[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78395-78401]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26677]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90535; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 To Delete the FINRA Order Audit Trail System (OATS)

November 30, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On August 14, 2020, 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 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
proposed rule changes to delete the Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'')
rules in the FINRA Rule 7400 Series and FINRA Rule 4554 (the ``OATS
Rules'') once members are effectively reporting to the Consolidated
Audit Trail (``CAT''). On September 1, 2020, the proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register.\3\ On October 8,
2020, the Commission extended the time period for Commission action on
the proposed rule change to November 30, 2020.\4\ The Commission
received three comment letters on the Notice.\5\ On October 29, 2020,
FINRA responded to the comment letters,\6\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1''). The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change from interested parties and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89679 (August 26,
2020), 85 FR 54461 (the ``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90129, 85 FR 65113
(October 14, 2020).
    \5\ See Letters from William J. Leahey, Head of Regulatory
Compliance, Refinitiv, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated September 22, 2020 (``Refinitiv Letter''); Howard Meyerson,
Managing Director, Financial Information Forum, to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated September 22, 2020 (``FIF
Letter''); Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equity & Options Market
Structure, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 24, 2020.
    \6\ See Letter from Lisa C. Horrigan, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated October
29, 2020 (``Response Letter''). In Amendment No. 1, FINRA proposes
to modify the proposal to provide that it will calculate the match
rate in the aggregate across all equity exchanges instead of
calculating the equity exchange match rate on a per exchange basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS thereunder,\8\ FINRA and other self-regulatory
organizations filed with the Commission a National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or
``Plan'') \9\ to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act.\10\ The Plan was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2016,\11\ and approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016.\12\ On March 15, 2017, the Commission
approved rule change proposals submitted by the by all the national
securities exchanges and association that are party to the CAT NMS Plan
(``Participants'') that implement provisions of the CAT NMS Plan
applicable to their members (the ``CAT Compliance Rules'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \9\ See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated February 8, 2016. Prior versions of the CAT NMS
Plan were submitted to the Commission on September 30, 2014;
February 27, 2015; and December 23, 2015.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.613.
    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27, 2016),
81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79318 (November 15,
2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016) (``CAT Approval Order'').
    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80255 (March 15,
2017), 82 FR 14563 (March 21, 2017); 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR
14526 (March 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAT NMS Plan is designed to create, implement, and maintain a
consolidated audit trail that will capture in a single consolidated
data source customer and order event information for orders in NMS
Securities and OTC Equity Securities (together, ``CAT-Eligible
Securities''), across all markets, from the time of order inception
through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution. Section C.9
of Appendix C to the Plan requires each Participant to ``file with the
SEC the relevant rule change filing to eliminate or modify its
duplicative rules within six (6) months of the SEC's approval of the
CAT NMS Plan'' and states that ``the elimination of such rules and the
retirement of such systems [will] be effective at such time as CAT Data
meets minimum standards of accuracy and reliability.'' FINRA submitted
a proposed rule change that was substantively similar to the instant
filing on May 15, 2017.\14\ FINRA subsequently withdrew the filing on
January 12, 2018.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act 80783 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR
25423 (June 1, 2017)(SR-FINRA-2017-13).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82524 (January 17,
2018), 83 FR 3230 (January 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section C.9 of Appendix C to the Plan also requires these rule
filings to discuss the following:
    (i) Specific accuracy and reliability standards that will determine
when duplicative systems will be retired, including, but not limited
to, whether the attainment of a certain Error Rate should determine
when a system duplicative of the CAT can be retired;
    (ii) whether the availability of certain data from Small Industry
Members would facilitate a more expeditious retirement of duplicative
systems; and
    (iii) whether individual Industry Members can be exempted from
reporting to duplicative systems once their CAT reporting meets
specified accuracy and reliability standards, including, but not
limited to, ways in which establishing cross-system regulatory
functionality or integrating data from existing systems and the CAT
would facilitate such Individual Industry Member exemptions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these requirements, FINRA submitted the instant
filing (the ``Proposal''), which is described below.

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    As required by the CAT NMS Plan, the Proposal discusses: (1) The
specific standards that will govern when OATS will be eliminated; (2)
whether the availability of data from Small Industry Members would
facilitate duplicative systems retirement; and (3) the feasibility of
granting exemptions from reporting to duplicative systems to individual
Industry Members whose CAT reporting meets certain accuracy and
reliability thresholds.

A. Specific Accuracy and Reliability Standards

1. OATS
    The OATS rules require certain FINRA members to report a variety of
data regarding transactions in OTC equity securities and NMS stocks to
OATS on a daily basis.\17\ In the proposal, FINRA proposes to delete
its OATS rules from its rulebook once CAT Data achieves certain pre-
and post-correction error rates and certain qualitative criteria have
been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Rule 7400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it believes that relevant error rates are the
primary, but not the sole, metric by which to determine the CAT's
accuracy and reliability and will serve as the baseline

