[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23296-23299]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94713; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2022-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make the Market Wide Circuit Breaker Pilot a Permanent Program

April 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 12, 2022, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt on a permanent basis the pilot
program for market-wide circuit breakers in Equity 4, Rule 4121.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved the proposal of the New
York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') to adopt on a permanent basis the pilot
program for market-wide circuit breakers (``MWCB'') in NYSE Rule
7.12.\3\ The Exchange now proposes to adopt the same change to make
permanent the MWCB pilot program in Equity 4, Rule 4121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94441 (March 16,
2022) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules Overview
    The MWCB rules, including the Exchange's Rule 4121 under Equity 4,
provide an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote
stability and investor confidence during periods of significant stress
when cash equities securities experience extreme market-wide declines.
The MWCB rules are designed to slow the effects of extreme price
declines through coordinated trading halts across both cash equity and
equity options securities markets.
    The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988
and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equities exchanges and FINRA amended their
cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis (the ``Pilot Rules,''
i.e., Equity 4, Rule 4121(a)-(c) and (f)).\4\ The Pilot Rules currently
provide for trading halts in all cash equity securities during a severe
market decline as measured by a single-day decline in the S&P 500 Index
(``SPX'').\5\ Under the Pilot Rules, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if SPX declines in price by specified percentages from the
prior day's closing price of that index. The triggers are set at three
circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level
3). A market decline that triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30
a.m. and before 3:25 p.m. would halt market-wide trading for 15
minutes, while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. would not
halt market-wide trading. (Level 1 and Level 2 halts may occur only
once a day.) A market decline that triggers a Level 3 halt at any time
during the trading day would halt market-wide trading for the remainder
of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``Pilot
Rules Approval Order'').
    \5\ The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide
for a halt in trading if the cash equities exchanges invoke a MWCB
Halt. See, e.g., Options 3, Section 9(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\6\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan.\7\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the
LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\8\ In conjunction with the proposal to make the LULD Plan
permanent, the Exchange amended Equity 4, Rule 4121 to untie the Pilot
Rules' effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the Pilot
Rules' effectiveness to the close of

