[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48836-48837]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0009]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0120

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0120,
U.S. Coast Guard Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application without
change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 19,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket

number [USCG-2017-0009] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0009], and
must be received by December 19, 2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: U.S. Coast Guard Non-appropriated Fund Employment
Application.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0120.
    Summary: The USCG Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application form
is used to collect applicant qualification information associated with
vacancy announcements. The form allows individuals to apply for
employment opportunities with the Coast Guard Non-appropriated Fund
(NAF) workforce and fills the gap created by the cancellation of the
optional Application for Federal Employment, form OF-612, OMB No. 3206-
0219.
    Need: The U.S. Coast Guard rates applicants under the authority of
Title 5 of U.S. Code, Sections 1104, 2103, 3301 and 3320. The Optional
Application for Federal Employment, Form OF-612, was cancelled and the
information is now collected in USA Jobs. The NAF personnel system does
not utilize USA Jobs because of the high cost and high turnover rate
and thus relied heavily on form OF-612 for applicants.
    Forms: CG-1227B, Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application.
    Respondents: Public applying for positions with the USCG Non-
appropriated fund workforce.
    Frequency: Per vacancy announcements.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 8,400
hours to 3,837 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-22838 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12202-12204]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4890]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63972; File No. SR-NYSEAMEX-2011-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting
Supplementary Material .20 to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C To Provide
for the Treatment of Short Sale Orders at the Close

February 25, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 24, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Amex'') 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 substantially prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Supplementary Material .20 to NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 123C (The Closing Procedures) to provide for the
treatment of short sale orders at the close, for purposes of execution
priority, as orders subject to tick restrictions \4\ during a period
when a restriction on the prices at which covered securities may be
sold short is in effect (``Short Sale Price Test'') under NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 440B \5\ (which implements the provisions of Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO (``Rule 201'') under the Act). The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders subject to tick restrictions are sell ``plus'' and
buy ``minus'' orders. See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 13.
    \5\ Amendments to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 440B to implement the
short sale price test restriction requirements of Rule 201 are the
subject of a separate rule filing. See SR-NYSEAmex-2011-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On February 26, 2010, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule
201.\6\ Among other things, the amendments establish a short sale-
related circuit breaker that, if triggered with respect to a covered
security,\7\ imposes a short sale price test.\8\ Amended Rule 201
became effective on May 10, 2010 and the compliance date for the Rule
is February 28, 2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Amendments to Regulation SHO, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61595 (Feb. 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (Mar. 10, 2010)
(``Rule 201 Adopting Release''). In the Rule 201 Adopting Release,
the Commission also adopted amendments to Rule 200(g) of Regulation
SHO to include a ``short exempt'' marking requirement. 17 CFR
242.200(g). See also Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO
(``T&M FAQs'').
    \7\ The term ``covered security'' shall have the same meaning as
in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(1) defines the term
``covered security'' to mean any ``NMS stock'' as defined under Rule
600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS
defines an ``NMS stock'' as ``any NMS security other than an
option.'' Rule 600(b)(46) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
security'' as ``any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' 17 CFR 242.201(a)(1); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47); and 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.201(b).
    \9\ Rule 201 Adopting Release, 75 FR 11232. The Rule 201
compliance date, originally set for November 10, 2010, was extended
to February 28, 2011 in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63247
(Nov. 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (Nov. 9, 2010). The May 10th effective
date and February 28th compliance date also apply to amended Rule
200(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 201(b) requires that trading centers,\10\ including NYSE Amex,
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale
order of a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to
the current national best bid \11\ if the price of that covered
security decreases by 10% or more from the covered security's closing
price as determined by the listing market \12\ for the covered security
as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day.\13\ In
addition, Rule 201(b) requires that trading centers establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to impose the Short Sale Price Test for the remainder of the
day and the following day (including the close on both days) when a
national best bid for the covered security is calculated and
disseminated on a current and continuing basis by a plan processor
pursuant to an effective national market system plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 201(a)(9) states that the term ``trading center''
shall have the same meaning as in Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS.
Rule 600(b)(78) defines a ``trading center'' as ``a national
securities exchange or national securities association that operates
an SRO trading facility, an alternative trading system, an exchange
market maker, an OTC market maker, or any other broker or dealer
that executes orders internally by trading as principal or crossing
orders as agent.'' 17 CFR 242.600(b)(78).
    \11\ The term ``national best bid'' shall have the same meaning
as in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(4) states that such
term shall have the same meaning as in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation
NMS. 17 CFR 242.201(a)(4); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(42).
    \12\ The term ``listing market'' shall have the same meaning as
in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(3) defines the term
``listing market'' to have the same meaning as the term ``listing
market'' as defined in the effective transaction reporting plan for
the covered security. 17 CFR 242.201(a)(3). See also 17 CFR
242.201(a)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(i).
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(ii). In addition, if the price of a
covered security declines intra-day by at least 10% on a day on
which the security is already subject to the short sale price test
restriction of Rule 201, the restriction will be re-triggered and,
therefore, will continue in effect for the remainder of that day and
the following day. See Rule 201 Adopting Release, 75 FR 11232,
11253, n. 290. Rule 201 does not place any limit on the frequency or
number of times the circuit breaker can be re-triggered with respect
to a particular stock. See T&M FAQs, at Q&A 2.2.

