: 127 137 Calibration Design Aspects of Scheffe s Calibration Theory using Linear Splines 1980 C. H. Spiegelman, W. J. Studden Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 85:

295 304 Calibration Nonconstant Variance Regression Techniques for Calibration Curve Based Analysis 1980 J. S. Garden, D. G. Mitchell, W. N. Mills Anal. Chem. 52: 2310 2315 Calibration Calibration in Quantitative Analysis 1979 J. Agterdenbos Analytica Chimica Acta 108: 315 323 Calibration Calibration Curves with Nonuniform Variance 1979 L. Schwartz Analytical Chem. 51: 723 727 Calibration Elimination of the Bias in the Course of Calibration 1978 L. J. Naszódi Technometrics 20: 201 205 Calibration Optimal Designs for the Inverse Regression Method of Calibration 1973 M. A. Thomas, R. H. Myers Communications in Statistics 2: 419 433 Calibration A Statistical Theory of Calibration 1973 H. Scheffé The Annals of Statistics 1: 1 37 Calibration On the Problem of Calibration 1972 G. K. Shukla Technometrics 14: 547 553 Calibration Statistical Processing of Calibration Data in Quantitative Analysis by Gas Chromatography 1970 P. Bocek, J. Novak J. Chromatog. 51: 375 383 Calibration Estimation of a Linear Function for a Calibration Line: Consideration of a Recent Proposal 1969 J. Berkson Technometrics 11: 649 660 Calibration A Note on Regression Methods in Calibration 1969 E. J. Williams Technometrics 11: 189 192 Calibration Classical and Inverse Regression Methods of Calibration in Extrapolation 1969 R. G. Krutchkoff Technometrics 11: 605 608 Calibration Optimal Experimental Designs for Estimating the Independent Variable in Regression 1968 R. L. Ott, R. H. Myers Technometrics 10: 811 823 Calibration Classical and Inverse Regression Methods of Calibration 1967 R. G. Krutchkoff Technometrics 9: 425 439 Calibration The Interpretation of Certain Regression Methods and their Use in Biological and Industrial Research 1939 C. Eisenhart The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 10: 162 186 Calibration Title Year Author Source Category Ann Rosecrance Env. Testing & Anal. 9: 13,50 CritiqueThe Three " Rs" for Relevant Detection, Reliable Quantitation and Respectable 2000 Reporting Limits Detection and Quantification Capabilities and the Evaluation of Low Level Data: 2000 Some International Perspectives and Continuing Challenges L. A. Currie Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 245: 145

156 Critique Realistic Detection Limits from Confidence Bands 1999 J. R. Burdge, D. L. McTaggart, S. O. Farwell Journal of Chemical Education 76: 434 439 Critique Response to Comment of " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1999 Henry Kahn, William Telliard, Chuck White Env. Sci. & Tech. 33: 1315 Critique Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1999 H. G. Rigo Env. Sci & Tech. 33: 1311 1312 Critique Response to Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1999 Robert Gibbons, David Coleman, Ray Maddalone Env. Sci. & Tech. 33: 1313 1314 Critique Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1998 Henry Kahn, William Telliard, Chuck White Envir. Sci & Tech 32: 2346 2348 Critique Response to Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1998 Robert Gibbons, David Coleman, Ray Maddalone Envir. Sci & Tech 32: 2349 2353 Critique A Discussion of Issues Raised by Lloyd Currie and a Cross Disciplinary View of Detection Limits and Estimating Parameters that are Often At or Near Zero 1997 C. H. Spiegelman Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 37: 183

188 Critique A Mock Trial for Critical Values ( Detection Limits) 1997 C. H. Spiegelman, P. Tarlow STATS: The Magazine for Students of Statistics 20: 13 16 Critique Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification" 1997 David Kimbrough Envir. Sci. & Tech. 31: 3727 3728 Critique The Smallest Concentration 1997 R. F. Moran, E. N. Brown Clinical Chemistry 43: 856 857 Critique A Statistical Overview of Standard ( IUPAC and ACS) and New Procedures for Determining the Limits of Detection and Quantification: ation to Voltammetric and Stripping Techniques ( Technical Report) 1997 J. Mocak, A. M. Bond, S. Meitchell, G.

Scollary Pure and Applied Chemistry 69: 297 328 Critique Applic Response to Comment on " An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for 1997 R. D. Gibbons, D. E. Coleman, R. F.

