individual employees. Specifically, the proposed rule would require
member organizations to meet the registration and capital requirements
set forth in Rule 103, file a DMM application, and have adequate
technology to support all electronic DMM obligations through the
systems and facilities of the Exchange during the initial 12-month
period; MPIDs that identify to the Exchange trading activity in
assigned DMM securities; adequate trading infrastructure to support DMM
unit trading activity, which includes support and administrative staff
to maintain operational efficiencies in the Program; and a disciplinary
history that is consistent with just and equitable business practices.
Individuals that would function as DMMs for the DMM units must also be
members of the Exchange and pass the DMM qualifying examination. The
Exchange believes that proposed Rule 104B would thus protect investors
and the public interest by ensuring that prospective DMMs and DMM units
are subject to uniform, objective requirements for eligibility.
Moreover, the proposed rule change would also promote investor
protection and the public interest by requiring that eligible member
organizations and DMMs be subject to the same registration requirements
as regular DMM units and DMMs, including the requirement that eligible
member organizations file a DMM application and individual DMMs take
the DMM examination.
    The proposed rule change would also promote just and equitable
principles of trade by subjecting prospective DMMs and DMM units to the
same duties and responsibilities set forth in Rules 104 and 98 as
fully-operational, Trading Floor-based DMM units and DMMs. Establishing
the same regulatory requirements for DMM units and DMMs would ensure
the consistency and quality of the Exchange's marketplace and is also
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and
promote just and equitable principles of trade by requiring Exchange
registration and approval. Finally, the Exchange believes that proposed
Rule 104B would enhance investor protection and the public interest by
enumerating the specific process a DMM unit must follow to withdraw
during the 12-month duration of the program and the reassignment of
assigned securities during that time. The proposed process would ensure
orderly transitioning of ETPs that were assigned to a DMM unit that
withdraws and uninterrupted trading of the security on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade by providing an exemption to member organizations
that meet the qualifications for the program from the requirements of
Rule 35.20 regarding the presence of personnel available to DMM units
on the Trading Floor. As proposed, the program is designed to provide
time for member organizations to become fully operational Trading
Floor-based DMM units. The exemption is for a 12-month period,
following which proposed Rule 104(g) requires DMM units to transition
to fully operational DMM units on the Trading Floor and meet all
Exchange requirements for DMM units, including having adequate
personnel on the Trading Floor. For similar reasons, the Exchange
believes that it would not be inconsistent with just and equitable
principles of trade to provide that DMM units would be ineligible to
compete for new listings pursuant to Rule 103B. As proposed, the
program is limited to ETPs and DMM units would only be expected to
support electronic DMM obligations during the ramp-up period.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by providing that member organizations
aggrieved by an Exchange determination under the proposed rule can
utilize the approved procedures set forth in Rule 107B(k) for SLPs to
appeal non-regulatory actions and penalties by the Exchange. The
Exchange believes adopting the same appeals procedures as those
approved for SLPs would reduce duplication and ensure consistent
treatment for member organizations aggrieved by non-regulatory Exchange
actions. For these reasons, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 15A(b)(8) \67\ of the
Act, which requires, among other things, that Exchange rules provide a
fair procedure for prohibition or limitation with respect to access to
services offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Substantive Amendments
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to eliminate
obsolete rule text, in Rules 36.30, 104(c)(5), 104(d)(B), 104(e),
104(f), 104A, and 106A would increase the clarity and transparency of
the Exchange's rules and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that persons subject to
the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public could
more easily navigate and understand the Exchange rules. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed amendments would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors because
investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased
transparency and clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposal would lower entry barriers to the DMM unit business on the
Exchange and

