  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	(a)  TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation (Renewal), EPA Form
1900-10.  Information Collection Request (ICR) 0246.11, OMB Control No.
2030-0016.

	(b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION/ABSTRACT

	The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.804-5 states that the office
administering a contract is responsible for initiating administrative
close out following physical completion of the contract.  Funds status
review is a mandatory part of contract closeout.  It includes settlement
of interim or disallowed costs and settlement of indirect cost rates.

	Under a cost reimbursement type contract, when the contract is
completed, the contractor submits EPA Form 1900-10 which summarizes all
cost incurred in performance of the contract and sets forth the final
indirect rates.  This form is reviewed by the contracting office to
determine the final costs reimbursable to the contractor.  A copy of the
form is attached to this request.

2. 	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	(a) NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

	FAR 52.216-7 states that the Government will pay only the costs
determined to be
       allowable by the contracting officer in accordance with FAR 31.2.
 Furthermore, FAR 52.216-7 states that indirect cost rates shall be
established for each fiscal year at the close of a contractor’s fiscal
year.  EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes this information for the entire
contract period and provides a basis for cost review by contracting,
finance, and audit personnel.  As stated previously, FAR 4.804-5
mandates that the office administering the contract shall ensure that
the costs and indirect cost rates are settled.

	(b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA

	Information collected on the 1900-10 will be used by the contracting,
financial, and audit personnel to determine the final amount of costs
reimbursable to the contractor.  EPA personnel and auditors from the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), if requested, will review the
information in order to determine the final contract costs prior to
final payment under the contract.

3.	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

NON DUPLICATION

Information collected is contract-specific.  Cumulative contract cost
information, as requested, is not available from any other source.

PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

	The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d),
soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on
12/28/2011 (76 FR 81490).

CONSULTATIONS

Nine vendors who had cost type contracts with EPA which expired within
the past five years were contacted to discuss collection activities.

EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

	The information is collected only once at contract closeout.  This
information is required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation to be
collected at that time.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

	This information collection meets all OMB guidelines with the exception
of two: (1) small entities have to follow the same collection procedures
as other respondents and (2) Confidential Business Information (CBI) is
requested.  Item one is addressed in paragraph 4(c).  CBI is protected
from release to the public by 40 CFR Part 2.

CONFIDENTIALITY

	Information collected under this request, particularly cost and pricing
data, is treated as CBI.  This information is protected from public
release in accordance with the Agency's confidentially regulation, 40
C.F.R. Part 2.201 et seq.

SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

Information collected under this request is treated as CBI and is
protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's
confidentially regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 2.201 et seq.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

(a) RESPONDENTS/NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION (NAICS) CODES

	All contractors who have completed an EPA cost reimbursement type
contract will be required to submit EPA Form 1900-10.  These contractors
represent a wide range of industries which include, but are not limited
to: 541511, Custom Computer Programming, 5416 Management and Consulting
Services, 6215 Medical Laboratories, and 541380, Testing Laboratories.

	(b) INFORMATION REQUESTED

	(i) DATA ITEMS

	Data requested in EPA Form 1900-10 (attached) has not changed since the
last OMB review.  This information includes major cost elements such as
direct labor, direct material and supplies, equipment, travel,
subcontract costs, consultant fees, indirect costs and fixed fees.
Indirect costs are broken down showing base year and rate for each cost
center for each year of contract performance.

Please note that EPA has omitted the expiration date from form 1900-10.
As stipulated in 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1), the collection of information
should display a currently valid OMB Control Number and, if appropriate,
an expiration date.  Due to the fact that this form has been in use for
a number of years without change, and since the collection activity and
use of the form continue to be required, it is not appropriate to
include the expiration date on the form.

	(ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

	In order to complete the EPA Form 1900-10, respondents must total all
cost incurred under the contract, including costs for direct labor, all
equipment, materials and supplies, travel, subcontracts, consulting
fees, indirect costs, and fees.  During contract performance, this
information is included on the contractor’s monthly invoice for
reimbursement.  To calculate total contract costs, the contractor adds
the cost from each invoice submitted under the contract.  If costs were
claimed on an invoice that was disallowed, the contractor would subtract
the disallowed amount from the total.