Maddalone Envir. Sci. & Tech 31: 3729 3731 Critique Analytical Quantification"

Some Conceptual and Statistical Issues in Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring 1996 Data R. D. Gibbons Environmetrics 7: 185 199 Critique Robert Gibbons Environ. & Ecol. Statistics 2: 125 167 CritiqueSome Statistical and Conceptual Issues in the Detection of Low Level 1995 Environmental Pollutants Comment on " Method Detection Limits in Solid Waste Analysis" 1995 Comment on " Method Detection Limits in Solid Waste Analysis" 1995 D. E. Coleman Environmental Science & Technology 29: 279 280 Critique Janice Wakakuwa, David Kimbrough Envir. Sci. & Tech. 29: 281 282 Critique " You Can't Compute With Less Thans" 1994 Ken Osborn, Ann Rosecrance East Bay Municipal Utility District, Core Laboratories Critique Limits of Detection 1994 N. Cressie Chemometrics Intelligent Laboratory Systems 22: 161 163 Critique A 7 Title Year Author Source Category Conflicting Perspectives About Detection Limits and About the Censoring of Environmental Data 1994 M. J. R. Clark, P. H. Whitfield Water Resources Bulletin 30: 1063 1079 Critique Limit of Discrimination, Limit of Detection and Sensitivity in Analytical Systems 1994 R. Ferrus, M. R. Egea Analytica Chimica Acta 287: 119 145 Critique Discussion of: A Study of the Precision of Lead Measurements at Concentrations Near the Method Limit of Detection 1994 B. R. Nott, R. R. Maddalone Water Environment Research 66: 853 854 Critique Limits of Detection Methodologies 1993 J. Lindstedt Plating and Surface Finishing 80: 81 86 Critique Method Detection Limits in Solid Waste Analysis 1993 David Kimbrough, Janice Wakakuwa Enviro. Sci. & Tech 27: 2692 2699 Critique Defining the Limits 1993 G. Stanko, W. Krochta, A. Stanley, T.

Dawson, K. Hillig, R. Javick, R. Obrycki, B.

Hughes, F. Saksa Environmental Lab 1: 16 20 Critique A Study of the Precision of Lead Measurements at Concentrations Near the Method Limit of Detection 1993 P. M. Berthouex Water Environment Research 65: 620 629 Critique Detection Limit Concepts: Foundations, Myths, and Utilization 1992 D. A. Chambers, S. S. Dubose, E. L.

Sensintaffar Health Phys. 63: 338 340 Critique Difficulties Related to Using Extreme Percentiles for Water Quality Regulations 1991 A Simple Rule for Judging Compliance Using highly Censored Samples 1991 P. M. Berthouex, Ian Hau Research Journal WPCF 63: 873 879 Critique P. M. Berthouex, Ian Hau Research Journal WPCF 63: 880 886 Critique Current Method for Setting Dioxin Limits in Water Requires Reexamination 1990 J. LaKind, E. Rifkin Env. Sci. & Tech 24: 963 965 Critique Kaiser 3 Sigma Criterion  A Review of the Limit of Detection 1990 L. S. Oresic, V. Grdinic Acta Pharmaceutica Jugoslavica 40: 21 61 Critique MCL Noncompliance: Is the Laboratory at Fault? 1990 Steven Koorse AWWA p53 58 Critique Qualitative or Quantitative Characterization of Spectrographic Methods? The Detection and Determination Limits 1990 Karol Florian Chemia Analityczna 35: 129 139 Critique False Positives, Detection Limits, and Other Laboratory Imperfections: The Regulatory Implications 1989 Steven Koorse Environmental Law Reporter 19: 10211 10222 Critique Evaluation of Detection Limit Estimators 1988 F. C. Garner, G. L. Robertson Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 3: 53 59 Critique Chemometrics  Measurement Reliability 1988 K. Castaneda Mendez Clinical Chemistry 34: 2494 2498 Critique The Detection Limit 1988 P. S. Porter, R. C. Ward, H. F. Bell Environmental Science & Technology 22: 856 861 Critique Estimation of Detection Limits for Environmental Analytical Procedures  A Tutorial 1988 Cliff Kirchmer ACS Symposium Series 361: 78 93 Critique Limits of Detection 1984 J. K. Taylor Analytical Chemistry 56: 130A Critique Clarification of the Limit of Detection in Chromatography 1984 J. P. Foley, J. G. Dorsey Chromatographia 18: 503 511 Critique Limit of Detection: A Closer Look at the IUPAC Definition 1983 Gary Long, J. D. Winefordner Analytical Chem. 55: 712 724 Critique Trace Analyses for Wastewaters 1982 C. J. Kirchmer Envir. Sci. & Tech. 16: 430A Critique A 8 Title Year Author Source Category A comparison of statistical and empirical detection limits 1998 G. C. C. Su Journal of AOAC International 81: 105 110 Multilab Challenges in Regulatory Environmetrics 1997 C. B. Davis Chemometrics Intelligent Laboratory Systems 37: 43 53 Multilab Determining Quantitation Levels for Regulatory Purposes 1996 P. F. Sanders, R. L. Lippincott, A. Eaton Journal American Water Works Association 88: 104 114 Multilab Defining Detection and Quantitation Levels 1993 Raymond Maddalone, James Rice, Ben Edmondson, Babu Nott, Judith Scott Water Envir. & Tech. Jan. 93: 41 44 Multilab Concept 2000 A Statistical Approach for Analytical Practice  Part I: Limits of Detection, Identification, and Determination 1999 Hadrich J et al. Deutsche Lebensmittel Rundschau 1999, 95( 10), 428 436 not found Statistics and Environmental Policy: Case Studies from Long Term Environmental Monitoring Data 1999 Goudey R et al. Novart FDN Sym 220; 144 157 not found The Many Dimensions of Detection in Chemical Analysis 1983 Currie LA Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 185 ( Mar), 63 PEST not found A Practical Strategy for Determining and Verifying Detection Limits 2001 T. Georgian, K. E. Osborn Env. Testing & Analysis 10: 13 14 Single lab Review of the Methods of the US Environmental Protection Agency for Bromate Determination and Validation of Method 317.0 for Disinfection By Product Anions and Low  Level Bromate 2001 D. P. Hautman, D. J. Munch, C. Frebis,