requirement needed for OATS to be retired.\18\ FINRA stated that the
Participants established an initial Error Rate, as defined in the Plan,
of 5% on initially submitted data (i.e., data as submitted by a CAT
Reporter before any required corrections are performed).\19\ The
Participants based this Error Rate on their consideration of ``current
and historical OATS Error Rates, the magnitude of new reporting
requirements on the CAT Reporters and the fact that many CAT Reporters
may have never been obligated to report data to an audit trail.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 54463.
    \19\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix B, Section A.3(b).
    \20\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section A.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Proposal, FINRA expressed agreement with the Participants'
conclusion that a 5% pre-correction threshold ``strikes the balance of
adapting to a new reporting regime, while ensuring that the data
provided to regulators will be capable of being used to conduct
surveillance and market reconstruction, as well as having a sufficient
level of accuracy to facilitate the retirement of existing regulatory
reports and systems where possible.'' \21\ However, FINRA believed
that, when assessing the accuracy and reliability of the data for the
purposes of retiring OATS, the error thresholds should be measured in
more granular ways and should also include minimum error rates of post-
correction data, which represents the data most likely to be used by
FINRA to conduct surveillance. Although FINRA is proposing to measure
the appropriate error rates in the aggregate rather than firm-by-firm,
FINRA expressed the belief that the error rates for equity securities
should be measured separately from options since options orders are not
currently reported regularly or included in OATS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 54463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also proposes that, before OATS is retired, the CAT would
generally need to achieve a sustained error rate for Industry Member
reporting in each of the categories below:
     Rejection Rates and Data Validations. FINRA has reviewed
the data validations for the CAT, which are set forth in the Industry
Member Technical Specifications published by the Plan Processor,\23\
and confirmed that they are substantially similar to OATS. While not
required to be designed the same as OATS, data validations must be
functionally equivalent to OATS in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan
(i.e., the same types of basic data validations must be performed by
the Plan Processor to comply with the CAT NMS Plan requirements).
Appendix D of the Plan, for example, requires that certain file
validations \24\ and syntax and context checks be performed on all
submitted records.\25\ If a record does not pass these basic data
validations, it must be rejected and returned to the CAT Reporter to be
corrected and resubmitted.\26\ The Plan also requires the Plan
Processor to provide daily statistics on rejection rates after the data
has been processed, including the number of files rejected and
accepted, the number of order events accepted and rejected, and the
number of each type of report rejected.\27\ FINRA is proposing that,
over the 180-day period, aggregate rejection rates (measured separately
for equities and options) must be no more than 5% pre-correction or 2%
post-correction across all CAT Reporters.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Industry Member Technical Specifications (2a/2b)
version 2.2.1 r6, dated June 22, 2020, available at
www.catnmsplan.com/sites/default/files/2020-06/CAT_Reporting_Technical_Specifications_for_Industry%20Members_v2.2.1r6_CLEAN.pdf.
    \24\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix D, Section 7.2. The Plan
requires the Plan Processor to confirm that file transmission and
receipt are in the correct formats, including validation of header
and trailers on the submitted report, confirmation of a valid SRO-
Assigned Market Participant Identifier, and verification of the
number of records in the file. Id.
    \25\ See id. The Plan provides that syntax and context checks
would include format checks (i.e., that data is entered in the
specified format); data type checks (i.e., that the data type of
each attribute conforms to the specifications); consistency checks
(i.e., that all attributes for a record of a specified type are
consistent); range/logic checks (i.e., that each attribute for every
record has a value within specified limits and the values provided
are associated with the event type they represent); data validity
checks (i.e., that each attribute for every record has an acceptable
value); completeness checks (i.e., that each mandatory attribute for
every record is not null); and timeliness checks (i.e., that the
records were submitted within the submission timelines). Id.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section A.3(b), at n. 102. FINRA
stated that while error rates after reprocessing of error
corrections are ultimately expected to be de minimis for the CAT, it
does not believe that post-correction errors need to be de minimis
before OATS can be retired and is not suggesting, with this
proposal, that 2% would meet the ultimate objective of de minimis
error rates for CAT. In other words, the Proposal does not change
the standard under the CAT NMS Plan that post-correction errors must
be de minimis. See Notice, supra note 3 at n. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Intra-Firm Linkages. The Plan requires that ``the Plan
Processor must be able to link all related order events from all CAT
Reporters involved in the lifecycle of an order.'' \29\ At a minimum,
this requirement includes the creation of an order lifecycle between
``[a]ll order events handled within an individual CAT Reporter,
including orders routed to internal desks or departments with different
functions (e.g., an internal ATS).'' \30\ FINRA is proposing that
aggregate intra-firm linkage rates across all Industry Member Reporters
must be at least 95% pre-correction and 98% post-correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ CAT NMS Plan, Appendix D, Section 3.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Inter-Firm Linkages. The order linkage requirements in the
Plan also require that the Plan Processor be able to create the
lifecycle between orders routed between broker-dealers.\31\ FINRA is
proposing that at least a 95% pre-correction and 98% post-correction
aggregate match rate be achieved for orders routed between two Industry
Member Reporters.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ This assumes linkage statistics will include both unlinked
route reports and new orders where no related route report could be
found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Order Linkage Rates. In addition to creating linkages
within and between broker-dealers, the Plan also includes requirements
that the Plan Processor be able to create lifecycles to link various
pieces of related orders.\33\ For example, the Plan requires linkages
between customer orders and ``representative'' orders created in firm
accounts for the purpose of facilitating a customer order, riskless
principal orders, and orders worked through average price accounts.\34\
Pursuant to the phased approach for Industry Member reporting certain
of these order linkages will not be required in the initial phase of
reporting (or ``Phase 2a''), which commenced on June 22, 2020.\35\
FINRA is proposing that there be at least a 95% pre-correction and 98%
post-correction linkage rate for orders that are required in Phase 2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix D, Section 3.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See CAT Reporting Timelines at www.catnmsplan.com/timelines/. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88702
(April 20, 2020), 85 FR 23075 (April 24, 2020) (Order Granting
Conditional Exemptive Relief from Sections 6.4, 6.7(a)(v) and
6.7(a)(vi) of the CAT NMS Plan) (``Phased Industry Member Reporting
Exemptive Order'') and FINRA Rule 6895. Linkages for representative
order scenarios involving agency average price trades, net trades
and aggregated orders will not be required until the third phase of
reporting (or ``Phase 2c'') is implemented in April 2021; such
linkages are not required in OATS today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While such linkages are not required in OATS today, FINRA believes
that it is appropriate to evaluate them for purposes of retiring OATS.
These linkages represent a significant enhancement to the data
currently available in OATS and will enhance the quality of the equity
audit trail. FINRA does not anticipate that the error rates for the
Phase 2a representative order