thereby stimulate greater competition among existing DMM units and
potential new entrants, to the benefit the investing public, issuers,
and the marketplace. In addition, to the extent that the proposal would
lead to additional member organizations becoming fully-operational DMM
units, the Exchange believes the proposal would expand and diversify
the pool of Exchange DMMs. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
changes would continue to foster competition and optimal performance
among DMM units, thereby enhancing the quality of the services DMMs
provide to issuers and promoting intermarket competition, particularly
for issuers in connection with their determination of which exchange to
select as a primary listing exchange. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on intra-market
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposal is designed to address the DMM unit's
operations on the Trading Floor, access to non-public information, and
unique role in facilitating trading on the Exchange without diminishing
the balance of benefits and obligations, or altering or diminishing the
numerous obligations currently imposed by Exchange rules, on DMM units.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that member organizations eligible
for the Program may be able to deploy their existing market-making
strategies on the Exchange and qualify for credits offered by the
Exchange based on increased quoting and liquidity-providing activity.
The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change would
promote competition by encouraging additional displayed liquidity,
facilitating price discovery, and increasing the range and diversity of
market making activity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule would impose any burden on intra-market
competition because adding a new, temporary market participant would
allow eligible member organizations an opportunity to access the
benefits available to fully-operational DMM units when trading ETPs
electronically for a brief ramp up period, subject to the same
registration and regulatory obligations as those DMM units.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSE-2023-36 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-NYSE-2023-36. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-36 and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24868 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62452-62454]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25022]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0244; FRL-9713-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Arizona to address the requirements regarding
air pollution emergency episodes in Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0244. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard
copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business
information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4152<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On April 12, 2012 (77 FR 21911), EPA proposed to approve a SIP
revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the requirements
regarding air pollution emergency episodes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires that each SIP provide for authority
comparable to that in section 303 of the Act (``Emergency Powers'') and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. EPA proposed to
approve Arizona's SIP revision as meeting the authority and contingency
plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS).
    The rationale supporting EPA's action, including the scope of
infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) and in the technical support document (TSD) for that
action and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0244. No
public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Arizona's SIP revision as meeting the authority
and contingency plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards).
    The Arizona Emergency Episode Plan is substantively identical to
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) rule currently approved into Arizona's SIP
(R9-3-219, ``Air pollution emergency episodes''), which EPA approved in
1982 (47 FR 42572, September 28, 1982), with one exception which makes
it more stringent than the SIP program. We determine that our approval
of this submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l), because the SIP
revision would not interfere with the ongoing process for ensuring that
requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment of
the NAAQS are met, and the submitted SIP revision is more stringent
than the rule previously approved into the SIP. We also determine that
our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 193, to the
extent it applies, because the SIP revision would ensure equivalent or
greater emission reductions of ozone precursors compared to the SIP-
approved rule. Therefore, EPA is removing the superseded Rule R9-3-219
from the SIP and approving Rule R18-2-220 and the ``Procedures for
Prevention of Emergency Episodes,'' into the SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(F) and
(c)(151) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (54) * * *
    (i) * * *
* * * * *
    (F) Previously approved on September 28, 1982, in paragraph
(54)(i)(C), and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-219.
* * * * *
    (151) The following plan revisions were submitted on August 15,
1994 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Rule R18-2-220, Air pollution emergency episodes, Department of
Environmental Quality-Air Pollution Control, amended effective
September 26, 1990.
    (2) A letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, US EPA, dated August 30, 2012, certifying that the
attached copy of a document titled ``Procedures for Prevention of
Emergency Episodes: 1988 Edition'' is a true and correct copy of the
original and is an official publication of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (3) ``Procedures for Prevention of Emergency Episodes,'' 1988
edition, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
[FR Doc. 2012-25022 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37805-37806]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17071]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8030; Special Conditions No. 25-698-SC]

Special Conditions: Garmin International, Beechcraft Corporation
Model 400A Airplanes; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection
From Unauthorized Internal Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Garmin International
(Garmin) for modifications to Beechcraft Corporation (Beechcraft) Model
400A airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Garmin, will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-
category airplanes. This design feature incorporates the Garmin G5000
satellite-based navigation system into the airplanes. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Garmin on August 14, 2017. We must
receive your comments by September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8030
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval, and thus delivery, of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior
instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore
finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
    The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On February 13, 2014, Garmin applied for a supplemental type
certificate to install the Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation
system in Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes. These airplanes, which are
currently approved under Type Certificate No. A16SW, are twin-engine
corporate turbojet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight of 16,100
lbs., and seating for 7 to 9 passengers and 2 crew members.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Garmin must show that the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes,
as modified by Garmin, continue to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16SW or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the

same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes, as modified by Garmin, will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
    Installation of the Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation system
into the airplanes.

Discussion

    The Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation-system design,
installed in Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes, introduces the potential
for unauthorized persons, accessing the passenger-services domain, to
access the airplane-control domain and airplane information-services
domain; and further may introduce security vulnerabilities related to
the introduction of viruses, worms, user errors, and intentional
sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases.
    The operating systems for current airplane systems usually are
proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from
worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as are more widely used
commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, because access
to the design details of these proprietary operating systems is limited
to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed
on the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes will use operating systems that
are widely used and commercially available from third-party software
suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may
be more widely known than proprietary operating systems currently used
by avionics manufacturers.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes modified by Garmin. Should Garmin apply
at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature for any other model included on
the same type certificate, these special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this
feature on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes
modified by Garmin.
    1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation
from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access
by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must
prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts
upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required
for safe flight and operations.
    2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2017.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17071 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 77648]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27641]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 19, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: December 15, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27641 Filed 12-15-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