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

    In order to implement the provisions of Rule 201, the Exchange has
proposed amendments to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 440B to establish the
protocols for determining when a Short Sale Price Test is to be
triggered for a covered security where the Exchange is the listing
market. The proposed Rule 440B amendments also provide that, except for
certain permissible and short exempt orders,\15\ during the period a
Short Sale Price Test is in effect for a covered security, Exchange
systems will not execute or display a short sale order with respect to
that security at a price that is less than or equal to the current
national best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See paragraphs (f) and (g) of proposed Rule 440B regarding
the treatment of permissible and short exempt orders. See SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C prescribes the method for determining
the closing print to be reported to the Consolidated Tape for each
security at the close of trading. Interest executed in the closing
transaction is allocated pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 72 and
consistent with the hierarchy of allocation of trading interest in NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 123C(7). In the hierarchy of allocation, better
priced interest \16\ must receive an execution in whole or in part
(``must execute interest'') \17\ in order for the security to close.
Included in this category are MOC orders without tick restrictions, MOC
orders with tick restrictions that are eligible to be executed at a
price better than the closing price,\18\ better priced limit orders,
better priced limit on close (``LOC'') orders with or without tick
restrictions that are eligible for execution at a better price than the
closing price and Crowd interest.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Better priced interest means an order that is priced lower
than the closing price (in the case of an order to sell) or priced
higher than the closing price (in the case of an order to buy).
    \17\ A market on close (``MOC'') order without tick restrictions
must be executed in its entirety at the closing price. Marketable
limit orders receive an execution subject to the availability of
contra side volume.
    \18\ References in NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(7) to orders
with tick restrictions mean sell ``plus'' or buy ``minus'' orders,
as defined in Rule 13.
    \19\ Crowd interest means verbal floor broker interest at the
market entered by the designated market maker (``DMM'') to interact
with orders in the Display Book. See note 20 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the ``must execute interest'' is satisfied, then any limit
orders represented in the Display Book \20\ at the closing price may be
used to offset the remaining imbalance.\21\ Next eligible for execution
in the hierarchy of allocation for the closing transaction are LOC
orders without tick restrictions limited to the closing price, then MOC
orders that have tick restrictions which limit the order's price to the
price of the closing transaction,\22\ followed by LOC orders limited to
the price of the closing transaction that have tick restrictions, ``G''
orders,\23\ and finally closing offset orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Display Book system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book system receives and displays
orders to the DMM, contains order information, and provides a
mechanism to execute and report transactions and published reports
to the Consolidated Tape. The Display Book system is connected to a
number of other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison,
surveillance, and reporting information to customers and other
market data and national market systems.
    \21\ DMM interest, including better priced DMM interest entered
into the Display Book prior to the closing transaction that is
eligible to participate in the closing transaction is always
included in the hierarchy of execution as if it were interest equal
to the price of the closing transaction.
    \22\ For example, the last sale on the Exchange was at a price
of $46.00 on a minus tick, the closing price is $46.01, all sell
plus MOC orders are limited to the closing price of $46.01 because
the closing transaction would be the next plus tick.
    \23\ See Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act. G orders are orders for
an Exchange member's own account where the member meets a business
mix test that requires it to be primarily engaged in the business of
underwriting and distributing securities, selling securities to
customers, and/or acting as a broker and provided more than 50% of
its gross revenues is derived from such businesses and related
activities. G orders on the Exchange are required to yield priority,
parity and precedence to non-G orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to establish the execution priority for short
sale orders at the close during a period when the Short Sale Price Test
is in effect. As provided for in proposed NYSE Amex Equities Rule
440B(h)(3), when the Short Sale Price Test is in effect, Exchange
systems will, in connection with the closing transaction, re-price all
short sale market orders and short sale orders limited to the last
published Exchange bid or lower to one minimum price increment above
the last published Exchange bid. If the closing price will be at or
below the last published Exchange bid, such re-priced short sale orders
will not participate in the close. If the closing price is above the
last published Exchange bid, the re-priced short sale orders may
participate in the closing transaction, depending on whether the
proposed closing price is the same as the re-priced order, or if the
re-priced order is priced better than the closing price. If the re-
priced order is priced better than the closing price, such re-priced
short sale order will participate in the closing transaction.\24\ If
the re-priced order is priced at the same price as the closing price,
such re-priced short sale order plus all other short sale orders
limited at that price \25\ may (but are not required to) participate in
the closing transaction consistent with how NYSE Amex Equities Rule
123C(7)(b) treats market or limit orders with tick restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(7)(a).
    \25\ These would include short sale orders that were already
priced above the last published Exchange bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange therefore proposes to add new Supplementary Material
.20 to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C providing that short sale orders
for a covered security during a period when a Short Sale Price Test is
in effect will be treated, for purposes of execution at the close under
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(7)(b), as orders that have tick
restrictions.\26\ Thus, short sale orders that are eligible to
participate in the closing transaction and that are priced at the same
price as the closing transaction will be treated in the same manner as
sell ``plus'' and buy ``minus'' tick restrictive orders priced at the
closing price.\27\ As a result, re-priced short sale orders priced at
the closing price will be eligible for participation at the close
following limit orders represented in the Display Book with a price
equal to the closing price and LOC orders with a price equal to the
closing price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange will not be making any changes in its opening
and re-opening procedures in connection with the implementation of
the short sale price test restrictions of Rule 201. The presence of
short sale price test restrictions will have no impact on the
priority of orders eligible to participate in openings and re-
openings.
    \27\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 13 (defining Sell ``Plus''-Buy
``Minus'' Orders). A sell ``plus'' order is an order to sell a
specified amount of stock as long as the price of the trade is not
lower than the price of the last sale if the last sale was a plus or
zero plus tick, and is not lower than the last sale plus the minimum
change in the price if the last sale was a minus or zero minus tick.
A buy ``minus'' order is an order to buy a specified amount of stock
as long as the price to be executed is not higher than the price of
the last sale if the last sale was a minus or zero minus tick, and
is not higher than the price of the last sale less than the minimum
change in the price of the stock if the last sale was a plus tick or
zero plus tick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\28\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ in particular, in that it is designed to, among
other things, prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposal is designed to
implement the provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO by establishing,
maintaining and enforcing written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale order of a
covered security at