	Negotiated indirect cost rates are applied to the base costs in order
to determine the indirect costs for each cost center.  This information
is also contained in the contractor’s invoices, and in correspondence
concerning allowable costs and negotiated agreements on indirect rates.
None of the information collected under this ICR must be created or
researched.  Rather, the data is compiled from various existing sources
and summarized for this information collection.  After the data is
compiled, it must be reviewed for accuracy against existing records.  It
is customary business practice for a contractor to maintain the type of
financial performance information required to complete EPA Form 1900-10.

5.	  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
  METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	(a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES

	Once EPA Form 1900-10 is reviewed by the Agency, the data is reconciled
with Agency records, and audited.  If the information collected is
correct, final contract payment is made.

	(b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

	Information submitted is checked against Agency records such as
invoices, correspondence, and negotiated agreements.  Respondents have
the option of reporting in their own computerized format provided all
the required data is present.  Completed forms, after review, become
part of the contract files and will not be disclosed outside the
Government.

	(c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

	Data requested is required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.  It
is not possible to develop separate or simplified requirements for small
businesses or other small entities because the information required is
necessary to complete the closing out of a contract, an alternate
collection of information for small businesses is not appropriate.

(d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE

	Data is collected once at contract completion.  Generally, this is
after a five year period of performance.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

		(a)  ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

		Vendors indicated that the information required in completion of this
form is financial information that is routinely kept for company
records.

		(b)  ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	The annual labor cost to respondents is estimated at $9,001.80 based on
the following calculations.  Contractors may claim the cost of
completing this form under the appropriate contract.

    ACTIVITY	TIME TO COMPLETE	RATE	COST

1. Gather information		       180.0 minutes		    $113.96	  $341.88

2. Compile data	  	         27.5 minutes		    $113.96	  $  52.23

3. Review data	  		         27.5 minutes		    $113.96	  $  52.23

4. Enter data onto form	    5.0 minutes	$45.10  	       $    3.75

            Total	   240 minutes		          $450.09

	Step 1 thru 3 of the collection activity is performed by an
administrative manager.  Administrative support personnel are
responsible for completing step 4.

	The cost associated with this effort was estimated using a loaded
hourly rate based upon the Occupational Employment Statistics:
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2010; published by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  This data represents
the most current survey data available.  The median hourly wage for each
labor group was used in the computations.

	Since the labor rates from the Occupational Employment and Wages are
from 2010, an escalation factor of 3% (based on the Consumer Price Index
published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics)
was applied for each year to determine an average wage for 2011.  The
escalated hourly labor rate is multiplied by an estimated loading factor
of 2.95 (*see below) to reflect industries’ overhead, fringe benefits,
and general and administrative costs.

The following are the loaded labor rates used in the calculations in the
table above:

Administrative Service Manager (11-3011):

2010 = $37.45

2011 = ($37.45 x 1.03) = $38.63 x 2.95 = $113.96

Administrative Support (43-6014):

2010 = $14.82

2011 = ($14.82 x 1.03) = $15.29 x 2.95 = $45.10

* 2.95 is a factor recommended by EPA cost analyst as representative of
labor related burdens experienced by EPA contractors.

	The cost for each labor category was determined by first dividing the
hourly labor rate by 60 minutes to obtain the per minute rate. Then the
per minute rate is multiplied by the minutes to complete each activity,
to obtain the cost.

	EPA processes approximately 20 contract closeouts annually, using EPA
Form 1900-10.  As indicated above, each form takes 240 minutes, or about
4 hours to complete. The 20 annual actions, multiplied by the cost to
process one action, $450.09, are used to determine the above annual cost
burden to the respondents.  The 20 annual actions, multiplied by 4 hours
equates to an annual hourly burden of 80 hours.  The amount of time
required to complete each of the tasks involved is based on
consultations with contractors, contractor consultation with their
subcontractors and Agency experience.  Also respondents have pointed out
that the complexity of the contract to be closed out and the timeliness
of consulted subcontractors increases the amount of time needed to
gather the required information.  Most firms keep all of their financial
data required for completion of this form in a computer database.

(ii) Capital/Start-up Costs

	Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital
goods to provide the requested information, EPA included no capital or
start-up costs in the burden estimate.

 	(iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating and Maintenance Costs, which include such items as file
storage,

photocopying, and postage, are minimal for this effort, and are
estimated at $13.20 per action for a total annual burden of $264.00 (20
annual actions x $13.20).