``internal BBO'' language would continue to require Members to submit
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders and Complex Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders at the best price to receive an execution. Furthermore,
amending Options 3, Section 14(b)(19) to utilize the ``internal BBO''
language would continue to require Members to quote at the best price
to receive allocation of a Complex Preferenced Order. The introduction
of ``internal BBO'' will ensure that Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross Orders do not execute if better-
priced interest is available and that a Complex Preferenced Order would
not receive a Preferred Market Maker allocation if better-priced
interest was available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See SR-MRX-2022-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to the Single-Leg Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing
Transactions
    The Exchange's proposal to amend MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(4),
MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(ii) and (iii), and add a proposed new
MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(iii), related to single-leg PIM, does
not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the
amendment will apply equally to all Members. All Members may utilize
PIM.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(4),
MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(ii) and (iii), and add a proposed new
MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(iii), related to single-leg PIM, does
not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because other
options exchanges may adopt similar rules. Today, Phlx \83\ and BX \84\
do not permit unrelated marketable interest on either the same or
opposite side of the market from an Agency Order to early terminate
their simple price improvement auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See note 14 above. [sic]
    \84\ See note 15 above. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to the Complex PIM
    Deleting MRX Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(vi) within Complex PIM, as
well as a related paragraph in Supplementary Material .01(b)(ii) of MRX
Options 3, Section 14, which describes Complex Order Exposure, related
to the early termination of single-leg PIM as a result of the arrival
of unrelated marketable interest on either the same or the opposite
side of the market from the Agency Order does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the amendment will apply
equally to all Members. All Members may utilize Complex PIM.
    Deleting MRX Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(vi) within Complex PIM, as
well as a related paragraph in Supplementary Material .01(b)(ii) of MRX
Options 3, Section 14, which describes Complex Order Exposure, related
to the early termination of single-leg PIM from the arrival of
unrelated marketable interest on either the same or opposite side of
the market from the Agency Order does not impose an undue burden on
inter-market competition as other options exchanges may adopt similar
rules. Today, Phlx \85\ and BX \86\ do not permit unrelated marketable
interest on either the same

or opposite side of the market from an Agency Order to early terminate
their simple price improvement auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See note 14 above. [sic]
    \86\ See note 15 above. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delayed Functionality
    The Exchange's proposal to delay the implementation of certain
stock-tied functionality in connection with the technology migration
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as no
Member will be able to utilize the Delayed Functionalities.
Furthermore, ISE offers the Delayed Functionalities today.
    The Exchange's proposal to delay the implementation of certain
stock-tied functionality in connection with the technology migration
does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impact the
intense competition that exists in the options market. Today, ISE
offers the Delayed Functionalities.
Other Complex Order Amendments
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to the
Complex Orders rule will impose any significant burden on inter-market
competition. Other exchanges today offer complex order functionalities.
These options markets may amend their rules to mirror those of MRX.
Other options exchanges offer orders similar to Complex Preferenced
Orders.\87\ Additionally, the proposed Complex Opening Process is
similar to Phlx.\88\ Finally, the proposed Complex Opening Process
methodology would allow MRX to compete with other options exchanges
that offer Complex Order functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See e.g. Phlx Options 2, Section 10 and MIAX Rule 100.
    \88\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 14(d)(ii)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Only Complex Order
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the word ``Limit'' within the
description of the Opening Only Complex Order Type in MRX Options 3,
Section 14(b)(10) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because this proposed change will apply to all Members.
Complex QCC With Stock Orders
    The Exchange's proposal to amend an incorrect citation with MRX
Options 3, Section 14(b)(15), related to Complex QCC with Stock Orders,
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the
amendment is non-substantive.
Complex Preferenced Orders
    The Exchange's proposal to add ``Complex Preferenced Orders'' to
the list of Complex Order Types in MRX Options 3, Section 14(b) does
not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. Preferred
Market Makers have obligations \89\ unlike other market participants.
The allocation entitlements for Preferred Market Makers are designed to
balance the obligations that the Preferred Market Makers has to the
market with corresponding benefits. In order to receive the
participation entitlement for a Complex Preferenced Order, Preferred
Market Makers are required to quote 90% of the trading day as compared
to Market Makers who are required to quote 60% of the trading day.\90\
Further, Priority Customers \91\ have priority over non-Priority
Customer interest at the same price in the same options series on the
single-leg order book.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See MRX Options 2, Section 5.
    \90\ See MRX Options 2, Section 5.
    \91\ See note 68 above. [sic]
    \92\ See MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of receipt of the Complex Preferenced Order, a
Preferred Market Maker would have to be quoting at the NBBO, which is
intended to incentivize the Preferred Market Maker to quote
aggressively in order to execute against the Complex Preferenced Order.
Preferred Marker Makers are not able to ascertain if a particular order
is a Complex Preferenced Order. The Exchange believes the proposal will
encourage Market Makers to quote tighter and add a greater amount of
liquidity on MRX in an attempt to interact with Complex Preferenced
Orders that are sent to the Exchange. This order flow will benefit all
market participants on the Exchange because any MRX Member may interact
with that order flow. Finally, any MRX Member on the single-leg or
Complex Order Book may trade with a Complex Preferenced Order. Also,
any MRX Market Maker may elect to receive Preferenced Order.
Options 3, Section 14(c)(2) and MRX Supplementary Material .02 to
Options 3, Section 14
    Correcting an incorrect reference to ``ISE'' with MRX Options 3,
Section 14(c)(2), which should be to ``MRX,'' will add clarity to the
rule; this amendment is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to
make a technical correction in Supplementary Material .02 of MRX
Options 3, Section 14 to amend the word ``which'' to ``whom'' is a non-
substantive amendment.
Complex Opening Price Determination
    The Exchange's proposal to amend an incorrect citation within
Supplementary Material .05(d)(2) to Options 3, Section 14, related to
the Potential Opening Price, does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the amendment is non-substantive.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .05(d)(3)
to MRX Options 3, Section 14, which describes the Complex Opening Price
Determination, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because all Members may submit interest into the Complex
Opening Process.
Complex Order Risk Protections
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the title of a Complex Order Risk
Protection in Options 3, Section 16, Complex Order Risk Protections is
a non-substantive amendment.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    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 a national securities
exchange.\93\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\94\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \94\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Legging Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) to
provide that a Legging Order will not be generated during an ATR
Posting Period, as provided in Options 3, Section 15, on the same side
in the series. The Exchange states that during an ATR Posting Period,
an order could increase (decrease) past the price of any Legging Order
generated on the bid (offer) as the order works its way through the
order book.\95\ The Exchange further states because Legging Orders