the close in violation of the Short Sale Price Test established in that
rule. To that end, the proposed rule change will, among other things,
amend the Exchange's procedures for determining the closing price by
treating short sale orders as orders subject to tick restrictions
during a period when a Short Sale Price Test is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\31\
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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \34\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\35\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission hereby
grants the request.\36\ Waiving the 30-day operative delay will allow
the Exchange to implement the proposed amendments by February 28, 2011,
which, as noted by the Exchange, is the compliance date for amendments
to Regulation SHO under the Act. By waiving the operative delay, the
Exchange will be able to comply with the amendments to Regulation SHO
by February 28, 2011. Therefore, the Commission believes it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to
waive the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal as
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \36\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-2011-09 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-NYSEAMEX-2011-09. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also
be available for inspection and copying at the Exchange's principal
office and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEAMEX-2011-09 and should
be submitted on or before March 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4890 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Responses to Comments Received on Proposed Revisions to the Information Collection Request (ICR) for Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Background

On June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33151), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register and on June 3, 2020 sent consultation emails to nine recipients announcing that it was planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for revisions to an existing collection of information under TSCA section 4. The public comment period closed on July 31, 2020. The Agency received comments in response to this notice from the Center for Specialty Chemical Science, LLC (CSCS), a subsidiary of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers &
Affiliates (SOCMA), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). No comments were received in response to the consultation requests.

Public Comments and EPA Responses

CSCS Comments:

Comment 1: CSCS commented that EPA's practices for administering the granting and oversite of the exemption process for test rules do not effectuate TSCA and violate the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and EPA's regulations, and treat compliant companies unfairly. The CSCS commented that testing costs under TSCA section 4 should be shared among manufacturers benefiting from the testing. The commenter cited TSCA section 4 and EPA's TSCA section 4 implementing regulations that require other manufacturers who obtain an "exemption" under TSCA section 4(c) to certify and pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the person or persons who incurred the costs of complying with the testing requirements. The commenter remarked that EPA, historically, has done nothing to assure that companies receiving exemptions reimburse the test sponsor(s), including notifying paying companies when EPA has issued a conditional exemption to another company or taking action against persons in violation of the test rule. The commenter remarked that these practices contravene the PRA by imposing upon the test sponsors of a test rule, the full cost of: identifying other entities conditionally exempt under a test rule, trying to persuade those conditionally exempted parties to pay their fair and equitable share, paying the appropriate administrative fee to initiate an arbitration if the exempted parties do not meet their obligations, and advancement of  the full cost of the arbitration. The commenter also remarked that paying parties will bear an equal share of arbitration costs to pursue such arbitration. The commenter remarked that this regime does not minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents and entities most adversely affected pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(c)(3), or maximize the public benefit from information collected for the Federal Government pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(c)(4) by causing difficulty in assembling consortia of companies to bear the cost of a test rule.

