[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51988-51991]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0403]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Substantiation for
Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0626.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)--(OMB Control Number
0910-0626)--Extension

    Section 403(r)(6) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)) requires that a manufacturer of a dietary
supplement making a nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or
general well-being claim have substantiation that the statement is
truthful and not misleading. Under section 403(r)(6)(A) of the FD&C
Act, such a statement is one that ``claims a benefit related to a
classical nutrient deficiency disease and discloses the prevalence of
such disease in the United States, describes the role of a nutrient or
dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in
humans, characterizes the documented mechanism by which a nutrient or
dietary ingredient acts to maintain such structure or function, or
describes general well-being from consumption for a nutrient or dietary
ingredient.''
    The guidance document entitled ``Substantiation for Dietary
Supplement Claims Made Under Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' provides FDA's recommendations to
manufacturers about the amount, type, and quality of evidence they
should have to substantiate a claim under section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C
Act. The guidance does not discuss the types of claims that can be made
concerning

the effect of a dietary supplement on the structure or function of the
body, nor does it discuss criteria to determine when a statement about
a dietary supplement is a disease claim. The guidance document is
intended to assist manufacturers in their efforts to comply with
Section 403(r)(6). Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the
guidance at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/guidance.html.
    Dietary supplement manufacturers collect the necessary
substantiating information for their product as required by section
403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The guidance provides information to
manufacturers to assist them in doing so. The recommendations contained
in the guidance are voluntary. Dietary supplement manufacturers will
only need to collect information to substantiate their product's
nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or general well-being claim
if they choose to place a claim on their product's label.
    The standard discussed in the guidance for substantiation of a
claim on the labeling of a dietary supplement is consistent with
standards set by the Federal Trade Commission for dietary supplements
and other health-related products that the claim be based on competent
and reliable scientific evidence. This evidence standard is broad
enough that some dietary supplement manufacturers may only need to
collect peer-reviewed scientific journal articles to substantiate their
claims; other dietary supplement manufacturers whose products have
properties that are less well documented may have to conduct studies to
build a body of evidence to support their claims. It is unlikely that a
dietary supplement manufacturer will attempt to make a claim when the
cost of obtaining the evidence to support the claim outweighs the
benefits of having the claim on the product's label. It is likely that
manufacturers will seek substantiation for their claims in the
scientific literature.
    The time it takes to assemble the necessary scientific information
to support their claims depends on the product and the claimed
benefits. If the product is one of several on the market making a
particular claim for which there is adequate publicly available and
widely established evidence supporting the claim, then the time to
gather supporting data will be minimal; if the product is the first of
its kind to make a particular claim or the evidence supporting the
claim is less publicly available or not widely established, then
gathering the appropriate scientific evidence to substantiate the claim
will be more time consuming.
    In the Federal Register of June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32215), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
extension of this collection of information. FDA received five letters
in response to the notice, each containing multiple comments. Several
comments were generally supportive of the necessity of the information
collection provisions of the guidance. Additional comments were outside
the scope of the four collection of information topics on which the
notice solicits comments, and will not be discussed in this document.
    (Comment 1) Several comment letters noted the accuracy of FDA's
estimate of the burden hours, which ranges from 44 to 120 hours per
claim depending upon the nature of the claim.
    (Response) FDA agrees. As discussed in this notice, if the product
is one of several on the market making a particular claim for which
there is adequate publicly available and widely established evidence
supporting the claim, then the time to gather supporting data will be
minimal; if the product is the first of its kind to make a particular
claim or the evidence supporting the claim is less publicly available
or not widely established, then gathering the appropriate scientific
evidence to substantiate the claim will be more time consuming.
    (Comment 2) One comment stated that FDA incorrectly estimated that
there are no capital costs associated with developing information that
meets the guidance's recommendations to manufacturers about the amount,
type, and quality of evidence they should have to substantiate a claim
under section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The comment argued that FDA
did not fully consider that manufacturers invest significant capital
resources in subscriptions to scientific journals and libraries to gain
access to full-text scientific literature, consultants to develop
appropriate wording for claims, and legal review of claims.
    (Response) FDA disagrees. The comment mischaracterizes the
significant costs associated with hiring consultants, obtaining
reference materials, and securing legal review of a notification as
capital costs. For purposes of information collection requests under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, capital costs are costs for equipment,
machinery, and construction that, if not for FDA's request or
requirement, the respondent would not incur. This includes: Buying new
software and new computer equipment; monitoring, sampling, drilling and
testing equipment; record storage facilities; the cost of purchasing or
contracting out information collection services; and postage costs to
mail in a report. Capital costs do not include costs to achieve
regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the
information collection. Subscriptions to scientific journals and
libraries to gain access to full-text scientific literature, hiring
consultants to develop appropriate wording for claims, and legal review
of claims are costs associated with developing information that the
manufacturer uses to satisfy itself that it has met the guidance's
recommendations to manufacturers about the amount, type, and quality of
evidence they should have to substantiate a claim under section
403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act; thus, these costs are not capital costs
because they are costs associated with achieving regulatory compliance
with requirements of the FD&C Act, not costs associated specifically
with equipment, machinery, and construction needed to retain
appropriate substantiating evidence. FDA notes that it has added a
reference to these costs as ``Costs to Respondent'' in section 12(b) of
the supporting statement component of the Information Collection
Request that it has submitted to OMB.
    (Comment 3) One comment suggested that, to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information as well as minimize the burden
of collection on manufacturers, FDA explore options for electronic
submission and a digital, interactive database so the information can
be easily reviewed, collated, analyzed and reported.
    (Response) FDA notes that dietary supplement manufacturers making a
nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or general well-being claim
are required by section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act to have
substantiation that the claim is truthful and not misleading. There is
no requirement in the FD&C Act or recommendation in the guidance
document that manufacturers submit the substantiation information to
FDA. The information is retained by the manufacturers in their records.
The guidance does not specifically prescribe the use of automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other
forms of information technology as necessary for use by dietary
supplement manufacturers. Companies are free to use whatever forms of
information technology that may best assist them in developing
substantiation information.
    (Comment 4) One comment stated that FDA should provide clarity on
what type of evidence is needed to substantiate a traditional use
claim. The