are removed from the order book when they are no longer at the
Exchange's displayed best bid or offer, generating a Legging Order
during a Posting Period in progress on the same side in the series
would lead to the immediate removal of the Legging Order.\96\ The
Commission believes that not generating a Legging Order during an ATR
Posting Period on the same side in the series will protect investors
and the public interest by avoiding the generation of an order that
would be removed immediately, which should help to provide for orderly
trading on the Exchange and the efficient operation of the Exchange's
system. Another options exchange also does not generate legging orders
under these circumstances.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Amendment No. 1 at 7.
    \96\ See id.
    \97\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Repricing and the Internal BBO

    The Exchange recently adopted a re-pricing functionality for
certain quotes and orders that lock or cross an away market's
price.\98\ As described more fully above, these re-priced orders and
quotes may rest on the Exchange's order book at non-displayed prices
(the internal BBO), which may be better than the NBBO. Currently, a
Qualified Contingent Cross Order must be executed at a price that is at
or between the NBBO, and the component legs of a Complex Qualified
Contingent Cross Order must executed at a price that is at or between
the NBBO for the series.\99\ The Exchange proposes to amend its rules
to require a Qualified Contingent Cross Order to execute at a price
that is at or between the better of the internal BBO or the NBBO, and
to require each component leg of a Complex Qualified Contingent Cross
Order to execute at a price that is at or between the better of the
internal BBO or the NBBO for the individual series.\100\ Because MRX's
non-displayed internal BBO could be better than the NBBO for a series,
the Commission believes that requiring a Qualified Contingent Cross
Order and the component legs of a Complex Qualified Contingent Cross
Order to execute at a price that is at or between the better of the
internal BBO or the NBBO for that series will protect investors and the
public interest by effectively maintaining the existing requirement in
the Exchange's rules that the option leg(s) of Qualified Contingent
Cross and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross Orders execute at a price
that is at or between best prices available for the options leg(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See SR-MRX-2022-16, supra note 6.
    \99\ Qualified Contingent Cross and Complex Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders also must satisfy other requirements, including not
trading at the same price as resting Priority Customer Orders. See
MRX Options 3, Sections 12(c) and (d).
    \100\ See proposed MRX Options 3, Sections 12(c) and (d). As
discussed below, MRX also proposes to include a reference to the
internal BBO in its proposed rules providing for Complex Preferenced
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions

1. Single-Leg PIM
    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Options 3, Sections 13(c)(5) and
(d)(4), relating to the termination of a single-leg PIM auction.
Incoming Interest That Will Not Cause an Early Termination
    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(4) to
provide that unrelated market or marketable interest (against the MRX
BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order received
during the exposure period for a single-leg PIM auction will not cause
the exposure period to end early and will execute against interest
outside of the Crossing Transaction. The Commission believes that
allowing the single-leg PIM exposure period to continue despite the
receipt of unrelated market or marketable interest on the opposite side
of the market from the Agency Order will benefit investors by providing
the Agency Order with additional time to receive price improvement and
allowing the unrelated interest to seek an execution against interest
outside of the Crossing Transaction, including against interest on the
Exchange's order book. If contracts remain from the unrelated order at
the time the exposure period ends, they will be considered for
participation in the single-leg PIM allocation process described in MRX
Options 3, Section 13(d)(3).\101\ Other options exchanges do not
terminate their price improvement auctions upon receipt of unrelated
interest on the opposite side of the market from an agency order.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See proposed MRX Rule Options 3, Section 13(d)(4).
    \102\ See, e.g., Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(4) (providing
that an unrelated market or marketable Limit Order (against the
PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order
received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early
and will execute against interest outside of the Auction); and BX
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(D) (providing that unrelated market or
marketable interest (against the BX BBO) on the opposite side of the
market from the PRISM Order received during the Auction will not
cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest
outside of the Auction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete current MRX Options 3, Section
13(c)(5)(ii), which states that the PIM exposure period will
automatically terminate ``upon the receipt of a market or marketable
limit order on the Exchange in the same series.'' As discussed above,
proposed MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(4) states that unrelated market
or marketable interest on the opposite side of the market from the
Agency Order will not cause the exposure period to end early. The
Commission believes that allowing the single-leg PIM to continue after
the receipt of a market or marketable limit order in the series on the
same side of the market as the Agency Order, unless the incoming order
causes the Exchange's best bid or offer to improve beyond the price of
the Crossing Transaction on the same side, as provided in proposed MRX
Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(ii), will benefit investors by providing
the Agency Order with additional time to receive price improvement. In
addition, the Exchange states that the proposed change is consistent
with BX's PRISM Auction and Phlx's PIXL, which do not terminate early
when the exchange receives an unrelated market or marketable limit
order in the same series on the same side of the market as the Agency
Order, unless the exchange's best bid or offer improves beyond the
price of the Crossing Transaction on the same side.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Amendment No. 1 at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same-Side Interest That Will Cause an Early Termination
    The proposal replaces current Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(iii),
which provides that the exposure period will automatically terminate
``upon the receipt of a non-marketable limit order in the same series
on the same side of the market as the Agency Order that would cause the
Crossing Transaction to be outside of the best bid of offer on the
Exchange,'' with proposed Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(ii), which states
that the exposure period will automatically terminate ``any time the
Exchange best bid or offer improves beyond the price of the Crossing
Transaction on the same side of the market as the Agency Order.'' The
Exchange states that new Section 13(c)(5)(ii) is designed to remove any
ambiguity that a market or marketable limit order priced more
aggressively than the Agency Order could improve the Exchange's best
bid or offer beyond the price of the Crossing Transaction and cause the
PIM to terminate early.\104\ The Exchange states that termination of
the exposure period is necessary under these circumstances because the
price of the single-leg PIM would no longer be at the Exchange's best
price and would