business on October 18, 2019.\9\ The Exchange subsequently filed to
extend the pilot for an additional year to the close of business on
October 18, 2020,\10\ and later, on October 18, 2021.\11\ The Exchange
last extended the pilot to the close of business on April 18, 2022.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-131) (Approval
Order); and 68786 (January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8666 (February 6, 2013)
(SR-NASDAQ-2013-021) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change to Delay the Operative Date).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85578 (April 9,
2019), 84 FR 15271 (April 15, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-027).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86944 (September
12, 2019), 84 FR 49141 (September 18, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-072).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90144 (October 9,
2020), 85 FR 65460 (October 15, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-068).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94433 (March 16,
2022), 87 FR 16283 (March 22, 2022) (SR-NASDAQ-2022-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MWCB Working Group Study
    Beginning in February 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the markets experienced increased volatility, culminating in four MWCB
Level 1 halts on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each instance,
pursuant to the Pilot Rules, the markets halted as intended upon a 7%
drop in SPX and did not start the process to resume trading until the
prescribed 15-minute halt period ended.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets asked the SROs to conduct a study of the design and
operation of the Pilot Rules and the LULD Plan during the period of
volatility in March 2020. In response to the request, the SROs created
a MWCB ``Working Group'' composed of SRO representatives and industry
advisers that included members of the advisory committees to both the
LULD Plan and the NMS Plans governing the collection, consolidation,
and dissemination of last-sale transaction reports and quotations in
NMS Stocks. The Working Group met regularly from September 2020 through
March 2021 to consider the Commission's request, review data, and
compile its study.
    On March 31, 2021, the MWCB Working Group submitted its study (the
``Study'') to the Commission.\13\ The Study included an evaluation of
the operation of the Pilot Rules during the March 2020 events and an
evaluation of the design of the current MWCB system. In the Study, the
Working Group concluded: (1) The MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot
Rules worked as intended during the March 2020 events; (2) the MWCB
halts triggered in March 2020 appear to have had the intended effect of
calming volatility in the market, without causing harm; (3) the design
of the MWCB mechanism with respect to reference value (SPX), trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%), and halt times (15 minutes) is appropriate; (4)
the change implemented in Amendment 10 to the LULD Plan did not likely
have any negative impact on MWCB functionality; and (5) no changes
should be made to the mechanism to prevent the market from halting
shortly after the opening of regular trading hours at 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Report of the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'')
Working Group Regarding the March 2020 MWCB Events, submitted March
31, 2021 (the ``Study''), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Report_of_the_Market-Wide_Circuit_Breaker_Working_Group.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of those conclusions, the MWCB Working Group also made
several recommendations, including that (1) the Pilot Rules should be
made permanent without any changes, and (2) SROs should adopt a rule
requiring all designated Regulation SCI firms to participate in at
least one Level 1/Level 2 MWCB test each year and to verify their
participation via attestation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make the Pilot Rules Permanent
    On July 16, 2021, NYSE proposed a rule change to make the Pilot
Rules permanent, consistent with the Working Group's
recommendations.\15\ On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved NYSE's
proposal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776 (July 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
    \16\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange now proposes that the Pilot Rules (i.e., paragraphs (a)-(c)
and (f) of Equity 4, Rule 4121) be made permanent. To accomplish this,
the Exchange proposes to remove the preamble to Rule 4121, which
currently provides that the rule is in effect during a pilot period
that expires at the close of business on April 18, 2022. The Exchange
does not propose any changes to paragraphs (a)-(c) and (f) of the Rule.
    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange proposes to add new paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to Equity 4,
Rule 4121, as follows:
    (g) Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') Testing
    (1) The Exchange will participate in all industry-wide tests of the
MWCB mechanism. Members designated pursuant to General 2, Section 12(a)
to participate in Exchange Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery
testing are required to participate in at least one industry-wide MWCB
test each year and to verify their participation in that test by
attesting that they are able to or have attempted to:
    (A) Receive and process MWCB halt messages from the securities
information processors (``SIPs'');
    (B) receive and process resume messages from the SIPs following a
MWCB halt;
    (C) receive and process market data from the SIPs relevant to MWCB
halts; and
    (D) send orders following a Level 1 or Level 2 MWCB halt in a
manner consistent with their usual trading behavior.
    (2) To the extent that a member participating in a MWCB test is
unable to receive and process any of the messages identified in
paragraph (g)(1)(A)-(D) of this Rule, its attestation should notify the
Exchange which messages it was unable to process and if known, why.
    (3) Members not designated pursuant to standards established in
General 2, Section 12(a) are permitted to participate in any MWCB test.
    (h) In the event that a halt is triggered under this Rule following
a Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 Market Decline, the Exchange, together
with other SROs and industry representatives (the ``MWCB Working
Group''), will review such event. The MWCB Working Group will prepare a
report that documents its analysis and recommendations and will provide
that report to the Commission within 6 months of the event.
    (i) In the event that there is (1) a Market Decline of more than
5%, or (2) an SRO implements a rule that changes its reopening process
following a MWCB Halt, the Exchange, together with the MWCB Working
Group, will review such event and consider whether any modifications
should be made to this Rule. If the MWCB Working Group recommends that
a modification should be made to this Rule, the MWCB Working Group will
prepare a report that documents its analysis and recommendations and
provide that report to the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to make the Pilot Rules
permanent is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