(c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN & COST

	Once the Agency receives the information, it is reviewed by the
employee conducting contract close-out.  Annual Agency burden is
estimated at $523.60 calculated as follows:

  ACTIVITY	TIME REQUIRED	RATE	COST

1. Review data against	30 minutes	$52.37	$26.18

    Agency records

	Generally, the individual closing out the contract is a GS-12 grade
level.  The wage rate was calculated by taking the GS-12 median hourly
rate ($32.73) and multiplying it by a factor of 1.6 to account for
benefits.  The cost per action was determined by first dividing the
hourly labor rate by 60 minutes to obtain the per minute rate. Then the
per minute rate is multiplied by the minutes to complete the review of
one action to obtain the cost.  As described above, 20 annual  actions
were multiplied by the cost, $26.18, to review an action in order to
calculate the Agency burden.

	(d)  ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COSTS

	(e)  BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES

(f)  REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

	The increase in the burden from the previous approval is due to the
inflation rate of approximately 10% since 2007.  The total number of
hours is unchanged.

	(g)  BURDEN  STATEMENT

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 240 minutes 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; 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.  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 are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0997, which is available for public viewing at the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 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 OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic
version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET)
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/edocket"  http://www.epa.gov/edocket
.  Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  Once
in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number
identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0997 and OMB
Control Number 2030-0016 in any correspondence.

EPA Form 1900-10 (Rev. 3-06)

Previous Edition is Obsolete

          EPA   United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Contractor's Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation

OMB No. 2030 - 0016

1. Contractor's Address (include zip code)	2. Contract No.

3. Total amounts claimed under this contract (less disallowances
concurred by the contractor and disallowances not subject to appeal) and
approved on Public Vouchers Nos.	to	(including completion vouchers).

Item	Amount

Direct Labor	$

Direct Material and Supplies	$

Equipment	$

Travel	$

Subcontract Costs	$

Other Direct Costs	$

Consultant Fees	$

Fixed Fee	$

Indirect Costs (Total From Section 4)	$

Total Amount Claimed	$

4. Reconciliation of Indirect Costs Claimed.  Record the amount of
indirect costs calculated, for each cost center, using negotiated final
indirect cost rate(s).  Use provisional rate(s) if final rates are not
negotiated for any fiscal year period(s).  Use the reverse side of this
form, if necessary, to display all years and cost centers.

	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center

FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	Totals

	No monies or other benefits may be paid unless this report is completed
and filed as required in the EPA billing instructions.

I certify that the information provided on this form and attachments
thereto are accurate and complete.  I acknowledge that any knowingly
false or misleading information may be punishable by fine and/or
imprisonment under applicable law.

Name and Title (Print or Type)	Signature	Date

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 240 minutes per response, including the time for searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing data.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of information (including suggestions
for reducing this burden) to:

                             (1)   Manager, Policy and Oversight Service
Center (mail code 3802R)

                                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

                                 Washington, DC 20460; and

Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB No. 2030-0016)

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Office of Management and Budget

Washington, DC 20503.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, D.C.  200503.

	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center	Cost Center

FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	FY

	Base

	Rate

	Indirect Costs

	Totals

No monies or other benefits may be paid unless this report is completed
and filed as required in the EPA billing instructions.

 PAGE

  PAGE   2

		Attachment A


TXR NO. 0050361 December 19, 2001 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: PRONAMIDE Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee FROM: Carol Christensen, Acting Executive Secretary FQPA Safety Factor Committee Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Ed Zager, Chair FQPA Safety Factor Committee Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Jose Morales, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division (7509C)

PC Code: 101701 The FQPA Safety Factor Committee evaluated the available hazard and exposure data for pronamide on December 3 rd , 2001 and made the recommendation for the FQPA safety factor to be used in human health risk assessments (as required by Food Quality Protection Act of August 3, 1996). The committee concluded that the FQPA safety factor could be reduced (3x) in assessing the risk posed by this chemical. 2 I. HAZARD ASSESSMENT (Memorandum: Michelle Centra to Carol Christensen, dated November 26, 2001)

A. Adequacy of the Toxicology Database The toxicology data base for pronamide is adequate for FQPA assessment. The toxicology data base for pronamide was reviewed by the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) on November 6 th , 2001. Prenatal developmental toxicity studies in the rabbit and a two generation reproduction study are available with pronamide. However, the submitted prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats was evaluated and classified as unacceptable guideline (not upgradeable). Neither a LOAEL nor a definitive NOAEL was established in this study, and, no toxicities were observed in the maternal animals and their fetuses.