not have execution priority with respect to responses or unrelated
interest that arrives.\105\ In addition, the Exchange states that
termination of the exposure period would permit the execution of
responses received prior to the improvement in the Exchange's best bid
or offer.\106\ The Commission believes that terminating the exposure
period when the Exchange's best bid or offer improves beyond the price
of the Crossing Transaction on the same side as the Agency Order will
protect investors and the public interest by preserving the priority of
the better-priced incoming interest. In addition, another options
exchange terminates its price improvement auction under these
circumstances.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See id. at 16.
    \105\ See Amendment No. 1 at 16.
    \106\ See id.
    \107\ See Nasdaq BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(B)(2) (stating
that the PRISM Auction will conclude any time the BX BBO crosses the
PRISM Order stop price on the same side of the market as the PRISM
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Termination Following a Trading Halt
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13(c)(5) to state
that the exposure period for a single-leg PIM will terminate any time
there is a trading halt on the Exchange in the affected series.\108\
The Commission believes that terminating the PIM exposure period after
a trading halt is consistent with current MRX Options 3, Section
13(d)(5), which states that a PIM auction will terminate automatically
if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the PIM.
Other options exchanges also terminate their price improvement auctions
following a trading halt.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See proposed MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(5)(iii).
    \109\ See BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(B)(3) (stating that a
PRISM Auction will conclude any time there is a trading halt on the
exchange in the affected series); and Phlx Options 3, Section
13(b)(2)(D) (stating that a PIXL Auction will conclude any time
there is a trading halt on the exchange in the affected series).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Complex PIM
    MRX Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(vi) describes the processing of
orders when an incoming Complex Order that causes the early termination
of a Complex PIM auction is also marketable against a component leg(s)
of the strategy that is the subject of a concurrent single-leg PIM
auction or an exposure period pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to
MRX Options 5, Section 2. Supplementary Material .01(b)(iii) to MRX
Options 3, Section 14 describes the processing of orders when an
incoming Complex Order that causes the early termination of the Complex
Order Exposure period is also marketable against a component leg(s) of
the strategy that is the subject of a concurrent single-leg PIM auction
or an exposure period pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to MRX
Options 5, Section 2. Because MRX has eliminated the flash
functionality exposure period \110\ and because a single-leg PIM will
no longer terminate early due to the arrival of unrelated marketable
interest on either side of the market, as discussed above, the
circumstances and processing addressed in MRX Options 3, Section
13(e)(4)(vi) and Supplementary Material .01(b)(iii) to MRX Options 3,
Section 14 will no longer occur. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that deleting MRX Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(vi) and Supplementary
Material .01(b)(iii) to MRX Options 3, Section 14 from MRX's rulebook
will protect investors and the public interest by helping to avoid
confusion and maintain the clarity and accuracy of the Exchange's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See note 28 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Delayed Functionalities

    As described more fully above, the Exchange proposes to amend MRX
Options 3, Sections 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14 to delay the implementation
of Stock-Option Orders, Stock-Complex Orders, QCC with Stock Orders,
and Complex QCC with Stock Orders, in connection with the migration to
the Exchange's new trading platform. The Commission believes that
delaying the implementation of these functionalities will benefit
investors by providing the Exchange with additional time to code, test,
and implement these functionalities. As stated above, the Exchange will
issue Options Trader Alerts to ensure that Members are aware of when
the Delayed Functionalities will be available on the Exchange.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Amendment No. 1 at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Complex Order Types