    The Pilot Rules set out in Equity 4, Rule 4121(a)-(c) and (f) are
an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability
and investor confidence during periods of significant market stress
when securities markets experience broad-based declines. The four MWCB
halts that occurred in March 2020 provided the Exchange, the other
SROs, and market participants with real-world experience as to how the
Pilot Rules actually function in practice. Based on the Working Group's
Study and the Exchange's own analysis of those events, the Exchange
believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would benefit market
participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules
permanent would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the Pilot Rules worked as
intended during the March 2020 events. As detailed above, the markets
were in communication before, during, and after each of the MWCB Halts
that occurred in March 2020. All 9,000+ equity symbols were
successfully halted in a timely manner when SPX declined 7% from the
previous day's closing value, as designed. The Exchange believes that
market participants would benefit from having the Pilot Rules made
permanent because such market participants are familiar with the design
and operation of the MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot Rules, and
know from experience that it has functioned as intended on multiple
occasions under real-life stress conditions. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would enhance investor
confidence in the ability of the markets to successfully halt as
intended when under extreme stress.
    The Exchange further believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent
would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the halts that were
triggered pursuant to the Pilot Rules in March 2020 appear to have had
the intended effect of calming volatility in the market without causing
harm. As detailed above, after studying a variety of metrics concerning
opening and reopening auctions, quote volatility, and other factors,
the Exchange concluded that there was no significant difference in the
percentage of securities that opened on a trade versus on a quote for
the four days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts, versus the other periods
studied. In addition, while the post-MWCB Halt reopening auctions were
smaller than typical opening auctions, the size of those post-MWCB Halt
reopening auctions plus the earlier initial opening auctions in those
symbols was on average equal to opening auctions in January 2020. The
Exchange believes this indicates that the MWCB Halts on the four March
2020 days did not cause liquidity to evaporate. Finally, the Exchange
observes that while quote volatility was generally higher on the four
days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts as compared to the other periods
studied, quote volatility stabilized following the MWCB Halts at levels
similar to the January 2020 levels, and LULD Trading Pauses worked as
designed to address any additional volatility later in the day. From
this evidence, the Exchange concludes that the Pilot Rules actually
calmed volatility on the four MWCB Halt days in March 2020, without
causing liquidity to evaporate or otherwise harming the market. As
such, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange believes that that making the Pilot Rules permanent
without any changes would benefit market participants, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest, because the current design
of the MWCB mechanism as set out in the Pilot Rules remains
appropriate. As detailed above, the Exchange considered whether SPX
should be replaced as the reference value, whether the current trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%) and halt times (15 minutes for Level 1 and 2 halts)
should be modified, and whether changes should be made to prevent the
market from halting shortly after the opening of regular trading hours
at 9:30 a.m., and concluded that the MWCB mechanism set out in the
Pilot Rules remains appropriate, for the reasons cited above. The
Exchange believes that public confidence in the MWCB mechanism would be
enhanced by the Pilot Rules being made permanent without any changes,
given investors' familiarity with the Pilot Rules and their successful
functioning in March 2020.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (g) regarding MWCB
testing is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest. The Working Group recommended that
all cash equities exchanges adopt a rule requiring all designated
Regulation SCI firms to participate in MWCB testing and to attest to
their participation. The Exchange believes that these requirements
would promote the stability of the markets and enhance investor
confidence in the MWCB mechanism and the protections that it provides
to the markets and to investors. The Exchange further believes that
requiring firms participating in a MWCB test to identify any inability
to process messages pertaining to such MWCB test would contribute to a
fair and orderly market by flagging potential issues that should be
corrected. The Exchange would preserve such attestations pursuant to
its obligations to retain books and records of the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (h) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review any halt
triggered under Rule 4121 and prepare a report of its analysis and
recommendations would permit the Exchange, along with other market
participants and the Commission, to evaluate such event and determine
whether any modifications should be made to Rule 4121 in the public
interest. Preparation of such a report within 6 months of the event
would permit the Exchange, along with the MWCB Working Group,
sufficient time to analyze such halt and prepare their recommendations.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (i) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.

Having the MWCB Working Group review instances of a Market Decline of
more than 5% or an SRO implementing a rule that changes its reopening
process following a MWCB Halt would allow the MWCB Working Group to
identify situations where it recommends that Rule 4121 be modified in
the public interest. In such situations where the MWCB Working Group
recommends that a modification should be made to Rule 4121, the MWCB
Working Group would prepare a report that documents its analysis and
recommendations and provide that report to the Commission, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system while protecting investors and the
public interest.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
intended to address competition, but rather, makes permanent the
current MWCB Pilot Rules for the protection of the markets. The
Exchange believes that making the current MWCB Pilot Rules permanent
would have no discernable burden on competition at all, since the Pilot
Rules have already been in effect since 2012 and would be made
permanent without any changes. Moreover, because the MWCB mechanism
contained in the Pilot Rules requires all exchanges and all market
participants to cease trading at the same time, making the Pilot Rules
permanent would not provide a competitive advantage to any exchange or
any class of market participants.
    Further, the Exchange understands that the other SROs will submit
substantively identical proposals to the Commission. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the
30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately provide
the protections included in this proposal in the event of a MWCB halt,
which is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-031 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-NASDAQ-2022-031. 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-NASDAQ-2022-
031 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08286 Filed 4-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31128-31131]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13776]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86182; File No. SR-OCC-2019-803]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Concerning The Options
Clearing Corporation's Proposal To Enter Into a New Credit Facility
Agreement

June 24, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On April 26, 2019, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') advance
notice SR-OCC-2019-803 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010