comment argued that Canada, the European Union, and Australia recognize
traditional use evidence to support appropriate claim statements. The
comment stated that several authoritative labeling standards monographs
for herbal products specify traditional use claim statements, such as
Health Canada Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD) monographs,
European Medicines Agency (EMA) European Community Herbal Monographs,
and World Health Organization (WHO) Monographs on Selected Medicinal
Plants. The comment recommended that FDA allow such monographs as
acceptable pieces of evidence to substantiate a traditional use claim.
The comment concluded that FDA's acceptance of label claim statements
listed in appropriate monographs and clear guidance on other types of
evidence that could be used to substantiate traditional use claims
would significantly reduce the burden of collecting such information.
    (Response) FDA disagrees that traditional use evidence is
sufficient to meet the substantiation standard of competent and
reliable scientific evidence applied by FDA in ``Guidance for Industry:
Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under Section
403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' A claim based
on historical or traditional use is not a claim that is substantiated
by scientific evidence. Claims permitted by foreign and international
monographs do not always have to be substantiated by scientific studies
but may be acceptable if, in some cases, they are accompanied by
disclosures that the claim is not scientifically established or are
deemed appropriate merely by their history of use for a particular
intended use. Therefore, FDA does not believe that these monographs are
adequate to meet the substantiation standard applied by FDA.
    (Comment 5) One comment suggested that FDA should identify
monographs that are already recognized in other countries as
substantiation for claims made for products that are manufactured in
strict conformity to these monographs. The comment identified two
specific compendia of monographs and recommended that FDA recognize
these monographs as ``constituting in and of themselves substantiation
for a pre-existing widely established claim that may be made for a
dietary supplement under section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act, so long as
the claim is not a drug claim and is significantly similar to the use
or purpose described in a monograph, and the conditions and level of
use of the ingredient(s) that is the basis of the claim is within the
dosage range described in the monograph.''
    (Response) FDA disagrees that foreign or other third-party
monographs assure that a claim is substantiated by competent and
reliable scientific evidence, which is the standard applied by FDA.
Claims that may be permitted by foreign and international monographs do
not always have to be substantiated by scientific studies but may be
acceptable if substantiated, in whole or in part, by evidence not
deemed adequate for a claim made for a dietary supplement in the United
States, such as animal data or traditional medicinal use. Therefore,
FDA does not believe that these monographs are adequate to meet the
substantiation standard applied by FDA
    (Comment 6) One comment argued that FDA overestimated the burden of
the information collection by overestimating the number of respondents.
The comment noted that FDA's website contains a list of notifications
submitted in compliance with the requirements of 21 CFR 101.93 (a)(1)
and stated that their review of the notices submitted between December
2007 and August 2010 indicates that the Agency has received an average
of approximately 1,600 to 1,650 annually during this time, not the
2,001 per year estimated by FDA.
    (Response) FDA disagrees that it has overestimated the number of
respondents and stands by the estimate of 2,001 annual respondents for
the next 3 years. The number of such notifications received by FDA in
any given year can vary quite widely (by up to 300). In addition, the
number of firms keeping records in anticipation of submitting a
notification may be greater than the number of notification submitted.
Thus, FDA believes retaining the estimate of 2,001 from the prior
submission is appropriate.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
           Claim type                Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widely known, established.......             667               1             667              44          29,348
Pre-existing, not widely                     667               1             667             120          80,040
 established....................
Novel...........................             667               1             667             120          80,040
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         189,428
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA assumes that it will take 44 hours to assemble information
needed to substantiate a claim on a particular dietary supplement when
the claim is widely known and established. FDA believes it will take
closer to 120 hours to assemble supporting scientific information when
the claim is novel or when the claim is pre-existing but the scientific
underpinnings of the claim are not widely established. These are claims
that may be based on emerging science, where conducting literature
searches and understanding the literature takes time. It is also
possible that references for claims made for some dietary ingredients
or dietary supplements may primarily be found in foreign journals and
in foreign languages or in the older, classical literature where it is
not available on computerized literature databases or in the major
scientific reference databases, such as the National Library of
Medicine's literature database, all of which increases the time of
obtaining substantiation.
    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2000, FDA published a final
rule on statements made for dietary supplements concerning the effect
of the product on the structure or function of the body (65 FR 1000).
FDA estimated that there were 29,000 dietary supplement products
marketed in the United States (65 FR 1000 at 1045). Assuming that the
flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then 2,900 new dietary
supplement products will come on the market each year. The structure/
function final rule estimated that about 69 percent of dietary
supplements have a claim on their labels, most probably a

