[Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 68854-68855]
[DOCID:fr09no10-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0143; Notice 1]

JCA Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    JCA Corporation (JCA) \1\ has determined that certain Trail America
brand Special Trailer ``ST'' tires that it imported failed to meet the
requirements of paragraph S6.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of more than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. JCA
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated October 19, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ JCA Corporation (JCA) is a State of Washington corporation
that imports replacement motor vehicle equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), JCA has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of JCA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    JCA estimates that approximately 899,804 Trail America brand
Special Trailer ``ST'' tires that were manufactured from January 1,
2008, through October 15, 2009, by Tianjin Kings Glory Tire Company,
LTD. of Qiaosandao, Yangliuqing, Xiqing Tianjin, China 300380, and
imported by JCA are affected.
    Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. The markings shall be
placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall
decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall,
unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area
which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to
the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section width falls within
that area, the markings shall appear between the bead and a point
one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on
at least one sidewall. The markings shall be in letters and numerals
not less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised above or sunk below
the tire surface not less than 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25mm (0.010 inch) in the case
of motorcycle tires. The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may
appear on only one sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be used
in the case of motorcycle tires and recreational, boat, baggage, and
special trailer tires * * *
    (d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure
of the tire, shown as follows: * * *
    (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load ----kg (---
-lb) at ----kPa (----psi) cold.

    JCA states that the noncompliance is that the maximum single load
labeling and maximum inflation pressures on the sidewalls of the tires
are in English units of ``lb'' and ``psi'' only, no Metric units are
included as required by paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119.
    JCA explained that no property damage or accidents have been
reported to it or its customers as a result of the subject
noncompliance.
    JCA further explains that it has taken steps to correct the
noncompliance in future production.
    JCA also states that it believes the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the affected tires
fulfill all other relevant requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    Supported by the above stated reasons, JCA believes that the
described noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http: //www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Dates: Comment closing date: December 9, 2010.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 3, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-28194 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33011-33017]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53909; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2 Relating to the Processing of Complex Orders in the Hybrid
Trading System

May 31, 2006.
    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 August 24, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE.
The CBOE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposal on March 13,
2006, and April 27, 2006, respectively.\3\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaces and supersedes the original filing
and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its procedures applicable to trading complex
orders on the Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid System'') to provide for
an automated Request for Responses (``RFR'') auction process for
certain eligible complex orders (``COA'' process). CBOE is also
proposing to make various changes to the existing routing and execution
processes applicable to the complex order book (``COB'') and various
changes to its rules pertaining generally to the minimum increments
applicable to complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change
appears below. Additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed].
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

Rule 6.9. Solicited Transactions

    A member or member organization representing an order respecting an
option traded on the Exchange (an ``original order''), including a
spread, combination, or straddle order as defined in Rule 6.53, a
stock-option order as defined in Rule 1.1(ii) [or], a security future-
option order as defined in Rule 1.1(zz), or any other complex order as
defined in Rule 6.53C, may solicit a member or member organization or a
non-member customer or broker-dealer (the ``solicited person'') to
transact in-person or by order (a ``solicited order'') with the
original order. In addition, whenever a floor broker who is aware of,
but does not represent, an original order solicits one or more persons
or orders in response to an original order, the persons solicited and
any resulting orders are solicited persons or solicited orders subject
to this Rule. Original orders and solicited orders are subject to the
following conditions.
    (a)-(f) No change.
    * * * Interpretations & Policies:
    .01-.02 No change.
    .03 In respect of any solicited order that is a spread, straddle or
combination order as defined in Rule 6.53, or any other complex order
as defined in Rule

6.53C, the terms ``bid'' and ``offer'' as used in subparagraphs (a)-(d)
of this Rule 6.9 mean ``total net debit'' and ``total net credit,''
respectively.
    .04-.07 No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.42. Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers

    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) Bids and offers on spread, straddle, or combination orders as
defined in Rule 6.53, or any other complex order as defined in Rule
6.53C, may be expressed in any increment, and the legs of such an order
may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum
increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, bids and offers on spread,
straddle, [or] combination, or other complex orders as defined in Rule
6.53C, in options on the S&P 500 Index or on the S&P 100 Index, except
for box spreads, shall be expressed in decimal increments no smaller
than $0.05. Spread, straddle, [or] combination, or other complex orders
as defined in Rule 6.53C expressed in net price increments that are not
multiples of the minimal increment are not entitled to the same
priority under Rule 6.45 as such orders expressed in increments that
are multiples of the minimum increment.
    * * * Interpretations & Policies:
    No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.45. Priority of Bids and Offers--Allocation of Trades

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Complex Order Priority Exception: A spread, straddle,
combination, or ratio order (or a stock-option order or security
future-option order, as defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(b) and Rule 1.1(zz)(b),
respectively), or any other complex order as defined in Rule 6.53C, may
be executed at a net debit or credit price (in a multiple of the
minimum increment) with another member without giving priority to
equivalent bids (offers) in the trading crowd or in the book provided
at least one leg of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) in
the book. Stock-option orders and security future-option orders, as
defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule 1.1(zz)(a) respectively, have
priority over bids (offers) of the trading crowd but not over bids
(offers) of public customers in the limit order book.
* * * * *

Rule 6.45A.--Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the
CBOE Hybrid System

    (a) No change.
    (b) Allocation of Orders Represented in Open Outcry: The allocation
of orders that are represented in open outcry by floor brokers or PAR
Officials shall be as described below in subparagraphs (b)(i) and
(b)(ii). With respect to subparagraph (b)(ii), the floor broker or PAR
Official representing the order shall determine the sequence in which
bids (offers) are made.
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) Exception: Complex Order Priority: A spread, straddle,
combination, or ratio order (or a stock-option order or security
future-option order, as defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(b) and Rule 1.1(zz)(b),
respectively), or any other complex order as defined in Rule 6.53C, may
be executed at a net debit or credit price (in a multiple of the
minimum increment) with another member without giving priority to
equivalent bids (offers) in the trading crowd or in the book provided
at least one leg of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) in
the book. Stock-option orders and security future-option orders, as
defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule 1.1(zz)(a) respectively, have
priority over bids (offers) of the trading crowd but not over bids
(offers) of public customers in the limit order book.
    (iv) No change.
    (c)-(e) No change.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.45B--Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and
Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System