H. P. Wagner, B. V. Pepich Journal of Chromatography A 920: 221 229 Single lab Comparison of Detection Limits in Environmental Analysis  Is it Possible? An Approach on Quality Assurance in the Lower Working Range by Verification 2001 S. Geib, J. W. Einax Fresenius Journal of Analytical Chemistry 370: 673 678 Single lab On the Assessment of Compliance with Legal Limits, Part I: Signal and Concentration Domains 2001 E. Desimoni, S. Mannino, B. Brunetti Accreditation Quality Assurance 6: 452 458 Single lab Capability of Detection  Part 2 2000 ISO ISO 11843 2 Single lab Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods Including Detection and Quantitation Capabilities ( IUPAC Recommendations 1995) 1999 L. A. Currie Analytica Chimica Acta 391: 105 126 Single lab New Reporting Procedures Based on Long Term Method Detection Limits and Some Considerations for Interpretations of Water Quality Data Provided by the U. S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory 1999 C. J. Obinger Childress, W. T. Foreman,

B. F. Connor, and T. J. Maloney USGS Open File Report 99 193, 19 pages. Single lab Analyses of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Biota:

Method and Quality Assurance 1999 P. Cleemann, G. B. Paulsen Journal of AOAC International 82: 1175 1184 Single lab Detection Limits of Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water 1998 W. M. Draper, J. S. Dhoot, J. S. Dhaliwal,

J. W. Remoy, S. K. Perera, F. J. Baumann Journal of the American Water Works Association 90: 82 90 Single lab Detection: International Update, and Some Emerging Di lemmas Involving Calibration, the Blank, and Multiple Detection Decisions 1997 L. A. Currie Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 37: 151

181 Single lab Regulations  From an Industry Perspective or Relationships Between Detection Limits, Quantitation Limits, and Significant Digits 1997 D. Coleman, J. Auses, N. Grams Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 37: 71 80 Single lab Capability of Detection  Part 1 1997 ISO ISO 11843 1 Single lab A 9 Title Year Author Source Category Determination of Site Specific Effluent Detection Limits 1996 George Neserke, Harold Taylor Water Env. Res. 66: 115 119 Single lab Multivariate Detection Limits Estimators 1996 R. Boque, F. X. Rius Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 32: 11 23 Single lab Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods including Detection and Quantification Capabilities 1995 Lloyd Currie Pure & Single lab Reporting Low Level Analytical Data Third Draft ( 1995 11 08)  New Project of Commission V. I., International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry 1995 William Horwitz IUPAC Single lab IUPAC Recommendations for Defining and Measuring Detection and Quantification Limits 1994 LA Currie, W. Horwitz Analuses Magazine 22: 24 26 Single lab Recommendations for the Presentation of Results of Chemical Analysis 1994 L. A. Currie, G. Svehla Pure & Applied Chemistry 66: 595 608 Single lab Detarchi A Program for Detection Limits with Specified Assurance Probabilities and Characteristic Curves of Detection 1994 L. Sarabia, M. C. Ortiz TRAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 13: 1 6 Single lab Quality Control Level: An Alternative to Detection Levels 1994 D. E. Kimbrough, J. Wakakuwa Environmental Science & Technology 28: 338 345 Single lab Multivariate Decision and Detection Limits 1993 A. Singh Analytica Chimica Acta 277: 205 214 Single lab A Model of Measurement Precision at Low Concentrations 1993 P. M. Berthouex, D. R. Gan Water Environment Research 65: 759 763 Single lab Appl. Chem. 67: 1699 1723 Robust Procedure for Calibration and Calculation of the Detection Limit of Trimipramine by Adsorptive Stripping Voltametry at a Carbon Paste Electrode 1993 M. C. Ortiz, J. Arcos, J. V. Jurarros, J.