1. Opening Only Complex Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Options 3, Section 14(b)(10) to
indicate that Opening Only Complex Orders may be submitted as market
orders as well as limit orders. The Exchange's current Complex Opening
Price Determination rules address the participation of Market Complex
Orders in the opening process.\112\ The Commission believes that the
proposed change to MRX Options 3, Section 14(b)(10) will protect
investors and the public interest by providing consistency to the
Exchange's rules and making clear that an Opening Only Complex Order
may be submitted as either a market order or a limit order. Allowing
both Market and Limit Complex Orders to participate in the Complex
Opening Process could result in better price discovery and help to
ensure that the Opening Price incorporates all available trading
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See Supplementary Material .05(d)(3) and (5) to MRX
Options 3, Section 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Complex Preferenced Orders
    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to provide for Complex
Preferenced Orders.\113\ The proposed rules will allow a Preferred
Market Maker that receives a Complex Preferenced Order to receive the
allocation provided in current MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(C) (the
Preferred Market Maker participation entitlement for single-leg orders)
when the component legs of the Complex Preferenced Order execute
against the Preferred Market Maker's single-leg market quotes, provided
the Preferred Market Maker satisfies certain conditions.\114\ As
described more fully above, an Electronic Access Member designated as a
Preferred Market Maker may receive the Preferred Market Maker
allocation described in MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(C) when the
component leg(s) of a Complex Preferenced Order execute against the
Preferred Market Maker's single-leg market quotes, provided that the
Preferred Market Maker is quoting at the better of the internal BBO or
the NBBO for a component leg(s) of the Complex Preferenced Order at the
time the Complex Preferenced Order is received.\115\ The Commission has

previously approved rules of national securities exchanges that provide
for directed order participation entitlements for single-leg
orders.\116\ The Commission has closely scrutinized such exchange rule
proposals where the percentage of enhanced participation would rise to
a level that could have a material adverse impact on quote competition
within a particular exchange.\117\ Under the proposal, a Preferred
Market Maker that is quoting at the better of the internal BBO or the
NBBO for a component leg of a Complex Preferenced Order at the time the
Complex Preferenced Order is received will receive the same
participation entitlement for that leg--the participation entitlement
provided in MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(C)--as a Preferred Market
Maker that receives a single-leg Preferenced Order. The Commission has
reviewed MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(C) previously.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See proposed MRX Options 3, Section 14(b)(19).
    \114\ MRX Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(C) provides that after all
Priority Customer orders have been fully executed, upon receipt of a
Preferenced Order pursuant to Supplementary .01 to Options 3,
Section 10, provided the Preferred Market Maker's quote is at the
better of the internal BBO or the NBBO, the Preferred Market Maker
will be afforded a participation entitlement. Preferred Market Maker
participation entitlements will apply only after the Opening
Process. When the Preferred Market Maker is at the same price as a
non- Priority Customer Order or Market Maker quote, pursuant to the
Preferred Market Maker participation entitlement, the Preferred
Market Maker shall receive, with respect to a Preferenced Order, the
greater of: (a) 60% of remaining interest if there is one other non-
Priority Customer Order or Market Maker quote at that price; or 40%
of remaining interest if there are two or more other non-Priority
Customer Orders or Market Maker quotes at that price; (b) the
Preferred Market Maker's Size Pro-Rata share under subparagraph
(c)(1)(E); or (c) the entitlement for Orders of 5 Contracts or Fewer
under subparagraph (c)(1)(D) if the Preferred Market Maker is also
the Primary Market Maker and the incoming Order is for 5 Contracts
or Fewer.
    \115\ See proposed MRX Options 3, Section 14(b)(19). The
Commission notes that the proposed requirement that the Preferred
Market Maker be quoting at the better of the internal BBO or the
NBBO for the component leg(s) of a Complex Preferenced Order at the
time the Complex Preferenced Order is received is consistent with
the requirements applicable to single-leg Preferenced Orders. MRX
Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(B) states that ``After all Priority
Customer orders have been fully executed, provided the Primary
Market Maker's quote is at the better of the internal BBO or the
NBBO, the Primary Market Maker shall be entitled to receive the
allocation described in Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(B)(i), unless
the incoming order to be allocated is a Preferenced Order and the
Primary Market Maker is not the Preferred Market Maker, in which
case allocation would be pursuant to (c)(1)(C).'' See SR-MRX-2022-
16.
    \116\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74129
(January 23, 2015), 80 FR 4954 (January 29, 2015) (Order Approving
File No. BX-2014-049) (``BX Order'').
    \117\ See id.
    \118\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86949 (September
12, 2019), 84 FR 49151 (September 18, 2019) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-MRX-2019-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To receive the Preferred Market Maker allocation, a Preferred
Market Maker must be quoting at the better of the internal BBO or the
NBBO for a component leg(s) of the Complex Preferenced Order at the
time the Complex Preferenced Order is received.\119\ The Commission
believes that it is critical that a Preferred Market Maker not be
permitted to step up and match the better of the internal BBO or the
NBBO for the component legs of a Complex Order after it receives a
Complex Preferenced Order to receive the participation
entitlement.\120\ In this regard, the Exchange states that
Supplementary Material .01 to MRX Options 9, Section 1 prohibits a
Member from notifying a Preferred Market Maker of an intention to
submit a Complex Preferenced Order so that the Preferred Market Maker
could change its quotation to match the NBBO immediately prior to
submission of the Complex Preferenced Order, and then fade its
quote.\121\ The Exchange further states that it proactively conducts
surveillance for, and enforces against, violations of Supplementary
Material .01 to MRX Options 9, Section 1.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See proposed MRX Options 3, Section 14(b)(19).
    \120\ See BX Order, supra note 116, 80 FR at 4955.
    \121\ See Amendment No. 1 at 33.
    \122\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Preferred Market Makers will be subject to heightened
quoting requirements. To receive the participation entitlement for a
Complex Preferenced Order, Preferred Market Makers are required to
quote 90% of the trading day as compared to Market Makers, who are
required to quote 60% of the trading day.\123\ Other options exchanges
also have adopted heightened quoting obligations for market makers to
be eligible to receive a participant entitlement as part of their
directed order programs.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See Amendment No. 1 at 65 and MRX Options 2, Section 5.
    \124\ See, e.g., BX Order, supra note 116, 80 FR at 4955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission emphasizes that approval of this proposal does not
affect a broker-dealer's duty of best execution. The Commission has
discussed the duty of best execution in previous orders approving
proposals to implement participation entitlements, and hereby
incorporates those discussions by reference into this order.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See id. at 4955-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Complex Opening Price Determination