    (a) No change.
    (b) Allocation of Orders Represented in Open Outcry: The allocation
of orders that are represented in the trading crowd by floor brokers or
PAR Officials shall be as described below in subparagraphs (b)(i) and
(b)(ii). With respect to subparagraph (b)(ii), the floor broker or PAR
Official representing the order shall determine the sequence in which
bids (offers) are made.
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) Exception: Complex Order Priority: A member holding a spread,
straddle, or combination order (or a stock-option order or security
future-option order as defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(b) and Rule 1.1(zz)(b),
respectively), or any other complex order as defined in Rule 6.53C, and
bidding (offering) on a net debit or credit basis (in a multiple of the
minimum increment) may execute the order with another member without
giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the trading crowd or in
the electronic book provided at least one leg of the order betters the
corresponding bid (offer) in the book. Stock-option orders and security
future-option orders, as defined in Rule 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule
1.1(zz)(a), respectively, have priority over bids (offers) of the
trading crowd but not over bids (offers) of public customers in the
limit order book.
    (c)-(d) No change.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.53C. Complex Orders on the Hybrid System

    RULE 6.53C. (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Complex Order Book
    (i) No change.
    [(ii) Priority of Complex Orders in the COB: Orders from public
customers have priority over orders from non-public customers. Multiple
public customer complex orders at the same price are accorded priority
based on time.]
    [(iii)] (ii) Execution of Complex Orders in the COB:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 6.42, the appropriate Exchange
committee will determine on a class-by-class basis whether complex
orders that are routed to or resting in the COB may be expressed on a
net price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or
$0.10, as applicable) or in a one cent increment. All pronouncements
regarding COB increments will be announced to the membership via
Regulatory Circular. Complex orders resting in the COB may be executed
without consideration to prices of the same complex orders that might
be available on other exchanges, and the legs of a complex order may be
executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum quoting
increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order.
Complex orders resting in the COB may trade in the following way:
    (1) Orders and Quotes in the [Electronic Book (``]EBook['')]: A
complex order in the COB will automatically execute against individual
orders or quotes residing in EBook provided the complex order can be
executed in full (or in a permissible ratio) by the orders and quotes
in EBook.
    (2) Orders in COB: Complex orders in the COB that are marketable
against each other will automatically execute. The allocation of a
complex order within the COB shall be pursuant to the rules of trading
priority otherwise applicable to incoming electronic orders in the
individual component legs.
    (3) Market participants, as defined in [CBOE] Rule 6.45A or 6.45B,
as applicable, may submit orders or quotes to trade against orders in
the COB. The

allocation of complex orders among market participants shall be done
pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(c) or 6.45B(c), as applicable.
    [(iv)] (iii) Complex orders in the COB may be designated as day
orders or good-til-cancelled orders. Only those complex orders with no
more than four legs and having a ratio of one-to-three or lower, as
determined by the appropriate Exchange committee, are eligible for
placement into the COB.
    (d) Process for Complex Order RFR Auction: Prior to routing to the
COB or once on PAR, eligible complex orders may be subject to an
automated request for responses (``RFR'') auction process.
    (i) For purposes of paragraph (d):
    (1) ``COA'' is the automated complex order RFR auction process.
    (2) A ``COA-eligible order'' means a complex order that, as
determined by the appropriate Exchange committee on a class-by-class
basis, is eligible for a COA considering the order's marketability
(defined as a number of ticks away from the current market), size and
complex order type, as defined in paragraph (a) above. All
pronouncements regarding COA eligibility will be announced to the
membership via Regulatory Circular. Complex orders processed through a
COA may be executed without consideration to prices of the same complex
orders that might be available on other exchanges.
    (3) The ``Response Time Interval'' means the period of time during
which responses to the RFR may be entered.
    (ii) Initiation of a COA: On receipt of a COA-eligible order and
request from the member representing the order that it be COA'd, the
Exchange will send an RFR message to all members who have elected to
receive RFR messages. The RFR message will identify the component
series, the size of the COA-eligible order and any contingencies, if
applicable, but will not identify the side of the market.
    (iii) Bidding and Offering in Response to RFRs: Each Market-Maker
with an appointment in the relevant option class, and each member
acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the COB in the
relevant options series, may submit responses to the RFR message (``RFR
Responses'') during the Response Time Interval.
    (1) RFR Response sizes will be limited to the size of the COA-
eligible order for allocation purposes and may be expressed on a net
price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or
$0.10, as applicable) or in a one cent increment as determined by the
appropriate Exchange committee on a class-by-class basis. RFR Responses
will not be visible (other than by the COA system).
    (2) The appropriate Exchange committee will determine the length of
the Response Time Interval on a class-by-class basis; provided,
however, that the duration shall not exceed three (3) seconds.
    All pronouncements regarding COA increments and the Response Time
Interval will be announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular.
    (iv) Processing of COA-Eligible Orders: At the expiration of the
Response Time Interval, COA-eligible orders will be allocated in
accordance with subparagraph (v) below or routed in accordance with
subparagraph (vi) below.
    (v) Execution of COA-Eligible Orders: COA-eligible orders may be
executed without consideration to prices of the same complex orders
that might be available on other exchanges, and the legs of a COA-
eligible order may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of
the minimum quoting increments otherwise appropriate to the individual
legs of the order. COA-eligible orders will trade first based on the
best net price(s) and, at the same net price, will be allocated in the
following way:
    (1) The individual orders and quotes residing in the EBook shall
have first priority to trade against a COA-eligible order provided the
COA-eligible order can be executed in full (or in a permissible ratio)
by the orders and quotes in the EBook. The allocation of a COA-eligible
order against the EBook shall be consistent with the UMA allocation
described in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable.
    (2) Public customer complex orders resting in the COB before, or
that are received during, the Response Time Interval and public
customer RFR Responses shall, collectively have second priority to
trade against a COA-eligible order. The allocation of a COA-eligible
order against the public customer complex orders resting in the COB
shall be according to time priority.
    (3) Non-public customer orders resting in the COB before the
Response Time Interval shall have third priority to trade against a
COA-eligible order. The allocation of a COA-eligible order against non-
public customer orders resting in the COB shall be pursuant to the UMA
allocation described in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable.
    (4) Non-public customer orders resting in the COB that are received
during the Response Time Interval and non-public customer RFR responses
shall, collectively, have fourth priority. The allocation of a COA-
eligible order against these opposing orders shall be consistent with
the CUMA allocation described in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable.
    (vi) Routing of COA-Eligible Orders: If a COA-eligible order cannot
be filled in whole or in a permissible ratio, the order (or any
remaining balance) will route to the COB or back to PAR, as applicable.
    (vii) Firm Quote Requirement for COA-Eligible Orders: RFR Responses
represent non-firm interest that can be modified or withdrawn at any
time prior to the end of the Response Time Interval. At the end of the
Response Time Interval, RFR Responses shall be firm only with respect
to the COA-eligible order for which it is submitted, provided that RFR
Responses that exceed the size of a COA-eligible order are also
eligible to trade with other incoming COA-eligible orders that are
received during the Response Time Interval. Any RFR Responses not
accepted in whole or in a permissible ratio will expire at the end of
the Response Time Interval.
    (viii) Handling of Unrelated Complex Orders: Incoming complex
orders that are received prior to the expiration of the Response Time
Interval for a COA-eligible order (the ``original COA'') will impact
the original COA as follows:
    (1) Incoming complex orders that are received prior to the
expiration of the Response Time Interval for the original COA that are
on the opposite side of the market and are marketable against the
starting price of the original COA-eligible order will cause the
original COA to end. The processing of the original COA pursuant to
subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) remains the same. For purposes of
this Rule, the ``starting price,'' shall mean the better of the
original COA-eligible order's limit price or the best price, on a net
debit or credit basis, that existed in the EBook or COB at the
beginning of the Response Time Interval.
    (2) Incoming COA-eligible orders that are received prior to the
expiration of the Response Time Interval for the original COA that are
on the same side of the market, at the same price or worse than the
original COA-eligible order and better than or equal to the starting
price will join the original COA. The processing of the original COA
pursuant to subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) remains the same with
the addition that the priority of the original COA-eligible order and
incoming COA-eligible order(s) shall be according to time priority.
    (3) Incoming COA-eligible orders that are received prior to the
expiration of the Response Time Interval for the