B. Determination of Susceptibility The results of the available developmental toxicity study in rabbits and two generation reproduction study in rats indicated no susceptibility to the fetuses of rabbits or to the offspring of rats following pre and/ or postnatal exposure to pronamide. Fetal/ offspring effects in both the rat and rabbit were observed at either the same or higher dose levels which produced maternal/ parental toxicity.

C. Requirement of a Developmental Neurotoxicity Study The HIARC determined that a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is not required. However, endocrine effects (thyroid, testes, ovaries, adrenal glands, pituitary gland, thymus) were identified in the majority of studies conducted across species. Since thyroid hormone disruptions are known to be associated with adverse effects on neurological development, a special study designed to assess thyroid function in adult animals and their offspring will be required.

II. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS A. Dietary Food Exposure Considerations (Memorandum: Jose Morales to Carol Christensen on November 27, 2001)

Pronamide [3,5 dichloro N( 1,1 dimethyl 2 propynyl) benzamide] is a selective, systemic, pre and post emergence herbicide registered for the control of grasses and broadleaf weeds in several food and feed crops as well as woody ornamentals, Christmas trees, nursery stocks, lawns, turfs, and fallow land. The application rates range from 0.2 lbs ai/ A to 4.0 lbs ai/ A and can be applied 1 to 2 times per season. There are no Codex MRLs established or proposed for residues of pronamide in or on foods. Tolerances range from 0.05 10 ppm.

Pronamide is a systemic herbicide. The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and 3 animals is adequately understood. The terminal residues of concern are pronamide and its metabolites containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety. Monitoring data are available from the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) for the years 1998 and 1999. There were only 2 instances of detectable residues. Percent of crop treated data are also available.

The HED Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) will be used to assess the risk from dietary exposure to pronamide residues in food. The DEEM analysis will be refined (Tier II) using anticipated residues and percent of crop treated data.

The Committee recognizes that further refinement to the dietary food exposure analyses may be required as the risk assessment is developed. Therefore, provided the final dietary food exposure assessment includes the metabolites of toxicological concern does not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children, the safety factor recommendations of this Committee stand.

B. Dietary Drinking Water Exposure Considerations (Correspondence: Lucy Shanaman to Carol Christensen on November 27, 2001)

The environmental fate data base for the parent compound (pronamide, also known as propyzamide) is complete. Pronamide is relatively mobile and persistent in the environment, and therefore could possibly move to surface and groundwater. Only the parent compound pronamide is assessed in the drinking water exposure analysis. Laboratory studies indicate that leaching appears to be the major route of dissipation for pronamide.

The FIRST and SCI GROW models will be used to estimate environmental concentrations (EEC's) of pronamide in surface water and groundwater. These models are considered Tier I. The ornamental application scenario is used to assess water exposure because application rate and frequency associated with this use is expected to result in the highest modeled EECs. Monitoring data were not used in this assessment directly. However, available data do indicate that the values estimated through modeling are conservative.

The FQPA Safety Factor Committee recognizes that further refinement to the dietary drinking water exposure analyses may be required as the risk assessment is developed. Therefore, provided the final dietary water exposure assessment does not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children, the safety factor recommendations of this Committee stand. 4 C. Residential Exposure Considerations (Correspondence: Barry O'Keefe to Carol Christensen on November 27, 2001)

Use of pronamide in the residential environment is by certified applicators only. Postapplication dermal and incidental oral exposures to children and infants are possible from exposure to lawns and turf treated with pronamide. Typical application rates are 0.5 to 1.0 lbs ai/ acre. Applications to turf are only made in the late Fall or late Winter. Therefore, for residential turf, it is reasonable to assume that typically one or two applications are made per year. If two applications were made, one would probably be made in late Fall, followed by another application in late Winter.

Both a registrant submitted turf transferable residue (TTR) study and the EPA's original and revised Draft SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessment were used to assess postapplication dermal exposure to adults and children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. A 100% dermal absorption factor was assumed. Incident data are available, and report only a few exposures. 5 II SAFETY FACTOR RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE A. Recommendation of the Factor The Committee recommended that the FQPA safety factor be reduced to 3x.

B. Rationale for Reducing the FQPA Safety Factor The FQPA Committee determined that the safety factor is necessary when assessing the risk posed by pronamide because:

1. There is evidence of endocrine effects (thyroid, testes, ovaries, adrenal glands, pituitary gland, thymus) identified in the majority of studies conducted across species. A special study designed to assess thyroid function in adult animals and their offspring will be required.