linkages in CAT would be significantly higher than the order linkages
available in OATS today. Nonetheless, in evaluating whether the
standards for OATS retirement have been met, FINRA has stated that it
will take into consideration if the error rates for the Phase 2a
representative order linkages have a significant negative impact on the
overall error rates for order linkages.
     Exchange and TRF/ORF Match Rates. The Plan requires that
an order lifecycle be created to link ``[o]rders routed from broker-
dealers to exchanges'' and ``[e]xecuted orders and trade reports.''
\36\ FINRA is proposing at least a 95% pre-correction and 98% post-
correction aggregate match rate across all equity exchange for orders
routed from Industry Members to an exchange and, for over-the-counter
executions, the same match rate for orders linked to trade reports.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has stated that it intends to commence its review of CAT data
and error rates based on Phase 2a data and linkages, which would
replicate the data in OATS today, and will not wait for implementation
of Phase 2c reporting (and the attendant linkages) to do so. Large
Industry Members and Small Industry Members that currently are
reporting to OATS (``Small Industry OATS Reporters'') are required to
submit data to the CAT for these same events and scenarios during Phase
2a. Accordingly, FINRA believes that Phase 2a Industry Member Data is
the most relevant for OATS retirement purposes. FINRA anticipates that
it will retire OATS based solely on Phase 2a reporting, assuming the
threshold pre- and post-correction error rates are achieved and FINRA's
use of the data confirms that the data is accurate and reliable, as
discussed below.
    Once these error rate thresholds are met, FINRA has stated that it
must also evaluate and confirm through incorporation of CAT Data into
its automated surveillance program that the data is accurate and
reliable.\38\ Thus, in addition to the maximum error rates and matching
thresholds proposed above, FINRA's proposal requires that use of CAT
Data must confirm that (i) there are no material issues that have not
been corrected (e.g., delays in the processing of data, issues with
query functions, etc.), (ii) the CAT includes all data necessary to
allow FINRA to continue to meet its surveillance obligations and (iii)
the Plan Processor is sufficiently meeting its obligations under the
CAT NMS Plan relating to the reporting and linkage of Phase 2a Industry
Member Data. FINRA believes that any errors in the CAT Data may
manifest themselves only after surveillance patterns and other queries
have been run. Thus, FINRA believes that while error rate thresholds
may be met over a 180-day period, additional time may be required to
reliably establish that usage of the CAT has not revealed material
issues that have not been corrected and allow contextual analysis of
the data to take place to uncover errors in reporting or processing
that may not be apparent from more standardized data processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For example, FINRA will need to transition all or
substantially all of its automated surveillance patterns to CAT Data
in order to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to alert members of the status of the OATS Rules, if the
Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA is proposing to add
introductory language to Rule 4554 and the Rule 7400 Series that will
state that the SEC has approved a proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2020-
024) to remove Rule 4554 and the Rule 7400 Series from the FINRA
rulebook; however, by its terms, SR-FINRA-2020-024 will not be
implemented until FINRA has determined that the CAT has achieved a
level of accuracy and reliability sufficient to replace OATS. FINRA has
stated that once it has determined that such standards have been met,
FINRA will file for immediate effectiveness a rule filing setting forth
the basis for its determination and will publish a Regulatory Notice
announcing the implementation date of SR-FINRA-2020-024.
2. Small Industry Member Data Availability
    The second issue the Plan requires the proposed rule change to
address is ``whether the availability of certain data from Small
Industry Members two years after the Effective Date would facilitate a
more expeditious retirement of duplicative systems.'' \39\ FINRA
believes that there is no effective way to retire OATS until all
current OATS reporters are reporting to the CAT. Pursuant to the phased
reporting approach, Small Industry OATS Reporters and Large Industry
Members were required to begin reporting to the CAT on the same date,
June 22, 2020. Thus, at this time, all current OATS reporters are
required to report to the CAT.\40\ Small Industry Members that are not
currently required to record and report information to OATS are
required to begin reporting to the CAT in December 2021.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section C.9.
    \40\ The 180-day timeframes discussed above with respect to
usage of the data and calculation of error rates will apply to data
reported to the CAT by Small Industry OATS Reporters.
    \41\ See supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Individual Industry Member Exemptions
    The final issue the Plan requires the proposed rule change to
address is ``whether individual Industry Members can be exempted from
reporting to duplicative systems once their CAT reporting meets
specified accuracy and reliability standards, including, but not
limited to, ways in which establishing cross-system regulatory
functionality or integrating data from existing systems and the CAT
would facilitate such Individual Industry Member exemptions.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section C.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has stated that it believes that a single cut-over from OATS
to CAT is highly preferable to a firm-by-firm approach and is not
proposing to exempt members from the OATS requirements on a firm-by-
firm basis.\43\ FINRA explained that the primary benefit to a firm-by-
firm exemptive approach would be to reduce the amount of time an
individual firm is required to report to a legacy system (e.g., OATS)
if it is also accurately and reliably reporting to the CAT. FINRA
believes that the overall accuracy and reliability thresholds for the
CAT described above would need to be met under any conditions before
firms could stop reporting to OATS. In addition, a firm-by-firm
approach would require that OATS and CAT data be combined and
integrated in order for FINRA to conduct surveillance in accordance
with SEC rules and SRO obligations. Moreover, as discussed above, Small
Industry OATS Reporters are required to report to the CAT on the same
timeframe as all other OATS Reporters (i.e., Large Industry Members).
Thus, FINRA believes there is no need to exempt members from OATS
requirements on a firm-by-firm basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 54465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the Proposal, the comments submitted,
and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No., 1 is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges and
associations.\44\ Specifically, the

Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6)
of the Act,\45\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of
an association be 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, and are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
In addition, the Commission finds the Proposal is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\46\ which requires that the rules of an
association not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11A of the Act,\47\ and the CAT NMS Plan.
Section 11A of the Act directs the Commission, with due regard for the
public interest, the protection of investors, and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to use its authority to facilitate the
establishment of a national market system for securities, including by
authorizing or requiring SROs to act jointly to plan, develop, operate,
or regulate a national market system. As discussed above, the Plan
requires the proposal to discuss the specific accuracy and reliability
standards that would determine when duplicative systems would be
retired, whether the availability of certain data from Small Industry
Members would facilitate a more expeditious retirement of duplicative
systems, and whether individual Industry Members could be exempted from
reporting to duplicative systems once their CAT reporting meets
specified accuracy and reliability standards.\48\ Accordingly, FINRA
filed the Proposal to indicate when the OATS Rules would be eliminated
once CAT is sufficiently accurate and reliable and to explain how they
intend to assess CAT's accuracy and reliability. As discussed below,
the Commission believes that the Proposal is consistent with the above-
noted provisions of the CAT NMS Plan and consistent with the Act
because it is reasonably designed to assist the SROs in meeting their
regulatory obligations pursuant to Rule 613 and the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \48\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section C.9. See Phased
Industry Member Reporting Exemptive Order, supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that FINRA's proposal to delete its OATS rules
is consistent with the Act. While OATS has provided an important
resource for surveillance of the OTC market for equity securities, CAT
is designed to be a more robust tool for market surveillance. Unlike
OATS, the CAT will include order and transaction information from the
Exchanges and will enable regulators to trace the complete life cycle
of every order, regardless of whether it is routed or executed OTC or
on an exchange.
    FINRA's proposed approach to the timing of retiring OATS is
appropriate. Three commenters stated the need for the ``urgent
decommissioning of OATS'',\49\ and for the retirement of OATS in ``an
efficient and timely manner'' \50\ and on an ``expedited basis'' \51\
to address the current duplication of firm resources. In its Response
Letter, FINRA stated that it understands the technology costs and
resources firms have dedicated and continue to dedicate to OATS, and
that FINRA is committed to retiring OATS as efficiently and
expeditiously as possible. The commenters also believed that OATS could
be retired prior to the commencement of Phase 2c reporting on April 26,
2021. They expressed concern that Phase 2c error rate reporting would
negatively impact the timing for the retirement of OATS.\52\ However,
the retirement of OATS is independent of Phase 2c reporting. The
earliest OATS can be retired is April 26, 2021 because error rate
thresholds must be met over a 180-day period. In addition, as discussed
in greater detail below, Phase 2c error rates are not part of the OATS
retirement error rate calculation and therefore should not delay the
retirement of OATS. In finding that the proposed timing for retiring
OATS, after commencement of Phase 2c reporting on April 26, 2021, is
consistent with the Act, the Commission considered FINRA's
representation that it will not take Phase 2c error rates into account
in determining whether the proposed standards for the retirement of
OATS have been met. Thus, the Commission believes that the commencement
of Phase 2c reporting does not impact the timing of OATS retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Refinitiv Letter, supra note 5.
    \50\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5.
    \51\ See FIF Letter, supra note 5.
    \52\ See FIF Letter, Refinitiv Letter, and SIFMA Letter, supra
note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All three commenters commented on FINRA's proposal to evaluate and
confirm, through incorporation of CAT Data into its automated
surveillance program, that CAT Data is accurate and reliable.\53\ One
of these commenters argued that the process for incorporating CAT Data
into FINRA's surveillance program should begin as soon as possible and
asked FINRA to clarify that it will not wait for industry reporting to
achieve the applicable error rates for 180 days before beginning to
test its systems.\54\ Another commenter stated that while it agrees
with FINRA's goal of operationalizing CAT Data in its automated
surveillances with the confidence necessary for FINRA to eliminate
OATS, this is dependent on factors outside the control of Industry
Members.\55\ In addition, the third stated that the ``open-ended
nature'' of the non-error-rate conditions should not extend the
retirement of OATS beyond the 180-day period.\56\ The Commission
believes that the proposed conditions relating to FINRA's use of the
CAT Data are consistent with the CAT NMS Plan. The CAT NMS Plan
provides that FINRA must be able to verify that the data is of
``sufficient quality for surveillance purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See FIF Letter, Refinitiv Letter, and SIFMA Letter, supra
note 5.
    \54\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5.
    \55\ See Refinitiv Letter, supra note 5.
    \56\ See FIF Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, FINRA stated that it has already begun the process of
transitioning its automated surveillance patterns and testing the CAT
Data, addressing commenters' concerns that FINRA is not waiting for
industry reporting to achieve the applicable error rates for a 180-day
period before commencing this process. However, as FINRA explained, the
errors in the CAT Data may not be apparent until surveillance patterns
and other queries have been run.\57\ Error rate thresholds may be met
over a 180-day period, however, additional time may be required to
reliably allow contextual analysis of the data to take place to uncover
errors in reporting or processing that may not be apparent from more
standardized data validation processes. For these reasons, the
Commission concludes that FINRA's proposal to evaluate and confirm that
CAT Data is accurate and reliable is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Response Letter, supra note 6, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission concludes that FINRA's proposed approach to review
CAT data and error rates to determine if the OATS Rules can be deleted
based on Phase 2a Industry Member data and linkages is appropriate as
this is the data reported in OATS today, and thus is the most relevant
for determining if OATS