original COA that are on the same side of the market and at a better
price than the original COA-eligible order will join the original COA,
cause the original COA to end, and a new COA to begin for any remaining
balance on the incoming COA-eligible order. The processing of the
original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) remains
the same with the addition that the priority of the original COA-
eligible order and incoming COA-eligible order shall be a according to
time priority.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.02 No change.
    .03 With respect to the initiation of a COA (as described in Rule
6.53C(d)(ii)), members routing complex orders directly to the COB may
request that the complex orders be COA'd on a class-by-class basis and
members with resting complex orders on PAR may request that complex
orders be COA'd on an order-by-order basis.
    .04 A pattern or practice of submitting orders that cause a COA to
conclude early will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 4.1.
    .05 Disseminating information regarding COA-eligible orders to
third parties will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 4.1 and other
Exchange Rules.
* * * * *

Rule 6.74. Crossing Orders

    (a)-(f) No change.
    * * * Interpretations & Policies:
    .01-.02 No change.
    .03 Spread, straddle, stock-option (as defined in Rule 1.1(ii)),
inter-regulatory spread as defined in Rule 1.1(ll) (including security
future-option orders as defined in Rule 1.1(zz) [or], combination
orders, or any other complex orders as defined in Rule 6.53C on
opposite sides of the market may be crossed, provided that the Floor
Broker holding such orders proceeds in the manner described in
paragraphs (a) or (b) above as appropriate. Members may not prevent a
spread, straddle, stock-option, inter-regulatory spread (including a
security future-option order), [or] combination, or any other complex
order cross from being completed by giving a competing bid or offer for
one component of such order.
    .04-.08 No change.
* * * * *

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 CBOE 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 CBOE 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 Commission recently approved Exchange Rule 6.53C, ``Complex
Orders on the Hybrid System,'' which sets forth the procedures for
trading complex orders on CBOE's Hybrid System.\4\ As an enhancement to
the current COB system, CBOE intends to develop a COA process, which
the Exchange believes will, in turn, facilitate more automated handling
of complex orders. The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt
corresponding revisions to Exchange Rule 6.53C. In addition, CBOE is
proposing to make certain changes to the existing COB provisions
contained in Exchange Rule 6.53C to better describe the allocation
methodology for executing orders in the COB. Lastly, CBOE is proposing
to make certain modifications and clarifications to its rules generally
pertaining to complex order minimum increments.
a. Automated RFR Auction Process for Complex Orders
    Exchange Rule 6.53C sets forth the process for trading complex
orders in the Hybrid System, including whether complex orders will be
routed to a PAR workstation (for manual handling) or the complex order
book (for automated handling) and, once in the COB, the manner in which
complex orders execute against the electronic book (``the EBook''),
orders resting in the COB, and market participants' orders submitted to
trade against the COB. The proposed COA-related amendments will
introduce new functionality that will give certain eligible complex
orders an opportunity for price improvement before being booked in the
COB or once on PAR.\5\ Proposed paragraph (d) of Exchange Rule 6.53C
will describe the COA process. The proposed rule change will give the
appropriate Exchange committee the authority to determine on a class-
by-class basis what incoming complex orders are eligible for a COA
based on marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the
current market), size and the complex order type (``COA-eligible
orders'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51271 (February 28,
2005), 70 FR 10712 (March 4, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-
CBOE-2004-45).
    \5\ Currently, stock-option orders, security futures-option
orders, and conversions and reversals are not eligible for routing
to COB and, similarly, will not be eligible for routing to COA.
    \6\ For example, the appropriate Exchange committee could
determine that spread orders are eligible for a COA to the extent
they are less than two ticks away from the ``top of the book,''
which would be the best price considering the net prices available
in the complex order book and the individual component legs quoted
in the CBOE market. All pronouncements, including changes thereto,
regarding COA eligibility and Response Time Intervals will be
announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon receiving a COA-eligible order and a request by the member
representing the order that it be COA'd,\7\ the Exchange will send an
RFR message to CBOE members with an interface connection to CBOE that
have elected to receive such RFR messages. This RFR message will
identify the component series, the size of the COA-eligible order and
any contingencies, if applicable. However, the RFR message will not
identify the side of the market (i.e., whether the COA-eligible order
is to buy or to sell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Systemically, members will be able to make this request for
incoming orders routing directly to COB on a class-by-class basis
and for resting PAR orders on an order-by-order basis. If an
incoming order is not COA-eligible or not designated for a COA, it
will be routed to either PAR or the COB in accordance with Exchange
Rule 6.53C(c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market-Makers with an appointment in the relevant options class,
and members acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the COB in
the relevant options series, may electronically submit responses (``RFR
Responses''), and modify or withdraw them, at any time during the
request response time interval (the ``Response Time Interval''). RFR
Responses must be in a permissible ratio, and may be expressed on a net
price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or
$0.10, as applicable) or in a one-cent increment as determined by the
appropriate Exchange committee on a class-by-class basis. In addition,
RFR Response sizes will be limited to the size of the COA-eligible
order for allocation purposes. RFR Responses will not be visible (other
than by the COA system). The applicable Response Time Interval will be
determined by the appropriate Exchange committee on a