However, the Committee concluded that the safety factor could be reduced for pronamide because:

1. The toxicological database is adequate for FQPA assessment; and, 2. There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rabbits to in utero exposure or to rats following pre/ postnatal exposure. Also, in the available, unacceptable rat study, no increased susceptibility was seen even though the animals could have tolerated higher doses. 3. A developmental neurotoxicity study is not required; and, 4. The dietary (food and drinking water) and residential exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and children.

C. Application of the Safety Factor  Population Subgroups/ Risk Assessment Scenarios:

All population subgroups: The 3x FQPA Safety factor will be applied when assessing chronic dietary and short term residential exposure scenarios because of evidence of endocrine effects.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36598-36600]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15605]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64693; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 903G
To Permit the Exchange To List Flexible Exchange Options on Index and
Equity Securities That Are Eligible for Non-FLEX Options Trading, and
That Have Non-FLEX Options on Such Index and Equity Securities Listed
and Traded on at Least One National Securities Exchange, Even if the
Exchange Does Not List Such Non-FLEX Options

 June 16, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 3, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX Options) to
permit the Exchange to list Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX
Options'') on index and equity securities that are eligible for Non-
FLEX Options trading, and that have Non-FLEX Options on such index and
equity securities listed and traded on at least one national securities
exchange, even if the Exchange does not list such Non-FLEX Options. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX
Options) to permit trading of FLEX Options series in securities whose
Non-FLEX Options are listed and traded on a national securities
exchange(s), based on a recently adopted rule change of the Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60585 (August 28,
2009), 74 FR 46257 (September 8, 2009). Unlike CBOE's rule, we have
clarified that our proposed rule would only permit the trading of
FLEX Options on securities whose Non-Flex Options are listed and
traded on at least one options exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 903G currently permits the Exchange to approve and open for
trading FLEX Options only after the particular index or equity security
has been approved for Non-FLEX Options trading.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a rule change similar to a rule
change recently adopted by the CBOE to allow FLEX Equity Options on any
security that meets the standards of NYSE Amex Rule 915, and that has
Non-FLEX Options on such security listed and traded on at least one
options exchange, regardless of whether the Exchange trades such Non-
FLEX Options.
    Similarly, the CBOE rule change also adopted a provision to allow
FLEX Index Options on any index that meets its listing standards. NYSE
Amex proposes to adopt a similar provision that would permit FLEX Index
Options on any index that meets the standards of Rule 901C, and that
has Non-FLEX Options on such index listed and traded on at least one
options exchange, even if the Exchange does not list and trade such
Non-FLEX Options.
    The Exchange also proposes to designate 903G(c)(1) as ``reserved''
because the text in that provision stating that FLEX Equity Option
transactions are limited to transactions in options on underlying
securities that have been approved by the Exchange in accordance with
Rule 915 would no longer be applicable.
    As an alternative to the over-the-counter marketplace and other
national security exchanges, the Exchange proposes to increase the
spectrum of indexes and equity securities that are