Lopez Palacios, L. A. Sarabia Analytical Chemistry 65: 678 682 Single lab Nondetects, Detection Limits, and the Probability of Detection 1991 D. Lambert, B. Peterson, I. Terpenning JASA 86: 266 277 Single lab Detection Limits: For Linear Calibration Curves with Increasing Variance and Multiple Future Detection Decisions 1991 R. D. Gibbons, F. H. Jarke, K. P. Stoub Waste Testing and Quality Assurance:

Friedman, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia 3: 337 390 Single labASTM STP 1075, D.

Limits of Detection in Multivariate Calibration 1991 G. Bauer, W. Wegscheider, H. M. Ortner Fresenius Journal of Analytical Chemistry 340: 135 139 Single lab Estimating Detection Limits in Ultratrace Analysis. Part I: The Variability of Estimated Detection Limits 1991 C. L. Stevenson, J. D. Winefordner Applied Spectroscopy 45: 1217 1224 Single lab Reporting Low Level Data for Computerized Data Bases 1988 M. Brossman, G. McKenna, H. Kahn, D.

King, R. Kleopfer, J. Taylor` ACS Symposium Series 361: 317 327 Single lab Detection Limits with Specified Assurance Probabilities 1987 C. A. Clayton, J. W. Hines, and P. D. Elkins Analytical Chemistry 59: 2506 2514 Single lab Limit of Detection and Limit of Determination  Application of Different Statistical Approaches to an Illustrative Example of Residue Analysis 1987 J. Vogelgesang Fresenius Zeitschrift Fur Analytsche Chemie 328: 213 220 Single lab Determining the Lowest Limit of Reliable Assay Measurement 1983 L. Oppenheimer, T. P. Capizzi, R. M.

Weppelman, H. Mehta Analytical Chemistry 55: 638 643 Single lab Principles of Environmental Analysis 1983 L. H. Keith, W. Crummett, J. Deegan Jr,

R. A. Libby, J. K. Taylor, G. Wentler Analytical Chemistry 55: 2210 2218 Single lab A 10 Title Year Author Source Category Trace Analyses for Wastewaters 1981 John Glaser, Denis Foerst, Gerald McKee,

Stephan Quave, William Budde Env. Sci. & Tech 15: 1426 1435 Single lab Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in Environmental Chemistry 1980 MacDougall, Daniel, et al. Anal. Chem. 52: 2242 2249 Single lab Sensitivity and Limit of Detection in Quantitative Spectrometric Methods 1974 J. D. Ingle Jr. Journal of Chemical Education, 51, 100 105. Single lab Decision and Detection Limits for Linear Calibration Curves 1970 A. Hubaux, G. Vos Analytical Chemistry 42: 849 855 Single lab Limits for Quantitative Detection and Quantitative Determination 1968 L. A. Currie Analytical Chemistry 40: 586 593 Single lab A Statistical Method for Evaluation of Limiting Detectable Sample Concentrations 1967 P. A. St. John, W. J. McCarthy, J. D.

Winefordner Analytical Chem. 39: 1495 1597 Single lab Initial Evaluation of Quantitative Performance of Chromatographic Methods Using Replicates at Multiple Concentrations 2001 M. A. Castillo, R. C. Castells Journal of Chromatography A 921: 121 133 Single lab

multilevel Multivariate Detection Limits with Fixed Probabilities of Error 1999 R. Boque, M. S. Larrechi, F. X. Rius Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 45: 397

408 Single lab

multilevel Evaluation of Approximate Methods for Calculating the Limit of Detection and Limit of Quantification 1999 M. E. Zorn, R. D. Gibbons, W. C. Sonzogni Environmental Science & Technology 33: 2291 2295 Single lab

multilevel Limits of Detection, Identification and Determination: A Statistical Approach for Practitioners 1998 J. Vogelgesang, J. Hadrich Accreditation Quality Assurance 3: 242 255 Single lab

multilevel Weighted Least Squares Approach to Calculating Limits of Detection and Quantification by Modeling Variability as a Function of Concentration 1997 M. E. Zorn,, R. D. Gibbons, W. C. Sonzogni Analytical Chemistry 69: 3069 3075 Single lab

multilevel Detection Limits in GC MS Multivariate Analysis 1997 Boque R et al. Quimica Analytica, 16( 2), 81 86 Single lab

multilevel An Alternative Minimum Level Definition for Analytical Quantification 1997 Robert Gibbons, David Coleman,

Raymond Maddalone Environmental Science & Technology 31: 2071 2077 Single lab

multilevel A Two Component Model for Measurement Error in Analytical Chemistry 1995 David Rocke, Stefan Lorenzato Technometrics 37: 176 184 Single lab

multilevel Practical Quantitation Limits 1992 R. D. Gibbons, N. E. Grams, F. H. Jarke,