structure/function claim (65 FR 1000 at 1046). Therefore, we assume
that supplement manufacturers will need time to assemble the evidence
to substantiate each of the 2,001 claims (2,900 x 69 percent) made each
year. If we assume that the 2,001 claims are equally likely to be pre-
existing widely established claims, novel claims, or pre-existing
claims that are not widely established, then we can expect 667 of each
of these types of claims to be substantiated per year. Table 1 of this
document shows that the annual burden hours associated with assembling
evidence for claims is 189,428 (the sum of 667 x 44 hours, 667 x 120
hours, and 667 x 120 hours).

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-21236 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81758-81759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-11-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on November 3, 2016 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gas), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056 filed
a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of
the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to construct and operate certain natural gas storage
facilities located in Jackson County, West Virginia. Specifically,
Columbia proposes to construct and operate three new storage wells and
related pipeline to tie the wells into existing pipelines at Columbia's
Ripley Storage Field. It is estimated that the three new directional
wells will provide a combined total of 15 MMcf per day of improved
deliverability to the Columbia system, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Robert D. Jackson, Manager, Certificates & Regulatory Administration,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700,
Houston, Texas 77002, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by fax (832) 320-
6487, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents

filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the
mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will
not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final
order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: November 10, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27812 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 229-232]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0519; Product Identifier 2017-NM-001-AD; Amendment
39-19138; AD 2017-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain
fuselage frame web. This AD requires inspection of the fuselage frame
for existing repairs, repetitive inspections of the frame, and
applicable repairs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 7, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 7,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0519.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0519; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25550). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in the fuselage frame
web at station (STA) 1681, below the floor line at stringer S-17L. The
NPRM proposed to require inspection of the fuselage frame for existing
repairs, repetitive inspections of the frame, and applicable repairs.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage
frame at STA 1681, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines agreed with the content of the NPRM, and has
started the proposed inspections.
    FedEx's fleet of Model 757-200 airplanes was converted by VT Mobile
Aerospace Engineering, Inc. (VT MAE), supplemental type certificate
(STC) ST03562AT to a configuration similar to that of Boeing Model 757-
200SF airplanes, and is no longer configured as passenger airplanes.
FedEx stated, however, that per the VT MAE comments to the NPRM, the AD
would still be effective for the converted FedEx fleet. FedEx noted
that VT MAE has recommended that the airplane configuration groups
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November
14, 2016, apply to the FedEx fleet. FedEx stated that it agrees with
the airplane configuration groups cited by VT MAE and will comply with
the actions in the proposed AD accordingly.