should be retired.\58\ Two commenters objected to FINRA including error
rates for Phase 2a representative order linkages, arguing that such
linkages are not required in OATS and therefore should be not
considered in determining whether OATS can be retired.\59\ The
representative order linkages required in Phase 2a are ``simple''
linkages,\60\ and do not include more complex representative order
scenarios, such as those involving agency average price trades, net
trades and aggregated orders, which will not be required until Phase
2c. Statistics provided by FINRA CAT show that firms are performing
these linkages with error rates well under those FINRA is proposing to
require for retirement of OATS.\61\ Based on these statistics, the
Phase 2a representative order linkages should not significantly impact
linkage error rates for OATS retirement purposes.\62\ In addition, in
evaluating whether the standards for OATS retirement have been met,
FINRA will evaluate whether the error rate is the result of unlinked
representative orders to create an apples-to-apples comparison to
OATS.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ All Industry Members that currently are reporting to OATS
are required to the submit data to the CAT during Phase 2a. See
Phased Industry Member Reporting Exemptive Order, supra note 35.
    \59\ See Refinitiv Letter and SIFMA Letter, supra note 5.
    \60\ In Phase 2a, linkage is required between the representative
street side order and the order being represented when the
representative order was originated specifically to represent a
single order (received either from a customer or another broker-
dealer) and there is: (1) An existing direct electronic link in the
firm's system between the order being represented and the
representative order, and (2) any resulting executions are
immediately and automatically applied to the represented order in
the firm's system. See Response Letter, supra note 6, at n. 7.
    \61\ See https://catnmsplan.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/11.19.20-Monthly-CAT-Implementation-Update.pdf, at p. 5.
    \62\ See Response Letter, supra note 6, at 6.
    \63\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has committed to retiring OATS as soon as reasonably
practicable,\64\ and has stated that if all other proposed criteria
have been met, it does not anticipate delaying OATS retirement based on
Phase 2a representative order linkage error rates alone.\65\ The
Commission believes that including error rates for Phase 2a
representative order linkages is reasonable, as they will be included
by FINRA's automated surveillance program and are not impacting error
rates to date.\66\ Actual data provided by FINRA CAT is consistent with
FINRA's representation in its Response Letter that it is unlikely that
the error rates for the Phase 2a representative order linkages in CAT
will be significantly higher than the order linkages available in OATS
today,\67\ and FINRA does not anticipate delaying OATS retirement based
solely on Phase 2a representative order linkage error rates.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id. at 5.
    \65\ Id. at 6-7.
    \66\ See supra note 61.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ See Response Letter, supra note 3, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that FINRA's proposed framework for
assessing the accuracy and reliability of CAT Data for purposes of
retiring OATS--including the ``single cut-over'' approach; and the
scope, commencement, timeframe, and methodology of the assessment--is
consistent with the Act. The Plan states that the elimination or
modification of the SROs' duplicative rules and the retirement of the
related systems will be ``effective at such time as CAT Data meets
minimum standards of accuracy and reliability.'' \69\ ``CAT Data'' is
defined broadly \70\ and includes customer information and order and
transaction records pertaining to NMS stocks, OTC Equity Securities,
and listed options submitted by both Participants and Industry Members.
The Commission finds that the assessment mechanism proposed by FINRA is
consistent with both the Act and the CAT NMS Plan, because it is
reasonably designed to ensure that, before OATS is retired and OATS
reporting requirements are eliminated, CAT is operating with sufficient
accuracy and reliability for regulatory purposes, including by
assessing whether compliance with key requirements of the CAT NMS Plan
has been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section C.9.
    \70\ See CAT NMS Plan, Section 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although FINRA generally intends to limit its assessment of error
rates to Industry Member Data and to focus its assessment on fields and
securities that are currently in OATS, some information that is outside
the scope of OATS could be relevant to the consideration of the overall
accuracy and reliability of the CAT and the performance of the Plan
Processor. The Commission believes that while consideration must be
given to the overall accuracy and reliability of CAT Data more broadly,
it is appropriate for FINRA to focus their assessment of whether CAT is
performing with a sufficient degree of accuracy and reliability to
permit OATS retirement on data related to OATS-eligible securities by
the same types of entities (i.e., broker-dealers) that are required to
submit OATS reports. An assessment of the quality of broker-dealer
reporting to CAT could be skewed by consideration of Participant
reporting, particularly considering that Participants are required to
report one year sooner than Industry Members and, all things being
equal, can be expected to attain higher level of accuracy before
Industry Members. Furthermore, focusing on Industry Member records will
help identify any issues specific to this class of CAT Reporters and
facilitate quicker improvements. This in turn could provide regulators
with better oversight capability more quickly and help minimize the
costs associated with duplicative reporting.
    In addition, the Commission believes that FINRA's assessment of the
data quality of specific categories of errors--i.e., rejection rates,
intra-firm linkages, inter-firm linkages, order linkage rates, exchange
and TRF/ORF match rates--are appropriate. The categories identified by
FINRA are categories of errors calculated by OATS today and reflect key
aspects of data quality that affect the ability of regulators to
effectively access and use CAT Data to perform their regulatory
functions. Thus, Commission believes it is reasonable for FINRA to
examine these aspects of the data to confirm that they are exhibiting
accuracy levels consistent with the required pre- and post-correction
accuracy levels of CAT Data overall. In particular one of the
significant limitations of existing audit trail systems is the
deficiency of linkages between the various events in the order life
cycle--and the lack of linkage to specific customers--which results in
regulators attempting to link these events together themselves from
various sources through ad hoc and cumbersome processes that can
introduce errors.\71\ Therefore, the Commission concludes that it is
appropriate for FINRA's assessment to include various aspects of order
and transaction linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See, e.g., CAT Approval Order, 81 FR at 84814-15 (``cross-
market examinations require the cumbersome and time-consuming task
of linking many different data sources . . . regulators that are
determining whether rule violations have occurred will combine
trading data from sources such as public feeds, SRO audit trails,
EBS data, and trade blotters''); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
77724 (April 27, 2016), 81 FR 30614, 30685 (May 17, 2016) (notice of
CAT NMS Plan) (``data is currently stored in multiple formats, is
difficult to merge, and results in errors during the merging
process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate for FINRA
to allow retirement of OATS only when the 5% pre-correction and 2%
post-correction thresholds are met in each category. The 5% pre-
correction threshold is the same as the initial maximum pre-correction