K. P. Stoub Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 12: 225

235. Single lab

multilevel Experimental Comparison of EPA and USATHAMA Detection and Quantitation Capability Estimators 1991 C. L. Grant, A. D. Hewitt, T. F. Jenkins American Laboratory 23: 15 33 Single lab

multilevel High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Determination of the Intermediates Side Reaction Products in FD& C Red No. 2 and FD& C Yellow No. 5: Statistical Analysis of Instrument Response 1978 C. J. Bayley, E. A. Cox, J. A. Springer J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 61: 1404 1414. Single lab

multilevel Method Detection Limits: ation to Organic Environmental Chemistry Data 2002Applic Wade, T. L., J. L. Sericano, Y. Qian, G. Presentation at ACS Symposium, Boston, MA, August 2002 Suggested by a Wolff, and G. Denoux peer reviewer A 11 Title Year Author Source Category Detection limits 2002 van Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, 1, El Shaarawi, A. H. and Piegorsch, W. W. ( eds.), 504 515. Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons Suggested by a peer reviewer Statistical Approaches to Estimating Mean Water Quality Concentration with Detection Limits 2002 Shumway, R., R. Azari, and M. Kayhanian Environmental Science and Technology 36: Suggested by a peer reviewer Detection Limit of Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry 2002 Yu, L. L., J. D. Fassett, and W. F. Guthrie Analytical Chemistry. 74: 3887 3891 Suggested by a peer reviewer ISO 17025 Requirements: How to Evaluate Uncertainty for Dioxin Analysis in Food and Feed from Validation Data? 2002 G. Eppe, and E. De Pauw Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic Pollutants and POPs,

Barcelona, Spain, August 12 18, 2002, Vol. 59, pp. 403

406, 2002 Suggested by a peer reviewer Are Target Dioxin Levels in Animal Feedingstuffs Achievable for Laboratories in Terms of Analytical Requirements? Results of an Interlaboratory study 2002 G. Eppe, and E. De Pauw Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic Pollutants and POPs,

Barcelona, Spain, August 12 18, 2002, Vol. 59, pp. 407

410, 2002 Suggested by a peer reviewer Environmental Statistics with S PLUS 2001 Millard, S. P., and Neerchal, N. K. Chapman & Hall/ CRC, Boca Raton, FL Suggested by a peer reviewer Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Chemistry 2000 Ellison, S. L. R., M. Roslein, and A.

Williams, eds. EURACHEM/ CITAC Guide 2000 Suggested by a peer reviewer Development and Harmonisation of Measurement Uncertainty Principles.

Protocol for Uncertainty Evaluation from Validation Data 2000 Barwick V. J., Ellison S. L. R. VAM Project 3.2.1 Suggested by a peer reviewer Statistical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental Monitoring Data & Risk Assessment 1998 McBean, E. A., and Rovers, F. A. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ Suggested by a peer reviewer Foundations and future of detection and quantification 1996 Currie, L. A. Proceedings of an Statistical Association, Section on Statistics and the Environment, 1 8 Suggested by a peer reviewer Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring 1994 Gibbons, R. D. John Wiley & Sons, New York Suggested by a peer reviewer Spatial hemostatistics 1994 Cressie, Environmental Statistics, Assessment, and Forecasting,

Cothern, C. R. and Ross, N. P. ( eds.), 131 146. Boca Raton,

FL: Lewis Publishers Suggested by a peer reviewer Voet, H.

der 3345 3353 limits the Americ c N.

Hypothesis testing with values below detection limit in environmental studies 1994 Slyman, D. J., de Peyster, A., and Donohoe, R. R Environmental Science & Technology 28: 898 90 Suggested by a peer reviewer A new approach for accommodation of below detection limit data in trend analysis of water quality 1994 Nagaraj, N. K., and Brunenmeister, S. L. Environmental Statistics, Assessment, and Forecasting,

Cothern, C. R. and Ross, N. P. ( eds.), 113 127. Boca Raton,

FL: Lewis Publishers Suggested by a peer reviewer Errors and detection limits 1992 Adams, M. J. In Methods of Environmental Data Analysis, Hewitt, C. N.

( ed.), 181 212. Amsterdam: Elsevier Applied Science Suggested by a peer reviewer A 12 Title Year Author Source Category Statistical inference from multiply censored environmental data 1991 El Shaarawi, A. H., and Naderi, A Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 17: 339 347 Suggested by a peer reviewer Less than obvious: Statistical treatment of data below the detection limit 1990 Helsel, D. R Environmental Science & Technology 24: Suggested by a peer reviewer 1766 1774 Environmental tests: Are they valid? 1990 Maynard, A. W. Chemical Technology 20: 151 155. Suggested by a peer reviewer Detection in Analytical Chemistry: Importance, Theory, and Practice 1988 Currie, L. A. American Chemical Society, New York Suggested by a peer reviewer A 13


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13932-13934]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06020]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74477; File No. SR-BOX-2015-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Regarding the Transfer of Ownership Interest in the Exchange