Request To Reference the Latest Service Information

    Boeing asked that we add Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100,
Revision 1, dated September 14, 2017, to paragraphs (c), (g), (h)(1),
and (h)(2) of the proposed AD as an alternative to using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016 (referenced in
the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions). Boeing stated that the revised service
information provides alternative inspections that allow longer
inspection intervals.

    We agree that this final rule should refer to the latest service
information. Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has released Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2017. No
additional work is necessary on airplanes on which the actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016. We have
therefore revised paragraphs (c), (g), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD to
refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1, dated
September 14, 2017. We have also added paragraph (i) to this AD to
provide credit for using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100,
dated November 14, 2016, to accomplish the required actions before the
effective date of this AD, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the STC
ST01518SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the
NPRM.
    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this
AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a ``change in product''
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Clarify Exception Paragraph

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) asked that we clarify the following
compliance time exception specified by paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed
AD: ``Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November
14, 2016, uses the phrase `after the original issue of this service
bulletin' for determining compliance, for purposes of this AD,
compliance is based on the effective date of this AD.'' Delta noted
that the allowance for the phrase ``after the effective date of this
AD'' could not strictly be applied without requesting further
clarification in accordance with paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
Delta recommended that this phrase match the language specified in the
referenced service bulletin.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised the language
in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to address the commenter's concern.

Request To Change Repair Procedures

    FedEx asked that we revise the NPRM to specify that after repairs
are done due to a crack finding, repetitive inspections be required
only as based on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), STC holder,
or FAA requirements of the repair. FedEx also asked that the repetitive
inspections be terminated for the portion of the inspection area
covered by the repair. FedEx stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016, specifies repetitive high
frequency eddy current inspections in accordance with the applicable
figure in the referenced service information, regardless of whether a
repair is installed due to a crack finding. FedEx added that if a
repair is installed due to a crack finding, repetitive inspections of
the repair are required in accordance with the OEM/STC holder and FAA
requirements.
    We agree to provide clarification describing why the commenter's
request to revise the NPRM is not necessary. The service bulletin is
written such that the affected area is first inspected to determine if
any repairs have been installed prior to the service bulletin. If an
existing repair is found, then instructions are provided to contact
Boeing for evaluation of the repair, to receive inspection
instructions, and to do the inspection instructions. Paragraph (h)(2)
of this AD requires that instructions received from Boeing are approved
in accordance with AMOC procedures per paragraph (j) of this AD. The
service bulletin then proceeds to address affected areas where an
existing repair (as described above) does not exist by providing
instructions to perform certain inspections to determine if a crack
exists. When a crack is found, the service bulletin specifies to
contact Boeing for repair instructions, do the repair, and then perform
a repetitive inspection after a certain number of flight cycles for any
crack in areas with no existing frame repair. These instructions must
also be approved, per paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with
AMOC procedures per paragraph (j) of this AD. If a repair has been
performed as a result of the previous inspection, the repetitive
inspection is to be performed around the repair, but not of the repair
itself. There are no repetitive inspections of the repairs specifically
called out in the service bulletin. Each repetitive inspection in
Tables 1 through Table 5 typically states at the end of the action,
``in areas with no existing frame repair.'' As clarified above, this
means to inspect the area around the existing frame repair. Therefore,
there is no need to terminate the repetitive inspections within the
service bulletin for the portion of the inspection area now covered by
a repair. However, as previously stated, inspections of the repairs
themselves will be addressed by AMOC. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Add Information Notice to Service Information

    FedEx asked that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Information Notice
757-53A0100 IN 01, dated December 15, 2016, be referenced in the
proposed AD. FedEx stated that IN 01 contains corrections to Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, dated November 14, 2016.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin Information Notice 757-53A0100 IN 01, dated December 15, 2016,
contains corrections to errors in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0100, dated November 14, 2016, but contains no technical changes.
Those corrections are included in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0100, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2017, which, as explained
previously, is referenced in this AD; therefore, we have not changed
this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1,
dated September 14, 2017. The service information describes procedures
for inspection of the fuselage frame for existing frame and floor beam
repairs, repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for
cracking in any area with no existing frame repair, and repetitive high
and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in any area
with no existing frame or floor beam repair; and repair. This service

information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for existing frame and  1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $51,510.
 floor beam repairs.                per hour = $85.
Repetitive inspections...........  Up to 32 work-hours              $0  Up to $2,720 per     Up to $1,648,320
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    per inspection
                                    up to $2,720 per                                          cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-26-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19138; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0519; Product Identifier 2017-NM-001-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 7, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1,
dated September 14, 2017.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01518SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/312bc296830a925c86257c85006d1b1f/$FILE/ST01518SE.pdf)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in
the fuselage frame web at station (STA) 1681. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at STA 1681,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do all
applicable actions identified as required for compliance (RC) in,
and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1, dated September 14,
2017. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100,
Revision 1, dated September 14, 2017.