CSCS commented that as EPA considers amendments to the 40 CFR 791 regulations, as referenced in the ICR Supporting Statement, that this would be a good opportunity to ensure that such revisions contain new steps that would comply with the law, provide fairness to test rule recipients, and minimize burdens on companies paying the costs of testing. The commenter remarked that this ICR revision provides an opportunity to implement new practices under its existing regulations including suggesting EPA require an exemption applicant to provide, either with an exemption application or when they submit a test rule fee, documentation showing the applicant company has contractually agreed to pay, within the reimbursement period, fair and reasonable compensation to the [test sponsor]. CPSC also suggested notifying an exemption applicant by letter when a conditional exemption is granted and for a conditional exemption be conditioned on a requirement that the applicant file notice with EPA prior to the end of the reimbursement period with either a receipt indicating payment of compensation or a certification and documentation that the applicant has made a good faith offer to pay compensation. The commenter also suggested EPA notify test sponsors when an exemption application is submitted and send a letter, at the request of a paying entity claiming a failure at good-faith attempts to negotiate, to an exemption holder reminding such exemption holder of the obligations under TSCA, EPA's rules, and its sworn statement.

Response: The Agency has utilized approaches over the years to reduce burden on the regulated community. It has followed statutory requirements when pursuing testing actions such as first making particular "findings" in accordance with the statute prior to promulgating test rules to ensure that only necessary data would be developed. It has also allowed for the formation of consortia so that entities subject to a test rule may collaborate and make many decisions regarding how regulated entities would carry out and share costs of testing and to prevent duplicative testing. EPA has also sought out the submission of relevant existing data to be submitted voluntarily.

The Agency is considering amendments to the TSCA section 4 implementing regulations and will take the commenter's suggestions into account. There are, however, several noteworthy aspects of the TSCA Lautenberg Act amendments of 2016 that may mitigate some of the commenter's concerns.

It is anticipated, as described in the ICR Supporting Statement, that the Agency may use its order authority explicitly provided by the Lautenberg Act amendments to require the development of information under TSCA section 4, as needed, during this ICR cycle. It is anticipated that the issuance of orders would mitigate the issues presented by the commenter for test rules because unlike rules, all entities subject to the order would be known and included in the order; therefore the test sponsor(s) would know the identity of the entities potentially subject to reimbursement requirements when the order is issued.

Furthermore, when rulemaking under TSCA section 4 is utilized, the new reporting requirements associated with the Fees for Administration of Toxic Substances Control Act rule ("Fees Rule"), covered by the ICR with OMB Control No. 2070-0208, will add to the Agency's ability to identify entities subject to such testing action since those parties subject to a section 4 test rule (or order) would be required to identify themselves for purposes of submitting the applicable fees.

Comment 2: CSCS also commented that the ICR Supporting Statement does not cover several categories of costs and understates others and that the Supporting Statement should have been completely revised instead of conducting a "markup" of the currently approved ICR. The commenter suggested that the Supporting Statement should have considered actions required of the companies paying for the costs of testing to identify and collect reimbursement for non-participants including researching the identity of non-paying respondents, engaging with non-payors to ascertain their willingness to participate, negotiating a cost sharing formula and other reimbursement terms, preparing data sharing agreements, and if necessary, pursuing reimbursement through the arbitration process, including paying an administrative fee and advancing the costs of the arbitration. The commenter estimated costs, on average, to be $55,000. The commenter also claimed that, based on experience, consortium administration costs should be at least 25% of the laboratory costs instead of 15%, not including fees paid to experts, and that additional fees as a percentage of laboratory costs are warranted for sponsoring and managing lower cost studies to compensate sponsoring consortia for fixed costs that do not vary according to the value of the underlying study. The commenter also claimed that the estimated burden does not include the activities of the recipient reviewing the test rule or order, comprehending its scope, and reviewing chemical formulations to determine compliance requirements. Additionally, the commenter claimed that a corporate review labor rate of $53.40 was applied to calculate total cost of corporate review (14 hours yielding a total cost of $1,121.10). Lastly, the commenter remarked that small entities and consortia using outside experts and legal review would be unlikely to obtain such review for $53.40 per hour and estimated the rate of $159.40 per hour instead to reflect current market rates.