(``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \3\ to propose
to replace the 364-day term revolving credit facility that OCC
currently maintains, which is due to expire on June 27, 2019.\4\ The
Advance Notice was published for public comment in the Federal Register
on May 30, 2019,\5\ and the Commission received no comments regarding
the proposal contained in the Advance Notice. This publication serves
as notice of no objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \4\ See Notice of Filing infra note 5, at 83 FR 25089.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85924 (May 23, 2019), 83
FR 25089 (May 30, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-803) (``Notice of Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    OCC maintains a $2 billion revolving credit facility to provide
access to liquid resources in certain circumstances, including the
default of a Clearing Member.\6\ The current revolving credit facility
(``Existing Facility'') was implemented on June 28, 2018 for a 364-day
term, and will terminate on June 27, 2019. To maintain access to the
liquid resources provided by the Existing Facility, OCC proposes to
implement a replacement credit facility (``New Facility'') on
substantially similar terms as the Existing Facility with one
exception: OCC proposes to expand the types of collateral that OCC
would be permitted to pledge under the New Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83529 (Jun. 27,
2018), 83 FR 31237 (Jul. 3, 2018) (Notice of Filing of Advance
Notice of and No Objection to OCC's Proposal To Enter Into a New
Credit Facility Agreement) (SR-OCC-2018-802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC currently has conditional authority to borrow from the Existing
Facility, using Clearing Member margin deposits or Clearing Fund
contributions as collateral, (i) in anticipation of a potential default
by or suspension of a Clearing Member; (ii) to meet obligations arising
out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member; (iii) to meet
reasonably anticipated liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a
result of the failure of any bank or securities or commodities clearing
organization to achieve daily settlement; or (iv) to meet obligations
arising out of the failure of a bank or securities or commodities
clearing organization to perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy,
insolvency, receivership or suspension of operations (``Permitted Use
Circumstances''). The exact same Permitted Use Circumstances will be
present in the New Facility as are present in the Existing Facility.
    To obtain a loan under the Existing Facility, OCC must pledge
collateral. The collateral permitted under the Existing Facility
includes U.S. dollars, securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
Government or the Government of Canada,\7\ S&P 500 Market Index
equities, Exchange-Traded Funds, American Depositary Receipts, or
certain government-sponsored enterprise debt securities. As noted
above, the New Facility would permit OCC to pledge a wider range of
collateral than what is contemplated by the Existing Facility. Under
the New Facility, OCC would be permitted to pledge the same collateral
permissible under the Existing Facility as well as debt securities
issued by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of France,
Japan, or the United Kingdom (``Additional G7 Governments''), but only
to the extent that Clearing Members are permitted to pledge such
collateral as margin deposits or Clearing Fund contributions at the
time that OCC obtains a loan under the New Facility.\8\ In that event,
under the proposed terms of the New Facility, debt securities of
Additional G7 Governments would be subject to haircuts and would be
permissible collateral for a loan from the New Facility only if they
have minimum credit ratings of A (by Standard & Poor's) and A2 (by
Moody's).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In 2013, OCC expanded the permissible collateral in an
earlier iteration of the current revolving credit facility (``2013
Facility''). See Securities Exchange Release No. 70596 (Oct. 2,
2013), 78 FR 62719 (Oct. 22, 2013). In assessing the anticipated
effects on and management of risk related to the 2013 Facility, OCC
noted that the inclusion of Canadian Government securities as
eligible collateral would increase the amount of OCC collateral that
can be pledged to support borrowings under the 2013 Facility,
resulting in increased availability of loans. Id. at 62721.
    \8\ OCC currently does not permit Clearing Members to pledge as
margin deposits or clearing fund contributions debt securities
issued by the Additional G7 Governments. As OCC clarified in its
proposal, permitting Clearing Members to pledge such securities to
OCC would require OCC to address certain governance requirements,
including making any necessary filings with the Commission. See
Notice of Filing, 84 FR at 25090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing
Supervision Act is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the
financial system and promote financial stability by, among other
things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically
important financial market utilities (``SIFMUs'') and strengthening the
liquidity of SIFMUs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \10\ authorizes
the Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk-management
standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of
designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act \11\ provides the following objectives and
principles for the Commission's risk-management standards prescribed
under Section 805(a):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To promote robust risk management;
     to promote safety and soundness;
     to reduce systemic risks; and
     to support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-
management standards may address such areas as risk-management and
default policies and procedures, among other areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Section 17A of the
Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency Rules'').\13\ The Clearing Agency
Rules require, among other things, each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum
requirements for its operations and risk management practices on an
ongoing basis.\14\ As such, it is appropriate for the Commission to
review advance notices against the Clearing Agency Rules and the
objectives and principles of the risk management standards as described
in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. As discussed below,
the Commission believes the proposal in the Advance Notice is
consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\15\ and in the Clearing