March 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 26, 2015, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 repurchase the ownership interest in the
Exchange held by Strategic Investments II Inc. (``SI'') and BOX
Holdings Group LLC, an affiliate of the Exchange (``BOX Holdings''),
proposes to repurchase the ownership interest in BOX Holdings held by
SI. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. The Exchange's
charter is a Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of May 10,
2012 (the ``Exchange LLC Agreement''). SI became a Member of the
Exchange on May 10, 2012.
    BOX Holdings is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. BOX Holdings is the
sole owner of BOX Market LLC, a facility of the Exchange (``BOX
Market''). The BOX Holdings charter is a Limited Liability Company
Agreement, dated as of May 10, 2012 (the ``Holdings LLC Agreement'').
SI became a Member of BOX Holdings on May 10, 2012. 6,445 Economic
Units and 4,990 Voting Units represent SI's ownership interest in the
Exchange, comprising 6.455% of all outstanding interests and 4.99% of
all outstanding voting interests of the Exchange, respectively (the
``Exchange Units''). 500 Class A Units represent SI's ownership
interest in BOX Holdings, comprising 4.203% of all outstanding
ownership interests of BOX Holdings (the ``Holdings Units'' and,
together with the Exchange Units, the ``SI Units'').
    Each of the Exchange and BOX Holdings has agreed with SI to
purchase the SI Units. Accordingly, it is proposed that SI transfer all
of the Exchange Units to the Exchange and all of the Holdings Units to
BOX Holdings (the ``Transfer''). After the Transfer, the SI Units will
no longer be outstanding, references to SI in each of the Exchange LLC
Agreement and the Holdings LLC Agreement will be removed, and SI will
have no remaining rights under the Exchange LLC Agreement or the
Holdings LLC Agreement.
    As provided in Section 7.3(f) of the Exchange LLC Agreement, ``no
Person, alone or together with any Related Persons, shall own, directly
or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an aggregate Economic
Percentage Interest greater than 40% (or 20% if such Person is a BOX
Options Participant) (the ``Economic Ownership Limit'').'' Accordingly,
because the total number of outstanding Economic Units of the Exchange
are reduced in the Transfer, outstanding Economic Units held by any
remaining Members of the Exchange will be cancelled to the extent
necessary to ensure compliance with the Economic Ownership Limit.

    As provided in Section 7.3(g) of the Exchange LLC Agreement, ``no
Person, alone or together with any Related Persons, shall own, directly
or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an aggregate Voting
Percentage Interest of greater than 20% (the ``Voting Ownership
Limit'').'' Further, Section 7.3(g) of the Exchange LLC Agreement
provides that, upon any change in economic ownership, the number of
Voting Units held by each Member of the Exchange shall be adjusted to
maintain compliance with the Voting Ownership Limit. Accordingly,
because the number of Economic Units held by Members of the Exchange
are reduced in the Transfer, the number of outstanding Voting Units of
the Exchange, and the number of Voting Units held by each of the
remaining Members of the Exchange, will be adjusted to the extent
necessary to ensure compliance with the Economic Ownership Limit.
    As discussed above, all ownership limits relating to the Exchange
will continue to be strictly respected. The Transfer will not result in
any Member of the Exchange exceeding its applicable Economic Ownership
Percentage or Voting Ownership Percentage (collectively, its
``Ownership Percentages''). Prior to the Transfer, some Members of the
Exchange already held the maximum Ownership Percentages allowed under
the Exchange LLC Agreement. The Ownership Percentages held by these
Members will remain completely unchanged after giving effect to the
Transfer. For other Members of the Exchange, adjustments to Ownership
Percentages resulting from the Transfer will be insubstantial, such
that no Member of the Exchange will have its Ownership Percentage
adjusted by more than 2.2% of the Exchange's ownership. After giving
effect to the Transfer, no Member will hold more than 40% Economic
Ownership Percentage, no Participant will hold more than 20% Economic
Ownership Percentage, and no Member will hold more than 20% Voting
Ownership Percentage in the Exchange.
    The Board of Directors of the Exchange will remain unaffected by
the Transfer. The makeup of the Board will still be comprised of a
majority of Directors that are Non-industry Directors, at least 20%
that are Participant Directors and one (1) Director that is also an
officer or director of BOX Holdings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Sec.  4.02 of the BOX Options Exchange LLC Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Section 7.4(f) of the Holdings LLC Agreement provides that
a rule filing pursuant to Section 19 of the Exchange Act is required
with respect to certain transactions that result in the acquisition and
holding by a person of an aggregate ownership interest in BOX Holdings
which meets or crosses the threshold level of 20% or any successive 5%
level. Although MX US 2, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TMX Group
Limited (``MXUS2''), is not acquiring any additional ownership Units of
BOX Holdings in the Transfer, the reduction of the total number of
outstanding ownership Units of BOX Holdings in the Transfer will result
in a corresponding increase in the ownership interest held by MXUS2
from 53.83% to 56.19% and thereby crossing a 5% level of fifty-five
percent.
    This change in MXUS2's ownership percentage by less than 2.4% of
the overall ownership of BOX Holdings is insubstantial and will not
materially alter the ownership or voting power of MXUS2 in BOX
Holdings. Even though the MXUS2's ownership percentage will experience
this small increase, no additional power or control will accrue to
MXUS2 as a result. For example, as the current holder of a majority of
the outstanding ownership interests in BOX Holdings, MXUS2 has the
ability to control any vote of the Members or the Board of Directors of
BOX Holdings that requires a simple majority vote. After giving effect
to the Transfer, MXUS2 will still control such votes. Further, MXUS2
currently has the power to appoint up to five (5) representatives to
the BOX Holdings Board of Directors. After giving effect to the
Transfer, MXUS2 will still have the power to appoint the same number of
Directors of BOX Holdings. As a 56.19% owner, MXUS2 would have no
additional voting or veto rights and no other ability to exercise power
over the operations of BOX Holdings or its subsidiary, BOX Market. No
other Member of BOX Holdings will have its ownership percentage in BOX
Holdings adjusted by more than 0.9% of the total BOX Holdings ownership
as a result of the Transfer.
    The consideration paid to SI by BOX Holdings and the Exchange in
connection with the Transfer was paid almost entirely by BOX Holdings
with only a de minimis amount paid by the Exchange. The Exchange
continues to reserve sufficient assets to operate and fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities with respect to itself and the BOX Market.
The Exchange Board of Directors remains committed to ensuring the
Exchange is sufficiently capitalized to meet its obligations. The
Exchange and BOX Market continue to be subject to a written agreement
which provides that the Exchange receives and retains all assets deemed
to be necessary for regulatory purposes by the Exchange. Accordingly,
payments made to consummate the Transfer will not have any negative
effect on the Exchange's ability to carry out its duties and
obligations as an SRO.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1), in particular, in that it enables the
Exchange to be so organized so as to have the capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce
compliance by its exchange members and persons associated with its
exchange members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to facilitate transactions in
securities, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of

investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \6\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Commission has waived the 5-day
prefiling requirement in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay because the Transfer is intended to be completed
in less than 30 days. The Commission believes that an earlier operative
date will ensure that the filing is effective prior to the intended
completion of the Transfer in less than 30 days. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\7\ The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-SR-BOX-2015-14 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-BOX-2015-14. 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-BOX-2015-14 and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06020 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50942-50945]
[DOCID:fr18au10-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0593; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-48-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64s

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7, -7A, -7B, -9, -
9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-1, -1A, -1B, -7, -7A, -7B,
-9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR series turbofan
engines. That AD currently requires revisions to the engine
manufacturer's time limits section (TLS) to include enhanced inspection
of selected critical life-limited parts at each piece-part opportunity.
This proposed AD would modify the TLS of the manufacturer's engine
manual and an air carrier's approved continuous airworthiness
maintenance program to incorporate additional inspection requirements
and reduce the model applicability. Pratt & Whitney has developed and
the FAA has approved improved inspection procedures for the critical
life-limited parts. The mandatory inspections are needed to identify
those critical rotating parts with conditions, which if allowed to
continue in service, could result in uncontained failures. We are
proposing this AD to prevent critical life-limited rotating engine part
failure, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage
to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by October 18,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0593; Directorate
Identifier 98-ANE-48-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    On December 1, 2005, the FAA issued AD 2005-25-05, Amendment 39-
14398 (70 FR 73361, December 12, 2005), to require revisions to the TLS
of the manufacturer's engine manual for these engines to include
required enhanced inspection of selected critical life-limited parts at
each piece-part opportunity.

New Inspection Procedures

    Since the issuance of that AD, Pratt & Whitney has developed and
the FAA has approved improved inspection procedures for the critical
life-limited parts. The mandatory inspections are needed to identify
those critical rotating parts with conditions, which if allowed to
continue in service, could result in uncontained failures. This
proposal would add new inspection methods to the TLS of the
manufacturer's engine manual and an air carrier's approved continuous
airworthiness maintenance program to incorporate additional inspection
requirements for 1st stage compressor hubs, 3rd stage turbine disks,
and 4th stage turbine disks.

Removal of Obsolete Engine Models

    Also since the issuance of that AD, PW notified us that engine
models JT8D-1, -1A, and -1B, have either been converted to other
affected engine models or retired from service.

FAA's Determination of an Unsafe Condition and Proposed Actions

    Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other PW JT8D-7, -7A, -7B, -9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A,
-17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR series turbofan engines of the same type
design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2005-25-05 to add new
inspection methods for 1st stage compressor hubs, 3rd stage turbine
disks, and 4th stage turbine disks, and would remove the -1, -1A, and -
1B engine models from the applicability. For reference, this proposed
AD carries forward the requirements from AD 2005-25-05. Also for
reference, parts that have an Engine Manual Inspection Task and or Sub
Task Number reference updated in the table in the compliance section of
this AD, are identified by an asterisk (*) that precedes the part
nomenclature.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,527 JT8D -7, -7A,
-7B, -9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR series
turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per engine to perform
the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Since this is an added inspection requirement, included as part
of the normal maintenance cycle, no additional part costs are involved.
Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD
to U.S. operators to be $1,297,950.