(h) Exceptions

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD, the phrase ``the effective date of this AD'' may be
substituted for ``the original issue date of this service bulletin''
as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision
1, dated September 14, 2017.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1,
dated September 14, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing for

instructions, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0100, dated November 14, 2016.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0100, Revision 1, dated
September 14, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 14, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-28148 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18736-18738]
[DOCID:fr12ap06-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0075; FRL-7775-5]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Fenazaquin in or on Apple, Pear, and Citrus
Fruits Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
fenazaquin in or on apple, pear, and citrus fruits commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0075 and pesticide petition number (PP)
9E5059, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0075. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0075. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going at regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured
automatically and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm/
.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Peacock, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; phone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 9E5059. Gowan Company, 370 S. Main St., Yuma, AZ 85364, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide fenazaquin in
or on food commodities apples and pears at 0.2 parts per million (ppm);
and citrus fruits at 0.5 ppm. A method for the determination of
fenazaquin residues in raw and processed commodities has been developed
and validated. The general method includes extraction with
acetonitrile: water and partitioning into hexane. Cleanup is
accomplished by solid phase chromatography using

florisel and aminopropyl cartridges. The final eluate is evaporated and
the residue is reconstituted in trimethylpentane containing 1,4-
dibromonapthlene, an internal standard. Residues of fenazaquin are
quantified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with
selected ion monitoring. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 mg/kg
for all matrices tested.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 3, 2006.
Meredith F. Laws,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-5393 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: December 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76049-76050]
[DOCID:fr22de05-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0037, FRL-8013-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Metal Coil Surface
Coating (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0660.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0107

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0037, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, EPA West, Mail Code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Lazarus, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance, (2223A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0037, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is
(202) 566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 0660.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0107.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Respondents are owners or operators of metal coil surface
coating facilities. The standards apply to each metal coil surface
coating operation in which organic coatings are applied that commenced
construction, modification or reconstruction after January 5, 1981.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make
initial reports when a source becomes subject, conduct and report on a
performance test, demonstrate and report on continuous monitor
performance, and maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility. Semiannual reports of excess emissions are required. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and in general, are required of all sources subject to New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS).
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on
the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 41
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements that have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to

respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of metal coil
surface coating facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 158.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, semiannually, on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 15,643.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,594,680, which includes $0 annual
capital/startup costs, $331,800 annualized O&M costs, and $1,262,880
annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,112 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an expansion of the
calculations to include managerial and clerical labor rates. The
increase in O&M costs is due to an increase in equipment maintenance
costs.

    Dated: December 14, 2005.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E5-7724 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18565-18566]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61851; File No. SR-ISE-2010-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a Market Maker Incentive Plan for Foreign Currency
Options

April 6, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to extend an incentive plan for market makers
in four foreign currency options (``FX Options''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.ise.com), on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend an incentive
plan for market makers in options on the New Zealand dollar (``NZD''),
the Mexican peso (``PZO''), the Swedish krona (``SKA'') and the
Brazilian real (``BRB'').\3\ On August 3, 2009, the Exchange adopted an
incentive plan applicable to market makers in NZD, PZO and SKA,\4\ and
on January 19, 2010, added BRB to the incentive plan.\5\ The Exchange
subsequently extended the date by which market makers may join the
incentive plan.\6\ The Exchange proposes to again extend the date by
which