class-by-class basis and, in any event, will not exceed three
seconds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, the appropriate Exchange committee could
determine to set the timer for a particular class to a random time
interval determined by the Exchange system between two and three
seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Response Time Interval expires, the COA-eligible order
will be executed and allocated to the extent it is marketable, or
routed to the COB or back to PAR to the extent it is not marketable.\9\
If executed, the rules of trading priority will provide that the COA-
eligible order be executed based first on net price and, at the same
net price: (i) The individual component orders and quotes in the EBook
shall have first priority to trade against the COA-eligible order; (ii)
public customer complex orders resting in the COB before, or that are
received during, the Response Time Interval and public customer RFR
Responses shall, collectively, have second priority; (iii) non-public
customer complex orders resting in the COB before the Response Time
Interval shall have third priority; and (iv) non-public customer
complex orders resting in the COB that are received during the Response
Time Interval and non-public customer RFR Responses shall,
collectively, have fourth priority.\10\ Allocations within the first
category above (orders residing in the EBook) shall be based upon the
Hybrid System ultimate matching algorithm (``UMA'') pertaining to
equity options or index/exchange-traded fund options in Exchange Rules
6.45A and 6.45B, respectively, as applicable.\11\ Allocations within
the second category above (public customer complex orders resting in
the COB and public customer RFR Responses) shall be based on time when
multiple public customer complex orders or RFR Responses exist at the
same price. Allocations within the third category above (non-public
customer orders resting in the COB before the Response Time Interval)
shall be based on the applicable UMA algorithm. Allocations within the
fourth category above (non-public customer orders received during the
Response Time Interval in the COB and non-public customer RFR
Responses) shall be based on the Hybrid System ultimate matching
algorithm in Exchange Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable, which caps
the maximum quote size to be no greater than the underlying order for
allocation purposes (``CUMA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if no RFR Responses are received in the
Response Time Interval and the COA-eligible order is not marketable
against the individual orders and quotes in the EBook, the COA-
eligible order would be routed to the COB or, as applicable, back to
PAR at the expiration of the Response Time Interval. If routed to
COB, the order would then be subject to execution in accordance with
the provisions of Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(iii) (proposed to be
renumbered as Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)). If routed back to PAR,
the member holding the order would have the ability to represent the
order in open outcry, trade the order against the COB in accordance
with Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(iii)(3) (proposed to be renumbered as
Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(3)), or route the order to COB in
accordance with Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(i).
    \10\ RFR Responses that exceed the size of the COA-eligible
order are also eligible to trade with other marketable COA-eligible
orders that may be received during the Response Time Interval. See
proposed Exchange Rule 6.53C(d)(vii) and (viii).
    \11\ Exchange Rule 6.45A pertains to the priority and allocation
of trades in equity options on the Hybrid System. Exchange Rule
6.45B pertains to the priority and allocation of trades in index
options and options on exchange-traded funds on the Hybrid System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is an example of a COA: assume the CBOE's derived
spread market, considering the individual series prices in the EBook,
is offered at $1.15 for 20 contracts. In addition, assume a public
customer order resting in the COB is offered at $1.15 for five
contracts and two non-public customer orders resting in the COB are
offered at $1.15 for five contracts each (for a total of 10 contracts).
A COA-eligible order is then received to buy 100 spreads at $1.15. COA
will auction the order. An RFR message is sent to members indicating
the complex order series and 100 contracts (but not the side of the
market). The Response Time Interval for submitting RFR Responses will
be for no more than three seconds. Before the conclusion of the
Response Time Interval, the following RFR Responses on the offer side
are received: Public customer RFR Responses to sell five at a price of
$1.14 and five at a price of $1.15; and non-public customer RFR
Responses to sell 15 at a price of $1.13, 35 at a price of $1.14, and
100 at a price of $1.15. The execution of the COA-eligible order will
proceed as follows:
     15 contracts get filled at $1.13 (against non-public
customer RFR Responses);
     40 contracts get filled at $1.14 (five contracts against
public customer RFR Responses, then 35 contracts against non-public
customer RFR Responses); and
     45 contracts get filled at $1.15 (20 contracts against the
individual series legs in the EBook allocated by UMA, then 10 contracts
against the public customer orders in COB and public customer RFR
Responses allocated by time priority, then 10 contracts against the
non-public customer orders resting in the COB before the COA began
allocated by UMA, then five contracts against the non-public customer
RFR Responses allocated via CUMA).
    The proposed rule change also describes the handling of unrelated
incoming complex orders that may be received prior to the expiration of
a COA.\12\ Specifically, the proposed rule change provides the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\  See proposed Exchange Rule 6.53C(d)(viii). The COA system
cannot be used to trade a COA-eligible order against a facilitated
or solicited order. Instead, facilitations and solicitations of
complex orders are subject to Interpretations and Policies .01 and
.02 of Exchange Rule 6.45A (with respect to equity options) and
Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02 of Exchange Rule 6.45B
(with respect to index options and options on exchange-traded
funds). These rules also apply to complex orders that are COA'd.
Interpretation and Policy .01 of both Exchange Rules 6.45A and 6.45B
pertains to principal transactions and prohibit an order entry firm
from executing as principal against an order it represents as agent
unless: (1) The agency order is first exposed on the Hybrid System
for at least three seconds; (2) the order entry firm has been
bidding or offering for at least three seconds prior to receiving an
agency order that is executable against such bid or offer; or (3)
the order entry firm proceeds in accordance with the crossing rules
in Exchange Rule 6.74. Interpretation and Policy .02 of both
Exchange Rules 6.45A and 6.45B pertains to solicitation orders and
requires an order entry firm to expose for at least three seconds an
order it represents as agent before the order may be executed
electronically via the electronic execution mechanism of the Hybrid
System, in whole or in part, against orders solicited from members
and non-member broker-dealers to transact with the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An incoming complex order received prior to the expiration
of the Response Time Interval for a pending COA (the ``original COA'')
that is on the opposite side of the original COA-eligible order and is
marketable against the starting price \13\ of the original COA-eligible
order will cause the original COA to end. The processing of the
original COA pursuant to proposed subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi)
of Exchange Rule 6.53C is the same. Specifically, the COA-eligible
order will be allocated in accordance with proposed subparagraph (d)(v)
of Exchange Rule 6.53C or, if the COA-eligible order cannot be filled
in whole or in a permissible ratio, the order (or any remaining
balance) will route to the COB or back to PAR, as applicable, in
accordance with proposed subparagraph (d)(vi) of Exchange Rule
6.53C.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The ``starting price,'' which is not visible (other than by
the COA system), is the better of the original COA-eligible order's
limit price or the best price, on a net debit or credit basis, that
existed in the EBook or COB at the beginning of the Response Time
Interval. See proposed Exchange Rule 6.53C(d)(viii)(1).
    \14\ For example, assume that a COA-eligible order to buy with a
net price of $1.20 is received when the starting price is a net
price of $1.10. A COA will be initiated at a net price of $1.10. An
incoming order to sell at a price less than or equal to $1.10 will
cause the COA to end. To the extent possible, the original COA-
eligible order will be filled and any remaining balance would route
to COB or back to PAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Incoming COA-eligible orders that are received prior to
the expiration of the Response Time Interval for the original COA that
are on the same side