eligible for FLEX Options trading on the Exchange, even if the Exchange
does not list Non-FLEX Options on such indexes or equity securities. In
this regard, the Exchange does not list options on every NMS stock or
index that is eligible for options trading, even if permitted to do so
according to its listing standards, but recognizes that market
participants may want access to options on such indexes and equity
securities, in addition to the certainty and safeguards that a
regulated and standardized marketplace provides.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that its proposal to permit the Exchange to list FLEX Options
on indexes and equity securities that are eligible for Non-FLEX Options
trading and whose Non-FLEX Options are listed and traded on at least
one national securities exchange, even if the Exchange does not list
such Non-FLEX Options, would provide market participants with
additional means to manage their risk exposures and carry out their
investment objectives with listed options. In this regard, the
Exchange's proposal would increase competition in the FLEX Options
market. In addition, the Exchange's proposal is consistent with
investor protection and the public interest in that it is limited to
FLEX Options on securities that would be eligible to have, and in fact
have, Non-FLEX Options listed and traded on them. The criteria for such
underlying securities has been carefully crafted over the years to
ensure that only appropriate securities have standardized options
listed on them (e.g., securities with sufficient trading volume and
shareholders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the Exchange could immediately list FLEX Options on indexes and
equity securities that are eligible for non-FLEX Options trading, and
that have non-FLEX Options on such index and equity securities listed
and traded on at least one national securities exchange, even if the
Exchange does not list non-FLEX Options on such indexes and equity
securities. In support of the waiver, the Exchange believes that it
would benefit the marketplace and the investing public because it would
provide market participants with additional means to manage their risk
exposures and carry out their investment objectives with listed
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In
making this determination, the Commission notes that NYSE Amex's
proposed rule change is substantially similar to CBOE's FLEX rules,
which also permit CBOE to list FLEX options on securities that are
eligible for non-FLEX options trading, even if CBOE does not list non-
FLEX options on such securities.\11\ The Commission notes that the
CBOE's proposal was subject to full notice and comment, and the
Commission received no comments on CBOE's rule proposal. Further, the
Commission notes that NYSE Amex's proposal adds clarification to the
rules, noting expressly that its rules would only permit the trading of
FLEX Options on securities whose non-FLEX Options are listed and traded
on at least one national securities exchange. This provision will help
to ensure that adequate exchange requirements are met for trading these
products and that the FLEX market will provide an alternative to
certain investors that want to customize specified options terms not
available in the standardized market. In addition to the factors noted
above, the Commission also believes that waiver of the operative delay
will allow the NYSE Amex to immediately compete with other exchanges
for the trading of such FLEX options, thereby providing investors
another venue on which to trade these products. For these reasons, the
Commission designates, consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest, that the proposed rule change become operative
immediately upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 4.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-38 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-NYSEAmex-2011-38. 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 NYSE Amex. 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-NYSEAmex-2011-38 and should be
submitted on or before July 13, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15605 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 2100-2101]
[DOCID:fr12ja06-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53052; File No. SR-PCX-2004-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change, and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, by the Pacific Exchange, Inc.
Relating to Modifying the Market Imbalance Calculation for the Opening
and Market Order Auctions on the Archipelago Exchange

January 5, 2006.
    On May 14, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange''), through its wholly-owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc.
(``PCXE'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify the practices that the Exchange employs
with respect to the calculation of the Market Imbalance during the
Market Order Auction \3\ and Closing Auction \4\ conducted on the
Archipelago Exchange (``ArcaEx''), the equity trading facility of the
Exchange. On May 24, 2004, the PCX submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Federal Register published the proposed
rule change, as amended, for comment on June 3, 2004.\6\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See PCXE Rule 7.35(c).
    \4\ See PCXE Rule 7.35(e).
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49773 (May 26, 2004), 69
FR 31440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify PCXE Rule 1.1(q) for the purpose of
modifying the ArcaEx calculation of the Market Imbalance. Currently,
the ``Market Imbalance'' is defined as the imbalance of any remaining
Market Orders \7\ that are not matched for execution during the Market
Order Auction \8\ and the imbalance of any remaining Market-on-Close
(``MOC'') Orders that are not matched for execution during the Closing
Auction.\9\ As such, all eligible Market Orders, MOC Orders,\10\ Limit
Orders,\11\ and Limit-on-Close (``LOC'') Orders \12\ that are eligible
for execution in the applicable auction against Market Orders or MOC
Orders are taken into consideration when calculating the Market
Imbalance for the Market Order Auction and Closing Auction. The
Exchange proposes to modify the Market Imbalance calculation for both
the Market Order Auction and the Closing Auction so that it will only
take into consideration Market Orders (for the Market Order Auction)
and MOC Orders (for the Closing Auction) in determining the Market
Imbalance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PCXE Rule 7.31(a).
    \8\ PCXE Rule 7.35(c).
    \9\ PCXE Rule 7.35(e).
    \10\ PCXE Rule 7.31(dd).
    \11\ PCXE Rule 7.31(b).
    \12\ PCXE Rule 7.31(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\15\ in particular, because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of

trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the modified Market Imbalance
calculation will provide Users \16\ with more information about the
number of Market Orders and MOC Orders available for execution on the
side of the market with an excess number of such orders during the
applicable auction. The Commission believes that the Exchange's
proposal is reasonably designed to promote transparency of the
available Market Orders and MOC Orders that have been submitted to
participate in the applicable auction. The Commission also believes
that the proposed rule change, as amended, appears to be reasonably
designed to promote competition among Users seeking to execute against
Market Orders and MOC Orders, which are executed before marketable
Limit Orders and LOC orders during the Market Order Auction and Closing
Auction, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See PCXE Rule 1.1(yy) for the definition of ``User.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change, as amended, (SR-PCX-2004-46)
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-194 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P