Agency Rules, in particular Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Covered Clearing
Agency Standards''). The Commission established an effective date of
December 12, 2016 and a compliance date of April 11, 2017 for the
Covered Clearing Agency Standards. OCC is a ``covered clearing
agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the Advance Notice is consistent with
the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing
Supervision Act. The Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk
management, in particular management of liquidity risk presented to
OCC. Renewing and maintaining a credit facility for this purpose and in
the manner proposed by OCC would diversify the liquidity resources that
OCC may use to resolve a Member default.\17\ Additionally, the
Commission believes that the terms of the New Facility providing for an
expanded range of eligible collateral would promote robust risk
management by giving OCC more flexibility to use assets it may already
hold as a means of accessing liquidity under the New Facility. At the
same time, the expansion of collateral would be limited to only those
assets that Clearing Members are permitted to pledge as collateral to
OCC (as margin or clearing fund contributions) at the time of the loan,
which the Commission believes would further promote robust risk
management by aligning the collateral necessary to access the New
Facility with the actual collateral that OCC has available at that
time.\18\ As such, the Commission believes that the proposal would
promote robust risk management practices at OCC, consistent with
Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ OCC also maintains a minimum amount of cash in its Clearing
Fund as well as a non-bank liquidity facility. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 82501 (Jan. 12, 2018), 83 FR 2843 (Jan. 19,
2018) (Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Concerning the Adoption of a New Minimum Cash
Requirement for the Clearing Fund) (SR-OCC-2017-808) and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76821 (Jan. 4, 2016), 81 FR 3208 (Jan. 20,
2016) (Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing, as Modified
by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Concerning The Options Clearing
Corporation's Non-Bank Liquidity Facility) (SR-OCC-2015-805),
respectively.
    \18\ The Commission is not, at this time, expressing a view
regarding the specific collateral or the haircuts applicable under
the New Facility as they would apply to Clearing Member margin
deposits or Clearing Fund contributions. As noted, OCC currently
does not permit Clearing Members to pledge as margin deposits or
clearing fund contributions debt securities of Additional G7
Governments, and OCC would not be able to do so without first making
any necessary filings with the Commission. See supra note 8. The
Commission believes that an analysis of the specific collateral or
haircuts that would apply to clearing member margin deposits or
clearing fund contributions would be more appropriate at the time
and in the context of any such future filings.
    \19\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness. As
described above, the New Facility would provide OCC with an additional
liquidity resource in the event of a Clearing Member default. This
would promote safety and soundness for Clearing Members because it
would provide OCC with a readily available liquidity resource that
could enable OCC to continue to meet its obligations in a timely
fashion in the event of a Clearing Member default, thereby helping to
contain losses and liquidity pressures from that default. As discussed
above, the expansion of the range of eligible collateral under the New
Facility would further promote safety and soundness because it
increases OCC's ability to access such a liquidity resource. As such,
the Commission believes it is consistent with promoting safety and
soundness as contemplated in Section 805(b) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed changes set
forth in the Advance Notice are consistent with reducing systemic risks
and promoting the stability of the broader financial system. As
mentioned above, allowing OCC to enter into the New Facility would
enable OCC to maintain an additional liquidity resource that OCC may
access to help manage a Clearing Member default. Further, aligning the
collateral that OCC would be permitted to pledge under the New Facility
with the collateral that Clearing Members are permitted to pledge to
OCC at the time that OCC accesses credit under the New Facility would
give OCC flexibility to access credit under the New Facility, thereby
reducing the risk that OCC would lack sufficient collateral to access
the New Facility. his flexibility would, in turn, enable OCC to access
additional liquidity to help manage a Clearing Member default.
    Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, the Commission believes
the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) of the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) requires, in part, OCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage
liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring,
monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing
and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum,
holding qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum
liquidity resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) \22\ in each
relevant currency for which the covered clearing agency has payment
obligations owed to Clearing Members.\23\ Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14) of the
Exchange Act defines ``qualifying liquid resources'' to include, among
other things, lines of credit without material adverse change
provisions, that are readily available and convertible into cash.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires OCC to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk
that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and
timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum,
maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all
relevant currencies to effect same-day settlement of payment
obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of
foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the participant family that would generate the
largest aggregate payment of obligation for the covered clearing
agency in extreme but plausible conditions. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the implementation of the New Facility would
provide OCC with continued access to a $2 billion revolving credit
facility on substantially similar terms to the Existing Facility. As
the Commission noted previously, the Existing Facility provides OCC
with access to a single credit facility designed to help ensure that
OCC has sufficient, readily-available qualifying liquid resources to
meet the cash settlement obligations of its largest family of
affiliated members.\25\ Implementation of the New Facility on
substantially similar terms to the Existing Facility would ensure that
OCC maintains continued access to such a credit facility. Further, as
noted above, by aligning the collateral that OCC would be permitted to
pledge under the New Facility with the collateral that Clearing Members
are permitted pledge to OCC at the time that OCC needs to access the
New Facility, the proposed expansion of permissible collateral that OCC
could pledge under the New Facility would give OCC increased
flexibility to access credit under the New Facility.

Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83529 (Jun. 27, 2018),
83 FR 31237, 31241 (Jul. 3, 2018) (SR-OCC-2018-802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act, that the Commission does not object to
Advance Notice (SR-OCC-2019-803) and that OCC is authorized to
implement the proposed change as of the date of this notice.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13776 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

11/13/2007 04:45 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

follow-up from our discussion on extrapolated costs

Rob,

     Thanks for joining us last Thursday the 8th to talk about our extrapolated costs methodology choices.  I'm glad we were able to reach agreement on the methods to apply to those places that are relatively close to attaining the alternate primary standards.  It was also good that we were able to identify where we disagree.  Ron has contacted Lydia to let her know that the methods applied to places that are relatively far from attainment of the alternate primary standards is an issue that will require further discussion with management.