market makers may join the incentive plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission previously approved the trading of options on
NZD, PZO, SKA and BRB. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-55575 (April
3, 2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-59).
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-60536 (August 19, 2009), 74
FR 43204 (August 26, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-59).
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-61459 (February 1, 2010), 75
FR 6248 (February 8, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-07).
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-60810 (October 9, 2009), 74
FR 53527 (October 19, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-80); 34-61334 (January 12,
2010), 75 FR 2913 (January 19, 2010) (SR-ISE-2009-115).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to promote trading in these FX Options, the Exchange has
an incentive plan pursuant to which the Exchange waives the transaction
fees for the Early Adopter \7\ FXPMM \8\ and all Early Adopter FXCMMs
\9\ that make a market in NZD, PZO SKA and BRB for as long as the
incentive plan is in effect. Further, pursuant to a revenue sharing
agreement entered into between an Early Adopter Market Maker and ISE,
the Exchange pays the Early Adopter FXPMM forty percent (40%) of the
transaction fees collected on any customer trade in NZD, PZO SKA and
BRB and pays up to ten (10) Early Adopter FXCMMs that participate in
the incentive plan twenty percent (20%) of the transaction fees
collected for trades between a customer and that FXCMM. Market makers
that do not participate in the incentive plan are charged regular
transaction fees for trades in these products. In order to participate
in the incentive plan, market makers are required to enter into the
incentive plan no later than March 31, 2010. The Exchange now proposes
to extend the date by which market makers may enter into the incentive
plan to June 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Participants in the incentive plan are known on the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees as Early Adopter Market Makers.
    \8\ A FXPMM is a primary market maker selected by the Exchange
that trades and quotes in FX Options only. See ISE Rule 2213.
    \9\ A FXCMM is a competitive market maker selected by the
Exchange that trades and quotes in FX Options only. See ISE Rule
2213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
permit additional market makers to join the incentive plan which in
turn will generate additional order flow to the Exchange by creating
incentives to trade these FX Options as well as defray operational
costs for Early Adopter Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-ISE-2010-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2010-27. 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 changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. 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 No. SR-ISE-2010-27 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8224 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5613]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2394]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66276; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To
Increase the Trading Activity Fee Rate for Transactions in Covered
Equity Securities

January 30, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 14, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to increase FINRA's Trading Activity Fee (``TAF'')
rate for transactions in covered equity securities. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
30, 2011.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66050 (December 23,
2011), 76 FR 82334 (``Notice'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA's proposal would amend Section 1 of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws to adjust the rate of FINRA's TAF for transactions in Covered
Securities that are equity securities.\4\ The rules governing the TAF
also include a list of exempt transactions.\5\ The TAF, along with the
Personnel Assessment and the Gross Income Assessment fees, are used to
fund FINRA's regulatory activities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Covered Securities are defined in Section 1 of Schedule A to
the FINRA By-Laws as: Exchange-registered securities wherever
executed (except debt securities that are not TRACE-Eligible
Securities); OTC Equity Securities; security futures; TRACE-Eligible
Securities (provided that the transaction is a Reportable TRACE
Transaction); and all municipal securities subject to Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board reporting requirements.
    \5\ See FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Sec.  1(b)(2).
    \6\ See FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Sec.  1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current TAF rate is $0.000090 per share for each sale of a
covered equity security, with a maximum charge of $4.50 per trade.\7\
In the Notice, FINRA stated that over 95% of TAF revenue is generated
by transactions in Covered Securities that are equity securities. Thus,
FINRA's revenue from the TAF is substantially affected by changes in
trading volume in the equities markets. According to FINRA, since it
previously increased the TAF in July 2011, there was a momentary spike
in equity securities trading volume in the month of August followed by
a general decline in volumes heading into the fourth quarter of 2011.
FINRA states that, as a result of declining volume, it is necessary to
adjust the TAF rate for 2012 to ``stabilize revenue flows necessary to
support FINRA's regulatory mission.'' \8\ Under the proposal, FINRA's
TAF rate for Covered Securities that are equity securities would
increase by $0.000005 per share, from $0.000090 per share to $0.000095
per share, while the per-transaction cap for Covered Securities that
are equity securities would increase by $0.25, from $4.50 to $4.75.
FINRA stated that increasing the TAF rate on these securities by
$0.000005 per share is the minimum increase necessary to bring the
revenue from the TAF to its needed levels to adequately fund FINRA's
member regulatory obligations and that it intends the proposed increase
to remain revenue neutral, as it did previously when it adjusted the
TAF rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current TAF rates were approved by the Commission on
June 2, 2011. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64590 (June 2,
2011), 76 FR 33388 (June 8, 2011).
    \8\ Notice, 76 FR at 82335.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it intends to make the proposal effective on
February 1, 2012.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the
Commission finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system that
FINRA operates or controls. The Commission believes that the proposal
is reasonably designed to secure adequate funding to support FINRA's
regulatory duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2011-071) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2394 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36140-36143]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62311; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex Rule 123C To Allow Exchange
Systems To Provide Order Imbalance Information With Respect to Market
At-the-Close and Marketable Limit At-the-Close Interest to Floor
Brokers Beginning Two Hours and Until Fifteen Minutes Prior to the
Scheduled Close of Trading on Every Trading Day

