[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79376-79378]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28083]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96546; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule To Establish a Monthly Membership Fee

December 20, 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 December 9, 2022 MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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 is filing to amend the fee schedule (the ``Fee
Schedule'') applicable to MIAX Pearl Equities, an equities trading
facility of the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl, at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, 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
    The Exchange proposes to establish a $200 monthly Membership Fee
for Equity Members of the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to assess the
monthly Membership Fee to each active Equity Member at the close of
business on the first day of each month. The Exchange proposes to
specify within the Fee Schedule that an active membership means any
month the Equity Member is certified in the membership system and the
Equity Member is credentialed to use one or more ports in the
production environment. For example, the monthly Membership Fee for
January 2023 will be assessed to all active Equity Members at the close
of business on January 2, 2023, the first business day of the month.
This filing and the proposed fee amount ($200 per month per Equity
Member) are identical to a recent monthly Membership fee adopted by
MEMX, LLC (``MEMX''). The Exchange is not proposing anything different
than what was adopted in the MEMX filing.
    The Exchange also proposes that if an Equity Member is pending a
voluntary termination of rights as a Member pursuant to Exchange Rule
206 prior to

the time any monthly Membership Fee will be assessed (i.e., the close
of business on January 2, 2023), and the Equity Member does not utilize
the facilities of the Exchange while such voluntary termination of
rights is pending, then the Equity Member will not be obligated to pay
the monthly Membership Fee, as such Member will not be considered to
have an ``active'' membership. The Exchange believes this to be
appropriate because there are several pre-conditions before a voluntary
resignation shall take effect pursuant to Exchange Rule 206. This is
also similar to the MEMX filing to adopt the MEMX monthly Membership
fee.
    As proposed, the monthly Membership Fee for an Equity Member will
not be pro-rated, which the Exchange believes is reasonable based on
the frequency that the proposed fee would be assessed (i.e., monthly
instead of applying to a longer period) and the relatively low proposed
fee amount of $200 for the monthly Membership Fee. This is also similar
to the MEMX filing to adopt the MEMX monthly Membership fee. The
Exchange does not presently contemplate proposing any application fees,
trading rights or trading permit fees, market participant identifier
(``MPID'') fees or so-called ``headcount'' fees. The Exchange further
notes that it is separately filing a proposal to amend fees for
physical connectivity and ports (with the same implementation date as
the proposed changes in this filing).
    The Exchange proposes to establish the monthly Membership fee as
Section 4), Membership Fees, and move current Section 4), Additional
Fees, to new Section 5 in the Fee Schedule.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed Membership Fee
beginning January 1, 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with s 6(b)(4)
and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its Equity Members and other persons using its facilities and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that there is value in becoming an Equity
Member of the Exchange and that the proposed monthly Membership Fee is
reasonable. The proposed monthly Membership Fee is identical in amount
and the way the Exchange proposes to assess it as the monthly
Membership fee recently adopted by MEMX.\5\ The proposed monthly
Membership fee is also lower than or comparable to the membership fees
imposed by several other national securities exchanges that charge such
fees.\6\ Moreover, insofar as the Exchange does not charge--nor does it
presently contemplate charging--application fees, trading rights fees,
trading permit fees, or fees for multiple MPIDs, the comparative price
of membership is less or significantly less than comparative prices at
other exchanges. The Exchange also does not charge--nor does it
presently contemplate charging--so-called ``headcount fees,'' e.g.,
fees charged for each Form U-4 filed for registration of a
representative or a principal or the transfer or re-licensing of such
personnel,\7\ further highlighting the reasonableness of the proposed
monthly Membership Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 4 [sic].
    \6\ See, e.g., the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') annual
trading license fee for member organizations ranges from
approximately $2,080 per month to $4,165 per month based on the type
of member organization and number of trading licenses. See NYSE
Price List 2022, Trading Licenses, page 23, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf (last
visited December 6, 2022). The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