of the market, at the same price or worse than the original COA-
eligible order and that are better than or equal to the starting price,
will join the original COA. The processing of the original COA pursuant
to proposed subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) of Exchange Rule
6.53C is the same (as described above) with the addition that the
priority of the original COA-eligible order and incoming COA-eligible
order(s) shall be according to time priority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, assume that a COA-eligible order to buy with a
net price of $1.20 is received when the starting price is a net
price of $1.10. A COA will be initiated at a net price of $1.10.
Incoming orders to buy at net prices ranging from $1.10 to $1.20
will join the COA. To the extent possible, the original COA-eligible
order will be filled and then the incoming COA-eligible order will
be filled. Any remaining balance on either the original COA-eligible
order or the incoming COA-eligible order will route to COB or back
to PAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An incoming COA-eligible order that is received prior to
the expiration of the Response Time Interval for the original COA that
is on the same side of the market and at a better price than the
original COA-eligible order will join the COA, cause the original COA
to end, and a new COA to begin for any remaining balance on the
incoming COA-eligible order. The processing of the original COA
pursuant to proposed subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) of Exchange
Rule 6.53C is the same (as described above), with the addition that the
priority of the original COA-eligible order and incoming COA-eligible
order shall be according to time priority.\16\
    A pattern or practice of submitting unrelated orders that cause a
COA to conclude early will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of Exchange Rule 4.1,
``Just and Equitable Principles of Trade.'' Dissemination of
information related to COA-eligible orders to third parties will also
be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
trade and a violation of Exchange Rule 4.1 and other Exchange rules.
    In addition, the CBOE notes that COA-eligible orders may be
executed without consideration of prices of the same complex orders
that might be available on other exchanges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, assume that a COA-eligible order to buy with a
net price of $1.20 is received when the starting price is a net
price of $1.10. A COA will be initiated at a net price of $1.10. An
incoming order to buy at a net price higher than $1.20 will join the
COA, cause the COA to end, and a new COA to begin for any remaining
balance of the incoming order. To the extent possible, the original
COA-eligible order will be filled, and then the incoming COA-
eligible order will be filled. Any remaining balance on the original
COA-eligible order will route to COB or back to PAR. Any remaining
balance on the incoming COA-eligible order will be subject to a new
COA.
    \17\ This principle also applies currently to complex orders
that are executed through the COB. See Exchange Rule 6.53C(c)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CBOE is proposing that RFR Responses be firm only to the
extent they may exist at the end of the Response Time Interval and only
with respect to COA-eligible orders. As such, RFR Responses that
collectively exceed the size of a COA-eligible order would be eligible
to trade with other incoming COA-eligible orders that are received
prior to the expiration of the Response Time Interval. Any RFR Response
not accepted to trade against COA-eligible orders either in whole or in
a permissible ratio would expire at the end of the Response Time
Interval and would not be eligible to trade with the EBook or the COB.
b. Revisions to the Complex Order Book
    CBOE is also proposing to make certain revisions to the existing
complex order execution procedures to better describe the allocation
algorithm applicable to the trading of complex orders that are entered
into the COB. With respect to complex orders that trade against the
EBook, the filing will clarify in renumbered paragraph (c)(ii)(1) of
Exchange Rule 6.53C that the ``EBook'' consists of electronic orders
and quotes residing in the Hybrid System, which would include public
and non-public orders and market participants' quotes. With respect to
complex orders that trade with other orders in the COB, renumbered
paragraph (c)(ii)(2) of Exchange Rule 6.53C will provide that such
trades will be allocated based on the rules of trading priority
otherwise applicable to the individual component leg series in the
EBook. With respect to the allocation of complex orders among market
participants' orders submitted to trade against the COB, renumbered
paragraph (c)(ii)(3) of Exchange Rule 6.53C will provide that market
participants may enter both orders and quotes and that resulting trades
will be allocated based on the rules of trading otherwise applicable to
the interaction of quotes and/or orders with orders in the EBook in the
individual component leg series contained in Exchange Rules 6.45A(c) or
6.45B(c), as applicable. Currently the rule text makes specific
reference to only Exchange Rule 6.45A(c). The Exchange believes that
these revisions will help to clarify and simplify the COB rules such
that similar priority and allocation algorithms apply whether trading
an individual series or a complex order.
    The Exchange is also proposing to make some clarifications with
respect to the minimum increments applicable to the pricing and trading
of complex orders in the COB. Exchange Rule 6.42(3), ``Minimum
Increments for Bids and Offers,'' currently provides that complex
orders may be entered in any increment. This provision also applies to
orders entered into the COB. However, CBOE is proposing to include a
clarification in Exchange Rule 6.53C to provide that complex orders
that are routed to, or resting in, the COB may be expressed on a net
price basis only in a multiple of the minimum increment (i.e., $0.05 or
$0.10, as applicable) or in a one-cent increment as determined by the
appropriate Exchange committee. As discussed further below, the
Exchange is also proposing to clarify that the individual legs of a
complex order entered into COB may be executed in one-cent increments.
c. Revisions Related to Complex Order Minimum Increments
    The Exchange is proposing to revise and clarify the minimum
increments that are permissible for bids and offers on complex orders.
CBOE believes these changes will facilitate the orderly execution of
complex orders in open outcry and via the COB and COA systems. With
respect to minimum increments, Exchange Rule 6.42(3) currently provides
that complex orders may generally be expressed in any increment,
regardless of the minimum increment otherwise appropriate to the
individual legs of the order. Thus, for example, a complex order could
be entered at a net debit or credit price of $1.03 even though the
standard minimum increment for the individual series is generally $0.05
or $0.10. As an exception to this provision, Exchange Rule 6.42(3) also
provides that complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'')
that are not box spreads \18\ are to be expressed in decimal increments
no smaller than $0.05. The Exchange is proposing to amend this
provision of Exchange Rule 6.42(3) to provide that complex orders in
options on the S&P 100 Index (``OEX'') that are not box