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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14398 (70 FR
73361, December 12, 2005) and by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2010-0593; Directorate Identifier
98-ANE-48-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by October 18,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2005-25-05, Amendment 39-14398.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-7, -7A, -7B, -
9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR series turbofan
engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Boeing
727 and 737 series, and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from the need to require enhanced inspection
of selected critical life-limited parts of PW JT8D series turbofan
engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent critical life-limited
rotating engine part failure, which could result in an uncontained
engine failure and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.
    (f) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
(1) revise the Time Limits Section (TLS) of the manufacturer's
engine manual, part number 481672, as appropriate for PW JT8D-7, -
7A, -7B, -9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17, -17A, -17R, and -17AR series
turbofan engines, and (2) for air carriers, revise the approved
mandatory inspections section of the continuous airworthiness
maintenance program, by adding the following:
    ``Critical Life Limited Part Inspection
    A. Inspection Requirements:
    (1) This section has the definitions for individual engine piece
parts and the inspection procedures which are necessary when these
parts are removed from the engine.
    (2) It is necessary to do the inspection procedures of the piece
parts in paragraph B when:
    (a) The part is removed from the engine and disassembled to the
level specified in paragraph B and
    (b) The part has accumulated more than 100 cycles since the last
piece part inspection, provided that the part was not damaged or
related to the cause for its removal from the engine.
    (3) The inspections specified in this paragraph do not replace
or make not necessary other recommended inspections for these parts
or other parts.
    B. Parts Requiring Inspection:

    Note: Piece part is defined as any of the listed parts with all
the blades removed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Description              Section          Inspection No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hub (Disk), 1st Stage
 Compressor:
    * Hub Detail--All P/Ns.....     72-33-31  -03, -04, -05, -06
    * Hub Assembly--All P/Ns...     72-33-31  -03, -04, -05, -06
2nd Stage Compressor:
    Disk--All P/Ns.............     72-33-33  -02, -03
    Disk Assembly--All P/Ns....     72-33-33  -02, -03
Disk, 13th Stage Compressor--       72-36-47  -02
 All P/Ns.
HP Turbine Disk, First Stage w/     72-52-04  -03
 integral Shaft--All P/Ns.
HP Turbine, First Stage, w/
 separable Shaft:
    Rotor Assembly--All P/Ns...     72-52-02  -04
    Disk--All P/Ns.............     72-52-02  -03
Disk, 2nd Stage Turbine--All P/     72-53-16  -02
 Ns.
* Disk, 3rd Stage Turbine--All      72-53-17  -02, -03
 P/Ns.
* Disk (Separable), 4th Stage       72-53-15  -02, -03
 Turbine--All P/Ns.
Disk (Integral Disk/Hub), 4th       72-53-18  -02''
 Stage Turbine--All P/Ns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (g) The parts that have an Engine Manual Inspection Task and or
Sub Task Number reference updated in the table of this AD, are
identified by an asterisk (*) that precedes the part nomenclature.
    (h) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this AD, and
notwithstanding contrary provisions in section 43.16 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.16), these mandatory inspections
shall be performed only in accordance with the TLS of the
manufacturer's engine manual.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (i) You must perform these mandatory inspections using the TLS
of the manufacturer's engine manual unless you receive approval to
use an AMOC under paragraph (j) of this AD. Section 43.16 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.16)

may not be used to approve alternative methods of compliance or
adjustments to the times in which these inspections must be
performed.
    (j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Maintaining Records of the Mandatory Inspections

    (k) You have met the requirements of this AD when you revise the
TLS of the manufacturer's engine manual as specified in paragraph
(f) of this AD. For air carriers operating under part 121 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 121), you have met the
requirements of this AD when you modify your continuous
airworthiness maintenance plan to reflect those changes. You do not
need to record each piece-part inspection as compliance to this AD,
but you must maintain records of those inspections according to the
regulations governing your operation. For air carriers operating
under part 121, you may use either the system established to comply
with section 121.369 or an alternative accepted by your principal
maintenance inspector if that alternative:
    (1) Includes a method for preserving and retrieving the records
of the inspections resulting from this AD; and
    (2) Meets the requirements of section 121.369(c); and
    (3) Maintains the records either indefinitely or until the work
is repeated.
    (l) These record keeping requirements apply only to the records
used to document the mandatory inspections required as a result of
revising the TLS of the manufacturer's engine manual as specified in
paragraph (f) of this AD. These record keeping requirements do not
alter or amend the record keeping requirements for any other AD or
regulatory requirement.

Related Information

    (m) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 6, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-20351 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P