error rate set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, and the 2% post-correction
threshold is a reasonable quantification of the ``de minimis'' post-
correction error rate contemplated by the CAT NMS Plan for the purposes
of OATS retirement.\72\ Thus, the Commission believes it is reasonable
to not require accuracy rates in CAT to equal or surpass the accuracy
rates in OATS before allowing for OATS retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See CAT NMS Plan, Section 6.5(d)(i); Appendix C, Section
A.3(b); Appendix C, Section A.3(b), n. 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also concludes that the calculation methodologies
proposed by FINRA for these metrics--specifically that the inter-firm
linkage quality metric will be measured in the aggregate across all
Industry Members rather than on a per-firm basis and that post-
correction error rates will be measured as the number of errors in a
particular category divided by the total number of records received in
that category--are appropriate as this is how the CAT NMS Plan defines
the calculation of these error rates.\73\ Further, the Commission
concludes that FINRA's approach of measuring post-correction error
rates at T+5 is appropriate, as this is consistent with the
requirements of the CAT NMS Plan.\74\ It is appropriate to apply the
data processing cycles and standards set forth in the CAT NMS Plan--
such as regulatory access to corrected data on T+5--rather than
standards associated with OATS or other existing systems to ensure that
FINRA CAT's surveillances are adequate based on the data that will be
reported. An assessment of the adequacy of FINRA CAT's processing based
on OATS' or other systems' standards would not provide assurance that
these systems would be sufficient under the applicable CAT NMS Plan
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See CAT NMS Plan, Section 1.1. See also 17 CFR
242.613(j)(6). ``The term error rate shall mean the percentage of
reportable events collected by the central repository in which the
data reported does not fully and accurately reflect the order event
that occurred in the market.'' Id.
    \74\ See CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section A.2(a); Appendix D,
Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these assessment criteria and error rates, under
FINRA's proposal, it must be able to confirm that (1) usage over the
assessment period has not revealed material issues that have not been
corrected; (2) the CAT includes all data necessary to allow FINRA to
continue to meet its surveillance obligations; and (3) the Plan
Processor is sufficiently meeting all of its obligations under the CAT
NMS Plan. One commenter argued that these qualitative factors, which
they referred to as ``non-error-rate conditions,'' appear to go beyond
the conditions set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, and they have concerns
about the open-ended nature of the non-error-rate conditions.\75\ The
CAT NMS Plan requires that a system retirement proposal discuss
``specific accuracy and reliability standards that will determine when
duplicative systems will be retired, including, but not limited to,
whether the attainment of a certain Error Rate should determine when a
system duplicative of CAT can be retired'' (emphasis added).\76\ The
Commission believes that the qualitative factors identified by FINRA in
addition to quantitative metrics such as error rates are consistent
with this requirement. For example, even if CAT Reporters are reporting
accurate data to the Central Repository, as measured by error rates,
regulators might not be able to use CAT as intended if the Plan
Processor is not adequately performing its functions, such as linking
reportable events together to create a complete order life cycle and
providing access and querying functionality to regulators. The
Commission therefore concludes that it is appropriate for FINRA to
consider these qualitative factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See FIF Letter, supra note 5.
    \76\ CAT NMS Plan, Appendix C, Section C.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transparency regarding the assessment process and communication
with Industry Members regarding any issues identified during that
process will be beneficial. FINRA has committed to provide the industry
with information and updates directly and through FINRA CAT regarding
CAT implementation issues by holding periodic industry outreach
events.\77\ These opportunities for regular and ongoing feedback about
any issues identified will facilitate the correction of such issues and
reduce the potential for delays in systems retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ FINRA hosts a number of industry outreach events. For the
list of upcoming FINRA events, see https://www.finra.org/events-training. Separately, FINRA CAT also hosts a number of industry
update calls and events. For a list of upcoming industry outreach
events, see https://catnmsplan.com/events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that FINRA's proposal with respect to the
length of the assessment are consistent with the Act. Before a crucial
regulatory tool such as OATS can be retired, it is prudent to ensure
that error rates in the replacement audit trail system have reached
stabile, consistent levels. FINRA has represented that, based on past
experience, 180 days represents the minimum time needed to fully test
the accuracy and reliability of trade and order data and system
functionality to ensure that FINRA is able to carry out its
surveillances and other regulatory functions without a loss of quality.
The Commission concludes that a 180-day period strikes a reasonable
balance between ensuring that high accuracy and reliability levels are
sustainable and minimizing the duplicative reporting period as much as
practicable.
    Two commenters requested that FINRA provide transparency and
sufficient notice once the date for the retirement of OATS has been
set.\78\ As an initial matter, the process for retiring OATS is
outlined in the Proposal. And, the Commission believes that FINRA is
incented to make the requisite filing as far in advance as practicable
in order to provide firms with sufficient notice and opportunity to
prepare for the retirement of OATS to promote an orderly retirement of
OATS. In addition, FINRA will provide as much transparency into the
process as possible regarding issues relating to OATS retirement in its
communications with firms.\79\ The Plan Processor is required to
provide a variety of error rate data to CAT Reporters and the Operating
Committee under the CAT NMS Plan including daily statistics on
rejection rates after the data has been processed.\80\ During the 180-
day assessment period, the Commission believes that it is appropriate
for the SROs and the Plan Processor to provide this error rate data, as
it will help Industry Members identify any problem areas and improve
the accuracy of their CAT reporting. FINRA CAT currently provides
regular updates to Industry Members regarding CAT implementation and
compliance during FINRA CAT's Weekly Industry Testing Checkpoint and
Monthly Implementation calls.\81\ Also, the statistics provided by
FINRA CAT will serve as a good proxy for progress toward achieving the
requisite error rates for the purposes of OATS retirement.\82\ Further,
once FINRA has determined that such standards have been met, it has
committed to file a rule filing for immediate effectiveness setting
forth the basis for its determination and to publish a Regulatory
Notice announcing the implementation date of SR-FINRA-2020-024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See FIF Letter and Refinitiv Letter, supra note 5.
    \79\ See Response Letter, supra note 6.
    \80\ See CAT NMS Plan, Section 6.1(o)(v); CAT NMS Plan, Appendix
C, Section A.3(b); CAT NMS Plan, Appendix D, Section 10.4.
    \81\ See Response Letter, supra note 6.
    \82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2020-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2020-024. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange and on its internet
website. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2020-024 and should be
submitted on or before December 28, 2020.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change As Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
Federal Register. As discussed above, the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, would eliminate the OATS Rules as
duplicative systems of the CAT, after Industry Members and able to
demonstrate reliable and accurate reporting to the CAT with a
reasonable rate of errors, and after FINRA is able to ascertain that
(1) usage of CAT Data over the assessment period has not revealed
material issues that have not been corrected; (2) the CAT includes all
data necessary to allow FINRA to continue to meet its surveillance
obligations; and (3) the Plan Processor is sufficiently meeting all of
its obligations under the CAT NMS Plan. The Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with these provisions of the CAT NMS Plan
and consistent with the Act because they are reasonably designed to
assist the SROs in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant to
Rule 613 and the Plan.
    In Amendment No. 1, FINRA modified the method by which the equity
exchange match rate would be calculated. Specifically, FINRA proposed
that instead of calculating the equity exchange match rate on a per
exchange basis, it would calculate the match rate in the aggregate
across all exchanges. The Commission believes that such a calculation
is consistent with the current reporting published by FINRA CAT and as
such will be easier for industry members to understand. The Commission
believes Amendment No. 1 does not materially modify the substance of
the proposed rule change as it was initially filed, but merely provides
for a more straightforward method for calculating the equity exchange
match rates.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, SR-FINRA-
2020-024, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2020-024), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26677 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6760-6761]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0879]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Procedures for the
Safe Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products

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: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by March 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0354. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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.