Response: The Agency believes the revisions made to the currently approved ICR Supporting Statement are appropriate based on amendments to TSCA under the Lautenberg Act and believes it appropriately presents such revisions in a format that both describes changes to the TSCA section 4 program and estimated changes in burden projected to be associated with the three-year cycle. In order to present changes to the relevant substantive portions of TSCA and burden estimate changes since the currently approved ICR, it is important to include both legacy program activities as well as projected program activities.

The Agency did not include costs for reimbursement arbitration for multiple reasons. The primary reason being this activity has not been undertaken in past ICR cycles. Based on this prior history, the Agency is assuming zero reimbursement arbitration actions will occur during the 3-year ICR cycle covered by this ICR. While the Agency does acknowledge test orders are new component to TSCA program under the 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments, and TSCA section 6 risk evaluation activities are expected to increase section 4 activities, companies are identified in the test orders and through actions under separate Fees Rule reporting requirements. If a company decided to start the reimbursement arbitration process, the finding or identifying of non-participant companies would already be available through the details of the test order. In general, EPA will update its preliminary estimates to reflect more recent projections of the potential number of orders that may be issued.

The estimate of consortium administration being 15 percent of the total laboratory costs is used to maintain consistency between the assumptions of this ICR and those used in the final Fees Rule. As the Fees Rule went through the EO 12886 rule review process and was finalized in September 2018, the Agency does not agree that deviating from those assumptions is appropriate at this time without significant documentation and data.

Costs for some pre-reporting activities are included in the activity under "Letter of Intent." The activity of "compliance determination" is not included in the burden calculations because it involves a task of negligible burden by which the respondent recognizes whether each chemical subject to the test rule or order is a chemical that the company manufactures. Also, with the issuance of test orders, the Agency will have conducted much of the pre-reporting activities as part of its determination of which manufacturers (including importers) and /or processor are to be issued the order.

EDF Comments:

Comment 1: EDF provided several comments related to the battery of tests included in the ICR Supporting Statement. EDF commented that the Agency should include other types of tests to pursue information on chemicals subject to current or upcoming risk evaluations under TSCA section 6. EDF commented that there have been data gaps that need to be addressed with a wide range of tests, including health effects and exposure studies. EDF also commented that the test battery considerations under the revisions included in this ICR Supporting Statement present a reduction in tests and test types from the currently approved ICR, and should not be reduced, but rather expanded upon.

Response: The purpose of providing a test battery in the ICR Supporting Statement is to estimate projected burden over the course of the following three-year ICR cycle for information collection activities associated with TSCA section 4 information development actions. It is not to indicate that EPA is limited to those specific tests in carrying out its programmatic information collection activities under TSCA section 4 in all cases. The number of section 4 actions to be issued, which companies will be subject to those actions, and what specific testing requirements under those actions will be based on information needs identified by EPA to support EPA's review of chemicals on a case-by-case basis. The testing battery used in this ICR is included as a proxy for the burden and cost associated with TSCA section 4 actions the Agency may require industry to perform. It is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but as an estimate of the potential burden and costs a company may experience as a result of a TSCA section 4 action. As the implementation of this section of TSCA evolves, so will the methodology the Agency uses to provide projected estimates of these burdens.

Comment 2: EDF commented that it is not clear whether the ICR's estimates for the number of testing actions to be issued consider testing through TSCA section 4 to pursue the development of information for new chemicals under TSCA section 5. The commenter remarked that the TSCA reforms of 2016 provided the Agency with explicit authority to do so and suggested that section 4 should be utilized for purposes of developing information related to new chemical notices and applications received by the Agency under TSCA section 5.

Response: While section 4(a)(2) provides some testing authority pertaining to TSCA section 5, EPA notes that section 5(e) provides its own testing authority, such that specific tests required in a section 5(e) order might not rely at all upon section 4(a)(2). That being said, this ICR specifically mentions that the Agency has the explicit authority to pursue the development of information pursuant to several approaches, including for certain TSCA section 5 purposes. The number of estimated testing actions in this ICR are projections based on recent information and past experience. The ICR Supporting Statement is not intended to state or imply that the Agency is limited to pursuing testing actions under any one particular testing authority under TSCA section 4(a). The Agency will continue to update such estimates as the TSCA section 4 program continues to develop pursuant to the Lautenberg Act amendments and as experience and data continue to become available, estimates and projections will be refined accordingly. Note that current information collection activities, including related to testing and developing information, pursuant to TSCA section 5 are covered under the existing ICR with OMB Control No. 2070-0012.