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the Complex
Opening Price Determination process are designed to protect investors
and the public interest by enhancing the Exchange's Complex Opening
Process and facilitating the fair and orderly opening of trading in
complex strategies. Under the proposal, the contra-side Boundary Price
will be the limit price for Market Complex Orders.\126\ Because the
Boundary Prices for a strategy are calculated based on the NBBO for the
individual component legs of a strategy, the Commission believes that
making the contra-side Boundary Price the limit price for Market
Complex Orders will help to ensure that the opening price for a complex
strategy is within the broad market price for the strategy.\127\ In
addition, assigning a limit price to Market Complex Orders will allow
the Exchange to use the Complex Opening Process, rather than the
Uncrossing Process provided for in Supplementary Material .06(b) to MRX
Options 3, Section 14, to open a strategy when there are only Market
Complex Orders on both sides of the market for a strategy or if there
are Market Complex Orders on the bid (offer) side of the market for
greater than the total size of Complex Orders on the offer (bid) side
of the market.\128\ Because a change in market conditions between the
time of the Complex Opening Price Determination process and the time of
the Uncrossing Process could result in missed execution opportunities,
allowing Market Complex Orders to execute in the Complex Opening
Process could help to maximize the number of contracts that
execute.\129\ As discussed above, the proposal will allow MRX to
calculate an Opening Price for a strategy utilizing a greater number of
Market Complex Orders.\130\ In addition, the proposed Opening Price
Determination process will seek to distribute price improvement to both
the bid and offer side of the transaction to the extent possible,
rather than providing all of the price improvement to one side of the
transaction.\131\ The Commission believes that including additional
liquidity in the Complex Opening Price Determination process could
facilitate price discovery and result in more accurate pricing for
complex strategies, which would benefit all market participants. The
Commission believes that distributing price improvement to both sides
of the transaction could encourage market participants to submit orders
to participate in the Complex Opening Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Amendment No. 1 at 42. See also proposed MRX
Supplementary Material .05(d)(3)(B) to Options 3, Section 14
(stating that ``Executable bids/offers will be bounded by the
Boundary Price on the contra-side of the interest, for determination
of the Potential Opening Price described above'').
    \127\ See Supplementary Material .05(d)(1) to Options 3, Section
14 (describing the calculation of the Boundary Prices for a complex
order strategy).
    \128\ See Amendment No. 1 at 35-6.
    \129\ See id. at 42.
    \130\ See id.
    \131\ See Amendment No. 1 at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Additional Changes

    The Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to correct inaccurate
cross-references in MRX Options 3, Sections 14(b)(15), 16(b), and
Supplementary Material .05(d)(2) to MRX Options 3, Section 14; make a
grammatical correction in Supplementary Material .02 to MRX Options 3,
Section 14; provide a more accurate title for MRX Options 3, Section
16(c)(1); and correct an inaccurate reference to ISE in MRX Options 3,
Section 14(c)(2). The

Commission believes that these proposed changes will protect investors
and the public interest by helping to ensure the clarity and accuracy
of the Exchange's rules.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2022-10 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-MRX-2022-10. 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. 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-MRX-2022-10, and should be submitted on
or before October 18, 2022.

V. 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 thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
Federal Register. As discussed more fully above, Amendment No. 1
revises MRX Options 3, Sections 7, 11, 12, and 13 to indicate that
certain order types requiring stock-tied functionality will be
implemented at a later date as part of the Exchange's technology
migration. In addition, Amendment No. 1 corrects an error in the text
of the proposed rules, replaces references to SR-MRX-2022-5P with
references to SR-MRX-2022-16, and adds references to the ``internal
BBO'' to the proposed Complex Preferenced Order rules and to the
Qualified Contingent Cross Order and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross
Order rules. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 raises no
novel regulatory issues. Amending MRX's rules to note the delayed
implementation of certain order types will help to provide members with
notice regarding the order types that will not be available immediately
following MRX's migration to its new trading platform. Adding
references to the internal BBO to the Qualified Contingent Cross Order
and Complex Qualified Contingent Cross Order rules will help to
effectively maintain the existing pricing requirements currently
applicable to the option leg(s) of those orders, and adding a reference
to the internal BBO to the Complex Preferenced Order rules will provide
consistency with MRX's single-leg Preferenced Order rules. The
correction in the proposed rule text will help to ensure the accuracy
of the Exchange's rules and the addition of references to SR-MRX-2022-
16 will help to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\132\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MRX-2022-10), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20816 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>02/07/2008 10:51 AM	To
	Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc

	bcc

	Subject
	Fwd: Incident Data Request

	For Follow Up:

		Normal Priority

	History:
		This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Margaret

Got the attached from the DOT.