Procedures for the Safe Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery
Products--21 CFR Part 123

OMB Control Number 0910-0354--Extension

    This information collection supports regulations in part 123 (21
CFR part 123), which mandate the application of hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) principles to the processing of seafood.
HACCP is a preventive system of hazard control designed to help ensure
the safety of foods. The regulations were issued under FDA's statutory
authority to regulate food safety, including section 402(a)(1) and (4)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1) and
(4)). Certain provisions in part 123 require that processors and
importers of seafood collect and record information.
    The HACCP records compiled and maintained by a seafood processor
primarily consist of the periodic observations recorded at selected
monitoring points during processing and packaging operations, as called
for in a processor's HACCP plan (e.g., the values for processing times,
temperatures, acidity, etc., as observed at critical control points).
The primary purpose of HACCP records is to permit a processor to verify
that products have been produced within carefully established
processing parameters (critical limits) that ensure that hazards have
been avoided.
    HACCP records are normally reviewed by appropriately trained

employees at the end of a production lot or at the end of a day or week
of production to verify that control limits have been maintained, or
that appropriate corrective actions were taken if the critical limits
were not maintained. Such verification activities are essential to
ensure that the HACCP system is working as planned. A review of these
records during the conduct of periodic plant inspections also permits
FDA to determine whether the products have been consistently processed
in conformance with appropriate HACCP food safety controls.
    Section 123.12 (21 CFR 123.12) requires that importers of seafood
products take affirmative steps and maintain records that verify that
the fish and fishery products they offer for import into the United
States were processed in accordance with the HACCP and sanitation
provisions set forth in part 123. These records are also to be made
available for review by FDA as provided in Sec.  123.12(c).
    The time and costs of these recordkeeping activities will vary
considerably among processors and importers of fish and fishery
products, depending on the type and number of products involved, and on
the nature of the equipment or instruments required to monitor critical
control points. The burden estimate in table 1 includes only those
collections of information under the seafood HACCP regulations that are
not already required under other statutes and regulations. The estimate
also does not include collections of information that are a usual and
customary part of businesses' normal activities. For example, the
tagging and labeling of molluscan shellfish (Sec.  1240.60 (21 CFR
1240.60)) is a customary and usual practice among seafood processors.
Consequently, the estimates in table 1 account only for information
collection and recording requirements attributable to part 123.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include processors and importers of seafood.
    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2022 (87 FR 47214), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                                                  Number of      records per    Total annual
         21 CFR section; \2\ activity           recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records        Average burden per recordkeeping \4\      Total hours
                                                                     \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123.6(a), (b), and (c); Prepare hazard                     50               1              50  16.......................................             800
 analysis and HACCP plan.
123.6(c)(5); Undertake and prepare records of          15,000               4          60,000  0.30 (18 minutes)........................          18,000
 corrective actions.
123.8(a)(1) and (c); Reassess hazard analysis          15,000               1          15,000  4........................................          60,000
 and HACCP plan.
123.12(a)(2)(ii); Verify compliance of                  4,100              80         328,000  0.20 (12 minutes)........................          65,600
 imports and prepare records of verification
 activities.
123.6(c)(7); Document monitoring of critical           15,000             280       4,200,000  0.30 (18 minutes)........................       1,260,000
 control points.
123.7(d); Undertake and prepare records of              6,000               4          24,000  0.10 (6 minutes).........................           2,400
 corrective actions due to a deviation from a
 critical limit.
123.8(d); Maintain records of the calibration          15,000              47         705,000  0.10 (6 minutes).........................          70,500
 of process-monitoring instruments and the
 performing of any periodic end-product and
 in-process testing.
123.11(c); Maintain sanitation control                 15,000             280       4,200,000  0.10 (6 minutes).........................         420,000
 records.
123.12(c); Maintain records that verify that            4,100              80         328,000  0.10 (6 minutes).........................          32,800
 the fish and fishery products they offer for
 import into the United States were processed
 in accordance with the HACCP and sanitation
 provisions set forth in part 123.
123.12(a)(2); Prepare new written                          41               1              41  4........................................             164
 verification procedures to verify compliance
 of imports.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .........................................       1,930,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
\2\ These estimates include the information collection requirements in the following sections:
 Sec.   123.16--Smoked Fish--process controls (see Sec.   123.6(b));
 Sec.   123.28(a)--Source Controls--molluscan shellfish (see Sec.   123.6(b));
 Sec.   123.28(c) and (d)--Records--molluscan shellfish (see Sec.   123.6(c)(7)).
\3\ Based on an estimated 280 working days per year.
\4\ Estimated average time per 8-hour workday unless one-time response.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last OMB
approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. We base
this hour burden estimate on our experience with the application of
HACCP principles in food processing. Further, the burdens have been
estimated using typical small seafood processing firms as a model
because these firms represent a significant proportion of the industry.
The hour burden of HACCP recordkeeping activities will vary
considerably among processors and importers of fish and fishery
products, depending on the size of the facility and complexity of the
HACCP control scheme (i.e., the number of products and the number of
hazards controlled); the daily frequency that control points are
monitored and values recorded; and also on the extent that data
recording time and cost are minimized by the use of automated data
logging technology. The burden estimate does not include burden hours
for activities that are a usual and customary part of businesses'
normal activities. For example, the tagging and labeling of molluscan
shellfish (Sec.  1240.60) is a customary and usual practice among
seafood processors.