spreads must be expressed in decimal increments no smaller than $0.05.
Thus, the minimum increment applicable to OEX options will be the same
as that which is currently applicable to SPX options. The Exchange
believes that this change is appropriate given the complexity of these
orders and the size of the underlying S&P 100 Index. As discussed
above, the Exchange is also proposing to clarify in Exchange Rule 6.53C
that complex orders entered into and resting in the COB may be
expressed on a net price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment
(i.e., $0.05 or $0.10, as applicable) or in a one-cent increment as
determined by the appropriate Exchange committee on a class-by-class
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A ``box spread'' (also referred to as a ``box/roll
spread'') means ``an aggregation of positions in a long call option
and short put option with the same exercise price (`buy side')
coupled with a long put option and short call option with the same
exercise price (`sell side' all of which have the same aggregate
current underlying value, and are structured as either: (A) a `long
box spread' in which the sell side exercise price exceeds the buy
side exercise price or (B) a `short box spread' in which the buy
side exercise price exceeds the sell side exercise price.'' See
Exchange Rule 6.42, Interpretation and Policy .05, and Exchange Rule
6.53C(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to make some clarifications with
respect to the execution of the individual legs of a complex order. By
way of background, after a complex order has been executed at the total
net debit or credit price, the contract quantity and price for each
individual component leg of the trade are reported as executions.
However, the Exchange's rules are silent as to the minimum increment in
which these resulting legs may be reported for execution. In the past,
when a complex order was expressed in increments smaller than $0.05 or
$0.10 in open outcry, each of the component legs of a resulting trade
typically would be reported in ``split'' prices in order to reach the
quoted debit or credit price. However, with the introduction of the
COB, that system may report the legs of a resulting trade in one-cent
increments. Because the Exchange rules do not specifically address the
minimum increment in which the legs of a resulting complex order
transaction are to be reported, CBOE is proposing to include language
in Exchange Rules 6.42 and 6.53C to clarify that the legs of a complex
order may be executed in open outcry, via COB or via a COA in one-cent
increments, regardless of the minimum quoting increments otherwise
appropriate to the individual legs of the order. This change applies a
consistent standard for reporting the legs of a complex order
transaction whether the transaction takes place in open outcry or via
electronic trading, and the Exchange believes that it will enable
members to more efficiently execute transactions with less component
parts in the transaction.
    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to update the provisions of its
rules that refer to the trading of various types of complex orders such
as spreads, straddles and combinations. These provisions will now
include a cross reference to the various other types of complex orders
defined in Exchange Rule 6.53C.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-2005-65 and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8801 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 66114-66115]
[DOCID:fr14de09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. IC10-580-000, IN79-6)

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection
(FERC-580); Comment Request

December 4, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is
soliciting public comment on the proposed information collection
described below.