Comment 3: EDF also commented that the ICR's discussion related to confidentiality/confidential business information (CBI) does not accurately reflect TSCA section 14. The commenter highlighted certain descriptions in the ICR Supporting Statement including "[c]onfidentiality of responses: [r]espondents may claim all or part of a document confidential," (page 4 of ICR Supporting Statement); "to the extent that reported information is not considered to be CBI, environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, industry, state and local government entities and other members of the public may have access to this information for their own use," (page 8 of the ICR Supporting Statement); and "CBI substantiation to support confidentiality claims for relevant data elements for the overall submission throughout the testing period (see list of transactions in Table 4) must be provided in conjunction with the study plan transmittal. The CBI substantiations address chemical identity (chemID) and other data elements." (pages 23, 26, and 28 of Supporting Statement). The commenter remarked that these statements are not accurate in light of details related to what information may be claimed as CBI under TSCA section 14 and what may not and what entities may have access to such information.

Response: The commenter takes statements in the ICR regarding information that may be confidential and assumes that EPA is making assertions about what information is entitled to confidential treatment under TSCA.

Rather, EPA is acknowledging the requirements in Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B that information claimed as confidential must be protected in accordance with these regulations until and unless a determination is made that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment, and (in accordance with TSCA §14(g)(2), the submitter is given advance notice of EPA's determination. Consistent with this, the description within the "confidentiality" section of part 3(f) on page 11 of the ICR Supporting Statement includes, in part, the following:

Information submitted to EPA in response to test rules, test orders, and consent agreements, is, in most cases, non-confidential. Respondents may claim all or part of a document submitted to be confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14, 40 CFR part 2, 40 CFR 790, and any specific confidentiality requirements under a particular testing action.

In this context, the use of the word "document" is not intended to imply that an entire study or particular document submitted under a TSCA section 4 action would, or under TSCA section 14 is permitted to be claimed CBI. It is merely meant to describe that claiming and substantiating CBI are generally part of the burden associated with the information collection activities. The use of the phrase "other data elements" is also not intended to convey that certain health and safety studies, if not otherwise protected from disclosure under TSCA section 14, would be. The reference to chemical identity and other data elements in the ICR is merely to recognize that TSCA section 14 specifies certain aspects related to chemical identity compared to various other types of information claimed CBI, and therefore this is noted in the ICR.
The descriptions are also not intended to convey that if a particular entity has the statutory or other relevant authority to access CBI information, that such information would be improperly withheld from such entities. As stated in the excerpt above from page 11 of the ICR Supporting Statement, the Agency will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14, 40 CFR part 2, 40 CFR 790, and any specific confidentiality requirements under a particular testing action.
ACC Comments:
Comment 1: ACC commented that the EPA must take the steps necessary to facilitate the efficient collection of information through its TSCA section 4 testing authority should the use of that authority be warranted. ACC acknowledged certain statutory provisions noted in the ICR Supporting Statement including requirements related to vertebrate testing under TSCA section 4(h) and tiered testing [under section 4(a)(4)]. The commenter recommended ways the Agency could minimize the overall burden to respondents of EPA's future TSCA section 4 testing requirements by providing more specifics about how these statutory provisions would be implemented by the Agency when using its section 4 testing authority, as well as utilizing the Agency's authority under TSCA section 8 before proceeding with exercising its authority under TSCA section 4, and consulting and collaborating with potential respondents of TSCA section 4 testing requirements.

Response: Tiered testing provisions of TSCA section 4 will be considered depending on whether particular information needs are fulfilled by lower tiered testing compared with more advanced testing. The Agency has been pursuing relevant alternatives to vertebrate testing, and will continue to review and develop viable alternatives to vertebrate testing and the use of lower tiered testing as it implements its TSCA section 4 testing authority, in line with the statutory requirements and the information available. More information about the Agency's Strategic Plan and alternatives to vertebrate testing under TSCA can be found at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/alternative-test-methods-and-strategies-reduce. The Agency appreciates these suggestions and the suggestions to consult and collaborate with potential test action respondents and to utilize section 8 authority before exercising section 4 authority.

Comment 2: ACC also commented that the Agency appeared to have undertaken a thorough analysis and the average hourly wages used by the agency in the ICR appeared to be appropriate and reasonable, but noted that it could not evaluate the accuracy of the number of chemicals per action, the number of respondents, or the estimates of the number of activities discussed in the ICR without more context to how these estimates were determined without more detail regarding the assumptions and methodologies used.