annual membership fee is $3,000 plus a monthly $1,250 trading rights
fee (together with the annual membership fee, totaling $18,000 per
year). See ``NASDAQ Membership Fees,'' Nasdaq Price List, available
at: http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2#membership (last visited December
6, 2022). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81133 (July
12, 2017), 82 FR 32904 (July 18, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-065)
(discussing the reasonableness of Nasdaq's fees). Finally, Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') charges an annual membership fee of
$2,500 plus an additional fee of $350 per month for each additional
MPID a member maintains other than their first (i.e., an annual fee
of $4,200 per additional MPID). See ``Membership Fees'' and ``Market
Participant Identifier (`MPID') Fees'' sections of the Cboe BZX Fee
Schedule, available at: Cboe BZX Fee Schedule (last visited December
6, 2022).
    \7\ See, e.g., ``NASDAQ Membership Fees,'' supra note 11 [sic]
($55 for each Form U-4 filed for the registration of a
Representative or Principal, and $55 for each Form U-4 filed for the
transfer or re-licensing of a Representative or Principal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed monthly Membership Fee is
not unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed equally across
all Equity Members or firms that seek to become Equity Members. The
Exchange believes that the proposed monthly Membership Fee is not
unfairly discriminatory because no broker-dealer is required to become
a member of the Exchange. Instead, many market participants awaited the
Exchange growing to a certain percentage of market share before they
would join as an Equity Member of the Exchange. In addition, many
market participants still have not joined the Exchange despite the
Exchange's growth in one year to more than 1% of the overall equities
market share. To illustrate, the Exchange currently has 49 Equity
Members.\8\ However, based on publicly available information regarding
a sample of the Exchange's competitors, MEMX has 66 members, NYSE has
142 members, Cboe BZX has 140 members, and Investors Exchange LLC
(``IEX'') has 133 members.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange Member Directory, available
at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_Exchange_Members_11012022.pdf (last visited
December 6, 2022).
    \9\ See supra note 4 [sic]; see also NYSE Membership Directory,
available at: https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/membership; Cboe BZX
Form 1 filed November 19, 2021, available at: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21009368.pdf; IEX Current Members list,
available at: https://exchange.iex.io/resources/trading/current-
membership/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the vigorous competition among national securities
exchanges provides many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide
whether membership to the Exchange is appropriate and worthwhile, and
no broker-dealer is required to become a member of the Exchange.
Specifically, neither the trade-through requirements under Regulation
NMS nor broker-dealers' best execution obligations require a broker-
dealer to become a member of every exchange. The Exchange acknowledges
that competitive forces may require certain broker-dealers to be
members of all equities exchanges. However, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fee of $200 as a monthly Membership Fee is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, even for a broker-
dealer that deemed it necessary to join the Exchange for business
purposes, as those business reasons should presumably result in revenue
capable of covering the proposed fee.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fee would be an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its Equity Members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and are not unfairly discriminatory. As the Commission noted in its
Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation:

    The Commission to date has not issued detailed rules specifying
proper funding levels of [self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')]
regulatory programs, or how costs should be allocated among the
various SRO constituencies. Rather, the Commission has

examined the SROs to determine whether they are complying with their
statutory responsibilities. This approach was developed in response
to the diverse characteristics and roles of the various SROs and the
markets they operate. The mechanics of SRO funding, including the
amount of revenue that is spent on regulation and how that amount is
allocated among various regulatory operations, is related to the
type of market that an SRO is operating. Thus, each SRO and its
financial structure is, to a certain extent, unique. While this
uniqueness can result in different levels of SRO funding across
markets, it also is a reflection of one of the primary underpinnings
of the National Market System. Specifically, by fostering an
environment in which diverse markets with diverse business models
compete within a unified National Market System, investors and
market participants benefit.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 22,
2004), 69 FR 71255, 71267-68 (December 8, 2004) (File No. S7-40-04).