DATES: Comments on the proposed collection of information are due 60
days after publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-580-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/
submission-guide.asp.
    Comments may be eFiled. The eFiling option under the Documents &
Filings tab on the Commission's home Web page directs users to the
eFiling Web page. First time users will have to follow the eRegister
instructions on the eFiling Web page: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
eregistration.asp, to establish a user name and password before
eFiling. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the
sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments through eFiling.
    Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing.
Commenters that are not able to file electronically must send an
original and two (2) paper copies of the comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/esubscription.asp). In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed and downloaded remotely through the
Commission's website using the ``eLibrary'' link and searching on
Docket Number IC10-580. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at
(202) 502-8415, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
(PURPA), enacted November 8, 1978, amended the Federal Power Act (the
Act) and directed the Commission to make comprehensive biennial reviews
of certain matters related to automatic adjustment clauses in wholesale
rate schedules used by public utilities subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction. Specifically, the Commission is required to examine
whether the clauses effectively provide the incentives for efficient
use of resources and also whether the clauses reflect only those costs
that are either ``subject to periodic fluctuations'' or ``not
susceptible to precise determinations'' in rate cases prior to the time
the costs are incurred. The Commission is also required to review the
practices of each public utility under automatic adjustment clauses
``to insure efficient use of resources under such clauses.'' \1\ In
response to the PURPA directive, the Commission (in Docket No. IN79-6)
established an investigation and began in 1982, to collect every other
year, the FERC-580 ``Interrogatory on Fuel and Energy Purchase
Practices.'' (OMB No. 1902-0137).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The review requirement is set forth in two paragraphs of
Section 208 of PURPA, 49 Stat.851; 16 U.S.C. 824d
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection three-year renewal cycle (as administered by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)), the Commission proposes to modify the
questions in the interrogatory. There are several proposed changes to
this reporting cycle and we seek comment on those changes. First, as it
has been several years since the Commission collected information on
automatic adjustment clauses other than fuel-adjustment clauses,
therefore we propose in this cycle, to include

questions necessary to collect basic information identifying automatic
adjustment clauses of all types, through which costs have been flowed,
during the current reporting period. Second, the Commission proposes to
expand previous interrogatory questions regarding fuel procurement
practices and adjustment clause treatment of purchased power to elicit
more complete information and eliminate the need for follow-up
questions.
    To accomplish these changes, the Commission proposes to redesign
the FERC-580 in order to eliminate the need for confidential treatment
requests. The Commission proposes to remove all of the transportation
contract questions, the request for copies of fuel-related audits, as
well as the request for information regarding supplier identification,
fuel shipped for others, and liability. This information is not
currently needed for a Commission investigation.
    In addition, the Commission has redesigned the FERC-580 so that the
information may be collected electronically through a FERC-designed,
easy-to-complete, fillable form that will include such user-friendly
features such as pre-populated fields and dropdown menus. The program
will automatically generate additional rows when needed, and will
connect identification information (e.g. contract numbers and docket
numbers) with their proper corresponding detail information to
eliminate multiple entries of duplicative information. In subsequent
cycles, respondents will be able to retrieve information for filings
previously entered, thereby reducing the filing burden. These
modifications should facilitate greater ease to the respondent in both
submission and access to the information.
    A copy of the interrogatory, desk reference, and glossary are
attached and part of this document, but they are not included in the
Federal Register. They are available from the FERC's eLibrary (http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) by searching Docket No. IC09-
580-000, and through the FERC's Public Reference Room<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Interested parties may also request paper copies of the interrogatory,
instructions, and glossary by contacting Michael Miller, by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    In summary, the Commission seeks public comment on, and subsequent
OMB approval of the proposed revised information collection (FERC-580,
``Interrogatory on Fuel and Energy Purchase Practices'') and the
related estimated burden.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date for the proposed revised reporting
requirements.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated at:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Annual number                   Total annual
                                                     Number of     of responses   Average burden   burden hours
                                                    respondents   per respondent     hours per      (1) x (2) x
                                                        (1)             (2)        response (3)         (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents with FACs...........................              45             0.5          \2\103            2310
Respondents with AACs but no FACs...............             125             0.5              20            1250
Respondents with no AACs (no FACs)..............              40             0.5               2              40
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            3600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total burden has not changed from previous years. The burden
associated with interrogatory responses will vary by utility depending
on whether the utility has or does not have an automatic adjustment
clause and depending on whether or not those utilities with adjustment
clauses allow automatic adjustment of fuel cost. On average, the
Commission estimates a cost burden to respondents of $238,628.08.
(3,600 hours/2,080 hours \3\ per year, times $137,874 \4\ equals
$238,628.08). The cost per respondent is $ $3.393.82 (FAC); $668.16
(AAC) and $59.66 (none).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rounded off
    \3\ Number of hours an employee works each year.
    \4\ Average annual salary per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, and financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise providing the
information.
    The respondent's cost estimate is based on salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) terms and definitions in the interrogatory and glossary;
(3) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) ways to minimize
respondent information collection burden.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    Note: The Attachments (interrogatory, instructions, and
glossary) will not be included in the Federal Register. The
Attachments are available on the FERC's eLibrary (http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) by searching Docket No. IC10-
580-000, and through the FERC Public Reference Room.

[FR Doc. E9-29666 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82325-82327]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1277; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-218-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; rescission.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-18-19.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by EASA, to rescind EASA AD 2010-0083. The
MCAI specifies the following:

    It has been assessed that multiple NRV [non return valve]
failures in combination with certain trapped fuel cases could
potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on the aeroplane,
possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engines
in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To
prevent and detect this condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2010-0083.
    Based on in service experience, mainly on the results of the
operational test required by EASA AD 2010-0083, Airbus has performed
a safety analysis on the NRV to check if the safety objectives are
met.
    This analysis of the Collector Cell motive flow line NRV, taking
into account all failure scenarios, concludes that the previous non
compliance can be alleviated. Consequently, no unsafe condition
exists any more on the affected NRV.

    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2010-0083 is cancelled.
    The proposed AD would rescind the parallel FAA AD 2009-18-19.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 14,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116,

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1277;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-218-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on 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 we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 26, 2009, we issued AD 2009-18-19, Amendment 39-16016 (74
FR 46322, September 9, 2009). That AD was intended to address an unsafe
condition on the products listed above. That AD requires a periodic
operational test to check the operation of the non-return valve, and
corrective actions if necessary. That AD corresponds to AD 2008-0209,
dated November 27, 2008, issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community. EASA AD 2008-0209 was superseded by EASA AD 2010-
0083, dated May 3, 2010.
    Since we issued AD 2009-18-19, EASA issued Airworthiness Directive
2010-0083-CN, dated September 20, 2010, to cancel EASA AD 2010-0083,
dated May 3, 2010, for the specified products. EASA AD 2010-0083-CN
states:

    It has been assessed that multiple NRV [non return valve]
failures in combination with certain trapped fuel cases could
potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on the aeroplane,
possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engines
in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To
prevent and detect this condition, EASA issued EASA AD 2010-0083.
    Based on in service experience, mainly on the results of the
operational test required by EASA AD 2010-0083, Airbus has performed
a safety analysis on the NRV to check if the safety objectives are
met.
    This analysis of the Collector Cell motive flow line NRV, taking
into account all failure scenarios, concludes that the previous non
compliance can be alleviated. Consequently, no unsafe condition
exists any more on the affected NRV.