June 17, 2010.
    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 June 9, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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 self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Rule 123C (``The Closing
Procedures'') to describe the manner in which Exchange systems provide
order imbalance information to Floor brokers. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange'') proposes to amend
NYSE Amex Rule 123C(6) to specify that, beginning at 2:00 p.m. on every
trading day,\3\ Floor brokers will receive an electronic communication
from Exchange systems that provides the amount of, and any imbalance
between, Market ``At-The-Close'' (``MOC'') interest and marketable
Limit ``At-The-Close'' (``LOC'') interest to buy and MOC interest and
marketable LOC interest to sell in certain securities.\4\ The MOC/LOC
interest is executable only on the Close and is subject to cancellation
at any time before 3:45 p.m.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e-mail from Theodore R. Lazo, NYSE Euronext, to Steve
Kuan, Securities and Exchange Commission, on June 16, 2010 (``June
16, 2010 e-mail''). On any day that the scheduled close of trading
on the Exchange is earlier than 4:00 p.m., the information will be
disseminated beginning two hours prior to the scheduled close of
trading.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to the
rules of its affiliate, the New York Stock Exchange LLC. See SR-
NYSE-2010-20 and June 16, 2010 e-mail.
    \5\ See NYSE Rule 123C(3) and (9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Pursuant to NYSE Amex Rule 115 (``Disclosure of Orders by DMMs''),
DMMs may, while acting in a market making capacity, provide information
about buying or selling interest in the market, including (a)
Aggregated buying or selling interest contained in Floor broker agency
interest files other than interest the broker has chosen to exclude
from the aggregated buying and selling interest, (b) aggregated
interest of Minimum Display Reserve Orders and (c) the interest
included in DMM interest files, excluding CCS interest as described in
Rule 1000(c), in response to an inquiry from a member conducting a
market probe in the normal course of business. Market probes assist
Floor brokers in representing customer orders efficiently and
effectively. There is no limitation in Rule 115 as to the number of
market probes permitted during the trading day.
    Historically, Floor brokers could only orally request a market
probe from the specialist.\6\ As the NYSE Amex evolved to a more
automated trading venue, the Exchange and the Floor community
endeavored to address an increase in the volume of market probes by
Floor brokers to specialists in the afternoon hours leading up to the
closing transaction. In May 2008, Exchange systems began electronically
providing to Floor brokers, the amount of, and any imbalance between
MOC interest and marketable LOC interest to buy and MOC interest and
marketable LOC interest to sell in each security in which a Floor
broker is representing an order or in any security that the Floor
broker electronically requests such information. In March 2010, as part
of changes to the Exchange's closing process, Exchange systems began
decrementing the total imbalance between MOC interest and marketable
LOC interest to buy and MOC interest and marketable LOC interest to
sell by any Closing Offset Orders on the opposite side of the imbalance
to calculate the imbalance (the ``MOC/LOC imbalance information''). The
dissemination of the MOC/LOC imbalance information to Floor brokers
between 2 and 3:45 p.m. was deactivated on May 17, 2010. Floor brokers
may still orally request and receive responses to market probes
directly from DMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The specialist is the predecessor to the DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to NYSE Amex Rule 123C(6)
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Rule 123C(6) to state
that, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. on any trading day (or two hours
prior to the closing transaction until 15 minutes prior to the closing
transaction on any day that the scheduled close of trading on the
Exchange is earlier than 4 p.m.), Exchange systems shall automatically
provide the MOC/LOC imbalance information to Floor brokers,
approximately every 15 seconds, for any security in which the Floor
broker is representing an order and in any security that the Floor
broker specifically requests. Specific requests for information by
Floor brokers will not carry over to the next trading day and must be
re-entered on each trade date Floor brokers want to receive the
information. Beginning at 3:45 p.m., Floor brokers may receive the
Exchange's proprietary Order Information Imbalance datafeed pursuant to
NYSE Amex Rule 123C(6)(a)(iv). The Exchange provides the Order
Information Imbalance datafeed to subscribers for a fee.
    The Exchange's proposed dissemination of this MOC/LOC imbalance
information is the electronic evolution of the market probe response
that Floor brokers have always been entitled to receive and may
otherwise orally request directly from DMMs. While a vast majority of
the transactions executed on the Exchange are automated, Floor brokers
play an important role for customers in those transactions that require
the expertise of a professional trading floor agent. Providing the MOC/
LOC imbalance information to Floor brokers is appropriate because a key
component of their role as agent for these sophisticated customers is
to provide market ``color'' to the extent permitted under applicable
rules. The Exchange's electronic dissemination of this information
would be limited to the Floor broker hand-held devices, which are
unable to automatically forward or re-transmit the electronic datafeed
to any other location, although Floor brokers are permitted to provide
their customers with specific data points from the feed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Current NYSE Amex rules permit a Floor broker to communicate
information obtained through a market probe to a customer using a
wired telephone line (NYSE Amex Rule 36.20), an NYSE Amex approved
portable phone (NYSE Amex Rule 36.21), or through a written
electronic communication from the Floor brokers' hand-held device as
permitted by the NYSE Amex's ``Wireless Data Communications
Initiatives'' (See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59627 (March
25, 2009), 74 FR 14834 (April 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-02). See
June 16, 2010 e-mail. The Exchange records all of the information
sent to and transmitted from the hand-held devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to correct erroneous rule text in
123C(6)(a)(v). The rule text incorrectly states that the dissemination
of the Order Imbalance Datafeed commences 10 minutes prior to the
scheduled close