Response: As presented in the ICR Supporting Statement, including Appendix C, certain estimated inputs such as number of chemicals per action and number of sponsors are derived from estimates presented in the Economic Analysis associated with the Fees Rule (2018), with appropriate updates for the ICR, accounting for prospective generic assumptions for the next three-year ICR cycle. Also, details about the methodologies used for this ICR are provided throughout the ICR with additional information on the methodology presented in appendices such as Appendix E. The assumptions considered in this ICR will be further refined and updated in future ICR renewals, as appropriate, as more data and experience related to the implementation of the new aspects of the TSCA section 4 testing program become available and evident.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47732-47733]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 396

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0176]
RIN 2126-AB81

Amendments to Regulatory Guidance Concerning Periodic Inspection
of Commercial Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Amendment of regulatory guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends regulatory guidance, previously published in the
Federal Register, regarding the periodic inspection of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs). Elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register,
FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to,
among other things, eliminate the option for a motor carrier to satisfy
the periodic (annual) inspection requirement through a violation-free
roadside inspection. As a result of this amendment to the FMCSRs,
certain regulatory guidance is amended to ensure consistency between
the FMCSRs and the published guidance.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulatory guidance is effective July 22,
2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 1993, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) \1\ published ``Regulatory Guidance for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations'' at 58 FR 60734. The
publication included interpretations of

49 CFR 396.17, a rule that requires all CMVs to be inspected at least
once every 12 months in accordance with Appendix G to the FMCSRs
(``Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards''), and 49 CFR 396.23, a rule
that identifies alternative inspections that are considered equivalent
to the annual inspection required under 49 CFR 396.17. The Agency
interpreted the regulations to permit a roadside inspection to be
considered as equivalent to the annual inspection. The regulatory
guidance was republished on April 4, 1997, at 62 FR 16370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 [Pub. L.
106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (December 9, 1999)] established the FMCSA in
the Department of Transportation. On January 4, 2000, the Office of
the Secretary published a final rule delegating to the FMCSA
Administrator the motor carrier safety functions required by MCSIA,
which included certain motor carrier safety functions previously
delegated to the FHWA (65 FR 200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final rule issued by FMCSA, published elsewhere in today's issue
of the Federal Register, amends 49 CFR 396.17(f) and removes 49 CFR
396.23(a) to eliminate the option for a motor carrier to meet the
periodic inspection requirements through roadside inspections.
    Because not every element of Appendix G is reviewed/inspected
during a roadside inspection conducted under the North American
Standard Inspection, most roadside inspections do not meet the periodic
(annual) inspection requirements under 49 CFR 396.17. For this reason,
FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to allow motor
carriers to use roadside inspections conducted by enforcement officials
to satisfy the annual inspection requirements in 49 CFR 396.17(f).
Motor carriers or their agents will now be required to complete a
periodic inspection of every CMV under their control in accordance with
Appendix G at least once every 12 months, irrespective of whether a
roadside inspection is performed, unless the vehicle is subject to a
mandatory State inspection program in accordance with 49 CFR 396.23
which has been determined to be as effective as the requirements of 49
CFR 396.17.
    Given the amendments to 49 CFR 396.17(f) discussed above, the final
rule also removes 49 CFR 396.23(a), which currently permits a roadside
inspection program of a State or other jurisdiction to be considered as
meeting the periodic inspection requirements of 49 CFR 396.17.
    As a result of the final rule, and to maintain consistency between
the amended FMCSRs and the published regulatory guidance, two
regulatory guidance questions/answers are amended as follows:

Section 396.17, Question 1

    Question 1: Some of a motor carrier's vehicles are registered in a
State with a mandated inspection program which has been determined to
be as effective as the Federal periodic inspection program, but these
vehicles are not used in that State. Is the motor carrier required to
make sure the vehicles are inspected under that State's program in
order to meet the Federal periodic inspection requirements?
    Guidance: If the State requires all vehicles registered in the
State to be inspected through its mandatory program, then the motor
carrier must use the State program to satisfy the Federal requirements.
If, however, the State inspection program includes an exception or
exemption for vehicles which are registered in the State but domiciled
outside of the State, then the motor carrier may meet the Federal
requirements through a self-inspection, a third party inspection, or a
periodic inspection performed in any State with a program that the
Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) determines is comparable
to, or as effective as, the part 396 requirements.

Section 396.23, Question 1

    Question 1: Can a violation-free Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) Level I or Level V inspection be used to satisfy the periodic
inspection requirements of Sec.  396.17?
    Guidance: No, a CVSA Level I or Level V inspection is not
equivalent to the Federal periodic inspection requirements.