    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2010-0083 is cancelled.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the unsafe
condition identified in AD 2009-18-19 does not exist. The safety
analysis conducted by Airbus verified that the safety objectives
(failure rate) for the NRV are met, and the NRV complies with
regulatory standards. Since the unsafe condition identified in the AD
has been eliminated, AD 2009-18-19 is no longer necessary.
    Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design
Authority, we have been notified of the rescission described in the
MCAI. Accordingly, this proposed AD would rescind AD 2009-18-19.
Rescission of AD 2009-18-19 would not preclude the FAA from issuing
another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the
future.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and, in general, agree with the
substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words
from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and
is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ
substantively from the information provided in the MCAI.

Costs of Compliance

    AD 2009-18-19 affects about 50 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
estimated cost of the currently required actions for U.S. operators is
$20,000, or $400 per airplane. Rescinding AD 2009-18-19 would eliminate
those costs.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA 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 adding an airworthiness directive
(AD) that removes AD 2009-18-19, Amendment 39-16016 (74 FR 46322,
September 9, 2009), to read as follows:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-1277; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-
218-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 14, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD rescinds AD 2009-18-19, Amendment 39-16016.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -
303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes, all
serial numbers.
    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
series airplanes, all serial numbers.

Related Information

    (d) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0083-CN, dated September 20, 2010, for
related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32997 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2470]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00739]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 18, 2018.

PLACE:  Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00739 Filed 1-12-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23267-23268]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0324]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Industry, FDA Staff, and Foreign
Governments: Fiscal Year 2012 Medical Device User Fee Small Business
Qualification and Certification

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on Form FDA 3602 and Form FDA
3602A, which will allow domestic and foreign applicants to certify that
they qualify as a ``small business'' and pay certain medical device
user fees at reduced rates.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by June 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Industry, FDA Staff, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year
2012 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and
Certification--(OMB Control Number 0910-0508)--Extension

    Section 101 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act
(MDUFMA) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
to provide for user fees for certain medical device applications. FDA

published a Federal Register notice on August 1, 2011 (76 FR 45826),
announcing fees for fiscal year (FY) 2012. To avoid harming small
businesses, MDUFMA provides for reduced or waived fees for applicants
who qualify as a ``small business.'' This means there are two levels of
fees, a standard fee and a reduced or waived small business fee. You
can qualify for a small business fee discount under MDUFMA if you
reported gross receipts or sales of no more than $100 million on your
Federal income tax return for the most recent tax year. If you have any
affiliates, partners, or parent firms, you must add their gross
receipts or sales to yours, and the total must be no more than $100
million. If your gross receipts or sales are no more than $30 million,
including all of your affiliates, partners, and parent firms, you will
also qualify for a waiver of the fee for your first (ever) premarket
application (product development protocol, biologics licensing
application, or premarket report). An applicant must pay the full
standard fee unless it provides evidence demonstrating to FDA that it
meets the ``small business'' criteria (Form FDA 3602, ``FY 2012 MDUFMA
Small Business Qualification Certification--For A Business
Headquartered in the United States''). The evidence required by MDUFMA
is a copy of the most recent Federal income tax return of the
applicant, and any affiliate, partner, or parent firm. FDA will review
these materials and decide whether an applicant is a ``small business''
within the meaning of MDUFMA.
    The 2007 Amendments provide an alternative way for a foreign
business to qualify as a small business eligible to pay a significantly
lower fee when a medical device user fee must be paid (Form FDA 3602A,
``FY 2012 MDUFMA Foreign Small Business Qualification Certification--
For a Business Headquartered Outside the United States''). Before
passage of the 2007 Amendments, the only way a business could qualify
as a small business was to submit a Federal (U.S.) income tax return
showing its gross receipts or sales that did not exceed a statutory
threshold, currently, $100 million. If a business could not provide a
Federal income tax return, it did not qualify as a small business and
had to pay the standard (full) fee. Because many foreign businesses
have not, and cannot, file a Federal (U.S.) income tax return, this
requirement has effectively prevented those businesses from qualifying
for the small business fee rates. Thus, foreign governments, including
the European Union, have objected. In lieu of a Federal income tax
return, the 2007 Amendments will allow a foreign business to qualify as
a small business by submitting a certification from its national taxing
authority, the foreign equivalent of our Internal Revenue Service. This
certification, referred to as a ``National Taxing Authority
Certification,'' must: Be in English; be from the national taxing
authority of the country in which the business is headquartered;
provide the business' gross receipts or sales for the most recent year,
in both the local currency and in U.S. dollars, and the exchange rate
used in converting local currency to U.S. dollars; provide the dates
during which the reported receipts or sales were collected; and bear
the official seal of the national taxing authority.
    Both Forms FDA 3602 and FDA 3602A are available in the guidance
document, ``Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff,
and Foreign Governments: FY 2012 Medical Device User Fee Small Business
Qualification and Certification,'' available on the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/UCM267051.pdf.
This guidance describes the criteria FDA will use to decide whether an
entity qualifies as a MDUFMA small business and will help prospective
applicants understand what they need to do to meet the small business
criteria for FY 2012.
    The Form FDA 3602 burden is based on the number of applications
received in the last 3 years. FDA believes most entities that submit
Form FDA 3602A will not have any affiliates, and very few will have
more than three or four affiliates. Based on our experience with Form
FDA 3602A, FDA believes each business will require 1 hour to complete
the form.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                         FDA Form No.                               Number of       responses per     Total annual     Average burden      Total hours
                                                                   respondents       respondent         responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3602..........................................................             4,200                 1             4,200                 1             4,200
3602A.........................................................               900                 1               900                 1               900
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ................  ................  ................             5,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9241 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P