of trading on any day that the scheduled close of trading on the
Exchange is earlier than 4 p.m. The 10 minute interval is a legacy time
frame related to the Exchange's prior publication of imbalance at 3:40
p.m. and 3:50 p.m. When the Exchange moved to a single imbalance
publication at 3:45 p.m., the rule text should have been modified to
reflect that dissemination of the Order Imbalance Information on any
day that the scheduled close was prior to 4 p.m. would commence
approximately 15 minutes before the scheduled closing time consistent
with the single imbalance publication. The Exchange therefore seeks to
amend NYSE Amex Rule 123C(6)(a)(v) accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5),\8\ which requires that an exchange
have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
consistent with these objectives in that the dissemination of MOC/LOC
imbalance information would provide Floor brokers with an understanding
of developing trends early enough to get appropriate direction from
their customers and to know where on the physical Trading Floor it
needs to deploy its brokers in preparation for the closing transaction.
Overall, the Exchange believes that dissemination of MOC/LOC imbalance
information to Floor brokers is consistent with the above objectives
because it removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market through the efficient operation of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dissemination of MOC/LOC imbalance information to Floor brokers
would serve as an efficiency tool to enhance the Floor brokers' ability
to meet their best execution obligations in the face of a dilemma that
is unique to a physical Trading Floor, i.e., how to position resources
so that they are in the correct place to execute orders on behalf of
sophisticated customers whose needs are not effectively met by strictly
electronic trading. While the imbalance information is important to
Floor brokers in carrying out their obligations to those customers, the
Exchange believes this information would not be material to market
participants executing automated orders. In this regard, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to provide Floor brokers with specific types
of information that is directly related to the unique functions they
perform on the Trading Floor.
    In this particular case, the Exchange believes that the
dissemination of MOC/LOC information to Floor brokers would promote the
efficient operation of the Exchange's market by reducing the frequency
of time-consuming Floor broker oral market probes leading up to the
closing transaction, thus affording DMMs more time to monitor trading.
As trading has become more electronic, staffing on the trading Floor
has declined, so that there are now fewer Floor brokers even as the
number of listed securities has increased.\9\ Similarly, DMM units and
individual DMMs on the Floor, are managing trading in greater numbers
of stocks than ever before. The need for DMMs to be focused on their
assigned securities, particularly on high volume trading days, such as
an Expiration Friday or an index rebalancing event, or trading days
with high levels of market volatility, is critical to the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The number of Floor brokers operating on the Exchange Floor
has decreased since 2004 from approximately 800 Floor brokers to
approximately 325 Floor brokers operating on the Floor today.
    \10\ It should be noted that NYSE rules and the Federal
securities laws provide safeguards that are designed to deter the
potential abuse of market probe information. For example, Floor
broker member organizations are not permitted to initiate
proprietary orders on the Floor. In addition, Floor brokers
representing a principal or proprietary order that has been
initiated in the off-Floor premises of the firm are subject to the
requirements of Section 11(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    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 self-regulatory organization 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-NYSEAmex-2010-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-25. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-
NYSEAmex-2010-25 and should be submitted on or before July 15, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15245 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P