Richard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Subject: Incident Data Request
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:35:55 -0500
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Richard,

Attached is the information you requested from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS).

Request: DOT 4BA incident in the last 10 years

This response was prepared by Catapult Technology, which maintains HMIS
under contract with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Should you have any questions regarding this data or
require further information, please contact Catapult Technology at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have any issues with the service provided, please contact the
HMIS Operations Supervisor at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Please review the data and let me know if you have any questions or need
more information.

Ana Trejo
Catapult Technology Ltd.
Contracted to the Department of Transportation

Richard Maruya
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web site HCR188C    www.hcr188c.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged
information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then
please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received
this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor
disclose its contents to any other person.


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63976-63977]
[DOCID:fr07de09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0061; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-10]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mountain City, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Mountain City, TN.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Johnson County Airport, Mountain City,
TN. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before January 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2009-0061; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-10, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at
http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/
airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above
or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the
closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's idea and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating
the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional
rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the
FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to
this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0061;
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-10.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Mountain City, TN, providing
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of
the earth to accommodate IFR operations for SIAPs at Johnson County
Airport. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in FAA
Order 7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this direct final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.

    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.
It, therefore, (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 United States Code. 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.
    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 Class E airspace at Mountain City, TN.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of Amendment

0
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 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Mountain City, TN [NEW]

Johnson County Airport, TN
    (Lat. 36[deg]25'04'' N., long. 81[deg]49'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7 -mile radius of the Johnson County Airport and within
1.3 miles each side of the 065[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6. 7-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the
airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 23, 2009.
Michael Vermuth,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-28894 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 16018-16020]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0169]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Infant Formula Recall Regulations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on requirements related to the
recall of infant formula.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 27, 2008.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Infant Formula Recall Regulations--21 CFR 107.230, 107.240, 107.250,
107.260, and 107.280 (OMB Control Number 0910-0188)--Extension

    Section 412(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 350a(e)) provides that if the manufacturer of an infant
formula has knowledge that reasonably supports the conclusion that an
infant formula processed by that manufacturer has left its control and
may not provide the nutrients required in section 412(i) of the act or
is otherwise adulterated or misbranded, the manufacturer must promptly
notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). If
the Secretary determines that the infant formula presents a risk to
human health, the manufacturer must immediately take all actions
necessary to recall shipments of such infant formula from all wholesale
and retail establishments, consistent with recall regulations and
guidelines issued by the Secretary. Section 412(f)(2) of the act states
that the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe the scope and extent
of recalls of infant formula necessary and appropriate for the degree
of risk to human health presented by the formula subject to recall.
FDA's infant formula recall regulations in part 107 (21 CFR part 107)
implement these statutory provisions.
    Section 107.230 requires each recalling firm to conduct an infant
formula recall with the following elements: (1) Evaluate the hazard to
human health, (2) devise a written recall strategy, (3) promptly notify
each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and (4)
furnish the appropriate FDA district office with copies of these
documents. If the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the
recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the
recalled formula post (at point of purchase) a notice of the recall and
provide FDA with a copy of the notice. Section 107.240 requires the
recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following
elements: (1) Notify the appropriate FDA district office of the recall
by telephone within 24 hours, (2) submit a written report to that
office within 14 days, and (3) submit a written status report at least
every 14 days until the recall is terminated. Before terminating a
recall, the recalling firm is required to submit a recommendation for
termination of the recall to the appropriate FDA district office and
wait for written FDA concurrence (Sec.  107.250). Where the recall
strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient, FDA may
require the firm to change the extent of the recall, carry out
additional effectiveness checks, and issue additional notifications
(Sec.  107.260). In addition, to facilitate location of the product
being recalled, the recalling firm is required to maintain distribution
records for at least 1 year after the expiration of the shelf life of
the infant formula (Sec.  107.280).
    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements described previously
are designed to enable FDA to monitor the effectiveness of infant
formula recalls in order to protect babies from infant formula that may
be unsafe because of contamination or nutritional inadequacy or
otherwise adulterated or misbranded. FDA uses the information collected
under these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly
and efficiently removed from the market.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual        Hours per
                      21 CFR Section                          Respondents        per Response        Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107.230                                                                    2                  1                  2              4,500              9,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107.240                                                                    2                  1                  2              1,482              2,964
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107.250                                                                    2                  1                  2                120                240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107.260                                                                    1                  1                  1                650                650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                      .................  .................  .................  .................             12,854
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources
necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from
the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure
activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would
occur in the normal course of activities. No burden has been estimated
for the recordkeeping requirement in Sec.  107.280 because these
records are maintained as a usual and customary part of normal business
activities. Manufacturers keep infant formula distribution records for
the prescribed period as a matter of routine business practice.
    The reporting burden estimate is based on agency records, which
show that there are five manufacturers of infant formula and that there
have been, on average, two infant formula recalls per year for the past
3 years.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA
through FDMS only.

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-6060 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S