   I look forward to talking with you this Thursday about our benefits methodology.  We'll get materials to you by the end of the day on Wednesday.

   I have also collected answers to your questions that you asked at our meeting November 1 on known costs and the base case modeling results.  Our analysts are giving the answers a final review before they are sent to you tomorrow.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Thanks,

Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


                                 ATTACHMENT H                                         Survey to Test Awareness and Perceptions of EPA's Safer Choice Label and Alternate Labels:                         General Adult Population Survey                                                                                OMB Control No. 2070-NEW                          Approval expires x/xx/xxxx                                                    This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-NEW). Responses to this collection of information are voluntary. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 0.5 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.                           Survey for EPA Safer Choice      Awareness and Perceptions of Safer Choice Label and Alternate Labels                         General Adult Population Survey

The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 0.5 hours per response. Responses will be private to the extent permitted by law. This is a voluntary collection; respondents do not have to respond if there is no OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 2070-0189. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.

The survey below is designed to test awareness and perceptions of the primary Safer Choice label, with options for testing alternate labels. This document contains four modules of questions: general questions on the Safer Choice program and label, supplemental questions on the Safer Choice fragrance-free label, general questions on the Design for the Environment (DfE) program and label, and questions on the DfE label design. For a given survey, one to three modules of questions will be used, while ensuring that the burden does not exceed 0.5 hours per response.

GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE SAFER CHOICE PROGRAM AND LABEL

 Are you familiar with a certification program implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that helps shoppers and buyers find products that can help protect the environment and have ingredients that are safer for people, families, and pets?

 Yes  No [SKIP to Q3]

 What is the name of the certification program? [Open-ended]

 For more than 15 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a voluntary certification program that helps shoppers and buyers find products that can help protect the environment and have ingredients that are safer for people, families, and pets. This certification program, called "Safer Choice," evaluates human health and environmental concerns associated with chemicals in a variety of products, including commonly used household cleaning products. Products that meet EPA's Safer Choice Standard are allowed to carry the Safer Choice label. When you see the Safer Choice label on a product it means the Safer Choice scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and has determined the product contains only safer ingredients.

   Now that you have heard more about the certification program, do you recall hearing or seeing anything about this program?

 Yes  No

 A.	Have you seen this visual mark on any products on store shelves?

 Yes  No

 Have you seen this visual mark on any products you have purchased?

 Yes  No

 Based on what you now know about the certification program, how likely are you to use the Safer Choice label to help you select a product to purchase?

 Extremely likely  Very likely  Somewhat likely  Slightly likely  Not at all likely

Please answer the following questions about the program name and visual design of the Safer Choice label (show image of label).

  On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree," and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I would notice this label if I saw it on a product or packaging

2 The label is attractive and appealing

3 The visual design is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that are safer for people and families

4 The visual design is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that help protect the environment

5 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that are safer for people and families

6 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that protect the environment

7 The tagline "Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards" is credible

8 This label is a useful resource for shoppers

9 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

 Have you seen products with this label in stores where you shop for household goods?      YES  NO  I don't know

 Have you purchased a product with this label in the past six months?

 YES  NO  I don't know      What would most motivate you to purchase products with this label? [PLEASE SELECT ONE RESPONSE ONLY]

 If it was cost competitive  If it was easy to locate on store shelves  If there was scientific information readily available to support claims  If I had a coupon to encourage me to buy the product  If it was proven to be safer for children and animals  I would not purchase products with this label OPTIONAL ALTERNATE LABEL (E.G., FRAGRANCE FREE) DESIGN QUESTIONS

In addition to the general design, there is a ["fragrance free"] label for products.  Please answer the following questions as they relate to the [fragrance free] design.   Fragrance Free Design (or other alternate design)

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree," and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I prefer to buy [fragrance free] products for my family

2 I buy [fragrance free] products on a regular basis (at least once a month)

3 The label is effective in showing that the product is [fragrance free]

4 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE DfE PROGRAM AND LABEL

 Are you familiar with a certification program implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that helps shoppers and buyers find antimicrobial products, such as disinfectants and sanitizers, with ingredients that meet stringent criteria for human health and environmental effects?

 Yes  No [SKIP to Q3]

 What is the name of the certification program? [Open-ended]

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers a voluntary certification program that helps shoppers and buyers find disinfectant products with ingredients that meet stringent criteria for effects on the environment and for the health of people, families, and pets. This certification program, called "Design for the Environment" or "DfE," evaluates human health and environmental concerns associated with chemicals in a variety of products, including commonly used household disinfectant products. Disinfectant products that meet EPA's stringent ingredient criteria are allowed to carry the DfE label. When you see the DfE label on a product it means the EPA scientific review team has screened each ingredient against criteria for potential human health and environmental effects.