    Dated: January 26, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02051 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33660-33662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1055; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-35-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engine GmbH Model E4 Diesel
Piston Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to the products listed above. The existing AD
currently requires frequent inspections of the fuel pressure supply for
excessive oscillations to determine if high-pressure fuel pumps have
been exposed to damaging pressure oscillations. Pumps that have been
exposed require replacement before further flight. Since we issued that
AD, Austro Engine, the manufacturer of the pump, introduced a new part
number (P/N) fuel pump as mandatory terminating action to the
repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would require the initial and
repetitive inspections of AD 2010-23-09, but would also require
installing HP fuel pump P/N E4A-30-200-000, as mandatory terminating
action to the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to
prevent engine power loss or in-flight shutdown, which could result in
loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Austro
Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria,
phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711, or go to: http://www.austroengine.at. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1055;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-35-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On October 27, 2010, we issued AD 2010-23-09, Amendment 39-16498
(75 FR 68179, November 5, 2010), for Austro Engine GmbH model E4 diesel

piston engines. That AD requires frequent inspections of the fuel
pressure supply for excessive oscillations to determine if high-
pressure fuel pumps have been exposed to damaging pressure
oscillations. Pumps that have been exposed require replacement before
further flight. That AD resulted from the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, issuing emergency AD 2010-0206-E, dated October
8, 2010 to correct that same unsafe condition. We issued our AD to
prevent engine power loss or in-flight shutdown, which could result in
loss of control of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2010-23-09, EASA issued AD 2011-0039, dated
March 8, 2011, adding a terminating action on Austro Engine GmbH model
E4 diesel piston engines.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009,
dated October 7, 2010, and Austro Engine GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB-E4-009/2, dated March 4, 2011. The actions described
in this service information are intended to prevent engine power loss
or in-flight shutdown, which could result in loss of control of the
airplane.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2010-23-
09, and require installing HP fuel pump P/N E4A-30-200-000, as
mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspections.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
will affect about 32 model E4 diesel piston engines, installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1
work-hour per engine to perform one inspection, and about 2 work-hours
per engine to replace the HP fuel pump. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,325 per product. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to
be $82,560.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2010-23-09, Amendment 39-16498 (75 FR 68179, November 5, 2010),
and adding the following new AD:

Austro Engine GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2010-1055; Directorate Identifier
2010-NE-35-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 25,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2010-23-09, Amendment 39-16498.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Austro Engine GmbH model E4 diesel piston
engines, with high-pressure (HP) fuel pump, part number (P/N) E4A-
30-100-000, installed.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by Austro Engine GmbH introducing a new
P/N fuel pump as mandatory terminating action to the repetitive
inspections required by AD 2010-23-09, Amendment 39-16498. We are
issuing this AD to prevent engine power loss or in-flight shutdown,
which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Inspect the fuel pressure supply for excessive oscillations
using the inspection schedule in Table 1 of this AD.

                      Table 1--Inspection Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Accumulated Time-Since-New (TSN) or Time
       Since Last Inspection (TSLI):              Compliance time:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 flight hours or more...................  Within 10 flight hours after
                                             the effective date of this
                                             AD.
Fewer than 45 flight hours................  Before 55 flight hours TSN
                                             or TSLI.
Repetitive inspections....................  Before 55 flight hours TSLI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Use Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009,
dated October 7, 2010, to do the inspections.
    (3) Replace the HP fuel pump before further flight with a new HP
fuel pump, P/N E4A-30-200-000, if the oscillations exceed 300mV
(750hPa).

Mandatory Terminating Action

    (4) As mandatory terminating action to the repetitive
inspections, within 120 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD, replace the HP fuel pump, P/N E4A-30-100-000, with an HP
fuel pump, P/N E4A-30-200-000. Austro Engine GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin (MSB) No. MSB-E4-009/2 contains guidance on replacing the
HP fuel pump.

Installation Prohibitions

    (f) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any HP
fuel pump P/N E4A-30-100-000, onto any engine.
    (g) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
engine equipped with HP fuel pump P/N E4A-30-100-000, onto any
airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0039, dated March 8, 2011, Austro Engine GmbH Work
Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009, dated October 7, 2010, and Austro
Engine GmbH MSB No. MSB-E4-009/2, dated March 4, 2011, for related
information. For a copy of this service information, contact Austro
Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner Neustadt,
Austria, phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711, or go to:
http://www.austroengine.at. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (j) For more information about this AD, contact James Lawrence,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 2, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-14235 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19936]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-7007]
RIN 0910-AH49

Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector
Regulations for Biological Products; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the
Federal Register of January 26, 2018, a direct final rule to amend the
general biologics regulations relating to time of inspection
requirements and to also remove duties of inspector requirements. The
comment period closed April 11, 2018. FDA is withdrawing the direct
final rule because the Agency received significant adverse comment.

DATES: The direct final rule published at January 26, 2018 (83 FR
3586), is withdrawn effective May 7, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Segal, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, the direct final rule published on January 26, 2018 (83 FR
3586) is withdrawn.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-09589 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 7, 2007

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-28655

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Great Wall Airlines Co., Ltd. 					Date Filed:  November 6,
2007

Relief requested:

Amend existing exemption to the extent necessary to enable the applicant
to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail
between any point or points in the People’s Republic of China, via any
intermediate points to any point or points in the United States open to
scheduled international service, and beyond to any points outside the
United States.

Date and citation of last action:  August 15, 2007, in this docket

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  December 6, 2007

Effective dates of exemption granted:  December 6, 2007  – December 6,
2008

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity).  United
States-China Air Transport Services Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (Order            )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www:regulations.gov"  http://www:regulations.gov

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and 36 and 49 CFR Part 1546 or
1550, as applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign
airport that would be the holder’s last point of departure for the
United States, contact its International Principal Security Inspector
(IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the
Transportation Security Administration has determined that security is
adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 On August 15, 2007, we granted Great Wall Airlines Co., Ltd. exemption
authority to conduct charter foreign air transportation of property and
mail between any point or points in the People’s Republic of China, on
the one hand, and any point or points in the United States, on the other
hand; and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212 of the
Department’s Regulations and a statement of authorization to the
extent necessary to permit it to operate once-weekly cargo charters
between Shanghai, China, and Atlanta, Georgia, with a technical stop in
Anchorage, Alaska.

11/2006


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73505]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0497; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-4]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Nashville, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace for Nashville, AR, to
accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures at Howard County Airport. The FAA is taking this action to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Nashville,
AR, creating additional controlled airspace at Howard County Airport
(76 FR 53359) Docket No. FAA-2011-0497. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by creating additional Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach
procedures at Howard County Airport, Nashville, AR. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace for Howard County Airport,
Nashville, AR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Nashville, AR [New]

Howard County Airport, AR
    (Lat. 33[deg]59'48'' N., long. 93[deg]50'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Howard County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 9, 2011.
Gail L. Kasson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-30570 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P