    Issued on July 14, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17362 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Attachment 2 for Genentech?s Primary Submission Document for Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0621


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73908-73910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0678; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-285-AD;
Amendment 39-17280; AD 2012-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by multiple reports of integrated display unit (IDU)
malfunctions and mode control panel (MCP) malfunctions. This AD
requires installing new software, replacing the duct assembly with a
new duct assembly, making wiring changes, and routing certain wire
bundles. We are issuing this AD to prevent IDU malfunctions, which
could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read primary displays for
airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the
ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 16, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 16,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace
Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2012 (77 FR
40832). That NPRM proposed to require installing new software,
replacing the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, making wiring
changes, and routing certain wire bundles.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 40832, July 11, 2012), and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Use Unissued Service Information

    Boeing requested that we refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-21A2523, Revision 2, which has not been issued, instead of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011,
as the appropriate source of service information in the NPRM (77 FR
40832, July 11, 2012). Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-21A2523, Revision 2, describes additional wire changes for Model
747-400 airplanes, and that one additional airplane is added to the
effectivity of that service bulletin.
    We disagree to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523,
Revision 2, in this AD. That service bulletin has not been issued.
Referring to a document that has not been issued violates the Federal
Register regulations for materials incorporated by reference rules. See
1 CFR 51.1(f). We do not consider that delaying this action until after
the release of a planned service bulletin is warranted. Additionally,
increasing the AD applicability would require issuing a supplemental
NPRM for public comment. We find that delaying this action would be
inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. Once Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 2, is issued and we have
reviewed that service bulletin, we might consider further AD
rulemaking. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined
that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 40832, July 11, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 40832, July 11, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duct assembly and replacement wiring    41 work-hours x $85 per          $20,121         $23,606        $778,998
 changes.                                hour = $3,485.
Software change.......................  3 work-hours x $85 per                 0             255           8,415
                                         hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General requirements.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-24-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17280; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0678; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-285-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 16, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October
3, 2011.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of integrated display
unit (IDU) malfunctions and mode control panel (MCP) malfunctions.
We are issuing this AD to prevent IDU malfunctions, which could
affect the ability of the flightcrew to read primary displays for
airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce
the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

(g) Software Update

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Install
integrated display system software, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated October 3, 2011, refers to
the service bulletins specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD as additional sources of guidance for the software
installation specified by paragraph (g) of this AD, which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2426, dated July 29, 2010
(for airplanes with Rolls-Royce engines).
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2427, dated July 29, 2010
(for airplanes with General Electric engines).
    (3) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2428, dated July 29, 2010
(for airplanes with Pratt & Whitney engines).

(h) Duct Assembly Replacement and Wiring Changes

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the duct assembly with a new duct assembly, do wiring changes, and
route certain wire bundles, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision
1, dated October 3, 2011.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ana Martinez
Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems
Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2523, Revision 1, dated
October 3, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29707 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36039-36040]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0079]

Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Meeting Notice--Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency
Medical Services.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA announces a meeting of the Federal Interagency Committee
on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS) to be held in the Washington, DC
area. This notice announces the date, time and location of the meeting,
which will be open to the public. Pre-registration is required to
attend.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 25, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. EDT to
12:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Headquarters Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590 in the Conference Center on the ground floor of the West
building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Dawson, Director, Office of
Emergency Medical Services, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC
20590, Telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Required Registration Information: This meeting will be open to the
public,;

however, pre-registration is required to comply with security
procedures. Picture I.D. must be provided to enter the DOT Building and
it is suggested that visitors arrive 20-30 minutes early in order to
facilitate entry. Members of the public wishing to attend must register
online at www.regonline.com/FICEMSJune2012 no later than June 21, 2012.
Please be aware that visitors to DOT are subject to search and must
pass through a magnetometer. Weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden
in the building unless authorized through the performance of the
official duties of your employment (i.e. law enforcement officer).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 10202 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users
(SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, provides that the FICEMS consist of
several officials from Federal agencies as well as a State emergency
medical services director appointed by the Secretary of Transportation.
SAFETEA-LU directs the Administrator of NHTSA, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration of
the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of the
Preparedness Division, Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and
Response of the Department of Homeland Security, to provide
administrative support to the Interagency Committee, including
scheduling meetings, setting agendas, keeping minutes and records, and
producing reports.
    This meeting of the FICEMS will focus on addressing the
requirements of SAFETEA-LU and the opportunities for collaboration
among the key Federal agencies involved in emergency medical services.
The tentative agenda includes:

 Discussion of Response to Recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board
    [cir] Update on Helicopter Emergency Medical Services
recommendations
    [cir] Status of responses to Mexican Hat, Utah Motorcoach Crash
recommendations
 Review of correspondence received
 Reports and updates from Technical Working Group committees
 A discussion of FICEMS strategic planning process
 A discussion of recently finalized recommendations from the
National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC) including a response to the
FICEMS request for information regarding the Model Uniform Core
Criteria (MUCC) for mass casualty incident triage
 Reports, updates, and recommendations from FICEMS members
 A public comment period

    There will not be a call-in number provided for this FICEMS
meeting; however, minutes of the meeting will be available to the
public online at www.ems.gov.

    Issued on: June 12, 2012.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2012-14666 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P