   Now that you have heard more about the certification program, do you recall hearing or seeing anything about this program?

 Yes  No

                                     Label                                      Label A.	Have you seen this visual mark on any products on store shelves?  Yes  No

 Have you seen this visual mark on any products you have purchased?

 Yes  No

 Based on what you now know about the certification program, how likely are you to use the DfE label to help you select a product to purchase?

 Extremely likely  Very likely  Somewhat likely  Slightly likely  Not at all likely

Please answer the following questions about the program name and visual design of the DfE label (show image of label).                                      Label                                      Label

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree," and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I would notice this label if I saw it on a product or packaging

2 The label is attractive and appealing

3 The visual design is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for human health

4 The visual design is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for environmental effects

5 The name "DfE" is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for human health

6 The name "DfE" is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for environmental effects

7 The tagline [TBD] is credible

8 This label is a useful resource for shoppers

9 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

 Have you seen products with this label in stores where you shop for household goods?      YES  NO  I don't know

 Have you purchased a product with this label in the past six months?

 YES  NO  I don't know

 What would most motivate you to purchase products with this label? [PLEASE SELECT ONE RESPONSE ONLY]

 If it was cost competitive  If it was easy to locate on store shelves  If there was scientific information readily available to support claims  If I had a coupon to encourage me to buy the product  I would not purchase products with this label

OPTIONAL DfE DESIGN QUESTIONS

Below is a label that EPA may allow to be used on certified antimicrobial products, such as disinfectants and sanitizers, that have chemical ingredients that meet stringent criteria for human health and environmental effects. Please answer the following questions as they relate to the DfE design.

DfE Label Design

                                     Label                                      Label

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree," and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I buy disinfectant products on a regular basis (at least once every three months)

2 The label is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for human health

3 The label is effective in showing that the product contains ingredients that have been reviewed by EPA and meet EPA's stringent standards for environmental effects

4 I would notice this label if I saw it on a product or packaging

5 The label is attractive and appealing

6 The tagline [TBD] is credible

7 This label is a useful resource for shoppers

8 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

Below is a label that EPA allows to be used on certified cleaning products other than disinfectants that have chemical ingredients that meet stringent criteria for human health and environmental effects.

Safer Choice Label Considering both labels (DfE and Safer Choice), please answer the following questions (show images of both labels).

 How would you describe these labels?

 The same  Similar  Different

 These two labels are similar but distinct.

 True  False

 If you were in the store shopping for household goods, do you think you would be able to tell the difference between these two labels?

 Yes  No

 What message do you think EPA is trying to convey about products with the DfE label?


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6581-6584]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0037; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-273-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and
F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes
(Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] recommended the application of a
similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft * * * are required to conduct a design
review against explosion risks.
    During improvement of the protection of fuel pump wiring against
short-circuit by accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB)
A300-24-6094, a study led by the manufacturer concluded that the
harness, installed through the wing panel needed to be protected to
prevent possible damage in case of chafing which could potentially
lead to short-circuit [and intermittent function or loss of the
inner tank fuel pump. Loss of both inner tank fuel pumps could
result in inability to use the remaining fuel supply in the inner
tank. A short-circuit could also result in an ignition source in a
flammable leakage zone].
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You

may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0037;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-273-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0225, dated November 5, 2010 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] recommended the application of a
similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lb) or more, which
have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
    During improvement of the protection of fuel pump wiring against
short-circuit by accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB)
A300-24-6094, a study led by the manufacturer concluded that the
harness, installed through the wing panel needed to be protected to
prevent possible damage in case of chafing which could potentially
lead to short-circuit [and intermittent function or loss of the
inner tank fuel pump. Loss of both inner tank fuel pumps could
result in inability to use the remaining fuel supply in the inner
tank. A short-circuit could also result in an ignition source in a
flammable leakage zone].
    For the reasons stated above, this [EASA] AD requires the
replacement of bushes in the hydraulic reservoir panel.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed
to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory
standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that
all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport
category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against
explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-6102, Revision
01, dated September 24, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 120 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $266 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $164,520, or $1,371 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2011-0037; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-
273-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 24, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant
F airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all
serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-24-6102 (Airbus Modification 13381) has been embodied.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] recommended the application of a
similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft * * * are required to conduct a design
review against explosion risks.
    During improvement of the protection of fuel pump wiring against
short-circuit by accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB)
A300-24-6094, a study led by the manufacturer concluded that the
harness, installed through the wing panel needed to be protected to
prevent possible damage in case of chafing which could potentially
lead to short-circuit [and intermittent function or loss of the
inner tank fuel pump. Loss of both inner tank fuel pumps could
result in inability to use the remaining fuel supply in the inner
tank. A short-circuit could also result in an ignition source in a
flammable leakage zone].
* * * * *

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD,
install Teflon bushes in the hydraulic reservoir panel at the lower
left-hand side in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-6102, Revision 01, dated
September 24, 2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-6102,
dated August 13, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0225, dated November 5, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-24-6102, Revision 01, dated September 24,
2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2612 Filed 2-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 4142]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-441-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Cleanup of NR and NCF Agreements--Jan 2013 to be
effective 2/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130110-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-442-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: VPEM k5102095 Neg Rate 2-1-2013 to be effective 2/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130110-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-236-001.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Revised High Plains Park and Loan Filing to be
effective 3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130109-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: January 10, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00983 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15575-15576]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1192; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-22]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Sheridan, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Sheridan County
Airport, Sheridan, WY. Decommissioning of the Sheridan Tactical Air
Navigation System (TACAN) has made this action necessary for the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 22, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Sheridan,
WY (76 FR 79563). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, of
FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E surface airspace at Sheridan County
Airport, Sheridan, WY. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the
decommissioning of the Sheridan TACAN. This action is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses 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 amends
controlled airspace at Sheridan County Airport, Sheridan WY.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM WY E2 Sheridan WY [Amended]

Sheridan County Airport, WY
    (Lat. 44[deg]46'09'' N., long. 106[deg]58'49'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-
mile radius of the Sheridan County Airport, and within 4.5 miles
each side of the 157[deg] bearing of the airport, extending from the
4.5-mile radius to 17.6 miles southeast of the airport, and within
3.5 miles each side of the Sheridan County Airport 316[deg] bearing
extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 15.5 miles northwest of the
airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Sheridan County
Airport 325[deg] bearing extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 16
miles northwest of the airport, and 4 miles each side of the
336[deg] bearing of the Sheridan County Airport extending from the
4.5-mile radius to 15.4 miles northwest of the airport, and within
3.5 miles each side of the Sheridan County Airport 140[deg] bearing
extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 15.5 miles southeast of the
airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 7, 2012.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-6341 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20887-20888]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1439]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Adverse Event Program
for Medical Devices (Medical Product Safety Network)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 14,
2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0471.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Adverse Event Program for Medical Devices (Medical Product Safety
Network)--(OMB Control Number 0910-0471)--Extension

    Among other things, section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i) authorizes FDA to require
(1) manufacturers to report medical device-related deaths, serious
injuries, and malfunctions, and (2) user facilities to report device-
related deaths directly to manufacturers and FDA and serious injuries
to the manufacturer. Section 213 of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 519(b) of
the FD&C Act relating to mandatory reporting by user facilities of
deaths, serious injuries, and serious illnesses associated with the use
of medical devices. This amendment legislated the replacement of
universal user facility reporting by a system that is limited to a ``.
. . subset of user facilities that constitutes a representative profile
of user reports'' for device-related deaths and serious injuries. This
amendment is reflected in section 519(b)(5)(A) of the FD&C Act. This
legislation provides FDA with the opportunity to design and implement a
national surveillance network, composed of well-trained clinical
facilities, to provide high-quality data on medical devices in clinical
use. This system is called the Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun).
    FDA is seeking OMB clearance to continue to use electronic data
collection to obtain the information on Form FDA 3500A (approved under
OMB control number 0910-0291) related to medical devices and tissue
products from the user facilities participating in MedSun, to obtain a
demographic profile of the facilities, and for additional questions
which will permit FDA to better understand the cause of reported
adverse events. Participation in the program is voluntary and currently
includes 250 facilities.
    In addition to collecting data on the electronic adverse event
report form, MedSun collects additional information from participating
sites about reported problems emerging from the MedSun hospitals. This
data collection is also voluntary and is collected on the same Web site
as the report information.
    The burden estimate is based on the number of facilities currently
participating in MedSun (250). FDA estimates an average of 15 reports
per site annually. This estimate is based on MedSun working to promote
reporting in general from the sites, as well as promoting reporting
from specific parts of the hospitals, such as the pediatric intensive
care units, the electrophysiology laboratories, and the hospital
laboratories.
    In the Federal Register of November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71620), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                            Activity                                Number of     responses per   Total annual     Average burden  per      Total hours
                                                                   respondents     respondent       responses            response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MedSun facilities participating in the electronic reporting of              250              15           3,750        0.75 (45 minutes)           2,813
 adverse events program (Form FDA 3670)........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: April 7, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-08212 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P