    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of s 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
\11\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Equity Members and other persons
using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Effective regulation
is central to the proper functioning of the securities markets.
Recognizing the importance of such efforts, Congress decided to require
national securities exchanges to register with the Commission as self-
regulatory organizations to carry out the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange therefore believes that it is critical to ensure that
regulation is appropriately funded. The monthly Membership Fee is
expected to provide a source of funding towards the Exchange's costs
related to onboarding Equity Members and providing ongoing support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with 6(b)(8) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's
proposed Membership Fee will be lower than the cost of membership on
other exchanges,\13\ and therefore, may stimulate intramarket [sic]
competition by attracting additional firms to become Equity Members on
the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from
joining the Exchange. In addition, membership fees are subject to
competition from other exchanges. Accordingly, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely the
Exchange will see a decline in membership as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \13\ See supra note 11 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change will not impact
intermarket [sic] competition because it will apply to all Equity
Members equally. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can determine whether or not to join the
Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of joining
and maintaining membership on the Exchange.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-PEARL-2022-59 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-PEARL-2022-59. 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-PEARL-2022-59 and
should be submitted on or before January 17, 2023. For the Commission,
by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28083 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33563-33564]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-E-0714]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; Vandetanib

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for Vandetanib and is publishing this notice
of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6257, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product Vandetanib
(vandetanib). Vandetanib is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic
or progressive medullary thyroid cancer in patients with unresectable
locally advanced or metastatic disease. Subsequent to this approval,
the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration
application for Vandetanib (U.S. Patent No. 7,173,038) from AstraZeneca
AB, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated July 9, 2012, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office
that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of Vandetanib represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
Vandetanib is 4,009 days. Of this time, 3,735 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 274 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: April 16, 2000. The applicant claims April 20, 2000, as the
date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was April 16,
2000, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: July 7,
2010. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for VANDETANIB (NDA 22-405) was submitted on July 7,
2010.
    3. The date the application was approved: April 6, 2011. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-405 was approved on April 6,
2011.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the Patent and
Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its
calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 898 days of
patent term extension.

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by August 11, 2014. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by December 8, 2014. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: June 5, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-13566 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2202-2207]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00357]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87908; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the Forty-Fourth
Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis

January 8, 2020.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System
(``NMS'') thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 5,
2019,\3\ the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan''
or ``Plan'') \4\ participants (``Participants'') \5\ filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a
proposal to amend the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The amendment represents the
44th amendment to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan (``Amendment''). As described in
the Amendment, the Participants propose to make mandatory a conflicts

of interest disclosure regime that currently is voluntary. Under the
current practice, which the Amendment would make mandatory, the
Participants,\6\ the Processor,\7\ the Administrator,\8\ and the
members of the Advisory Committee \9\ (collectively, the ``Disclosing
Parties'') \10\ provide responses to a set of questions designed to
provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest of such
parties. Each of the Disclosing Parties' responses are then made
publicly available on the Plan's website.\11\ The Participants state
that they believe that publicly providing these responses increases
transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, Nasdaq/UTP Plan
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated July 3, 2019 (``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for its Participants.
This consolidated information informs investors of the current
quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It enables
investors to ascertain from one data source the current prices in
all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the
required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, which is a
prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR 20891 (April
26, 2007).
    \5\ The Participants are the national securities association and
national securities exchanges that submit trades and quotes to the
Plan and include: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.,
Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (each a ``Participant'' and
collectively, the ``Participants''). Participants are also members
of the Plan's Operating Committee.
    \6\ See Id.
    \7\ The ``Processor'' is charged with collecting, processing and
preparing for distribution or publication all Plan information. The
Processor for the Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'').
    \8\ The ``Administrator'' is charged with administering the
Plans to include data feed approval, customer communications,
contract management, and related functions. The Administrator of the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan is Nasdaq.
    \9\ ``Advisory Committee members'' are individuals who represent
particular types of financial services firms or actors in the
securities market, or who were selected by Plan participants to be
on the Advisory Committee.
    \10\ Information about the Processor, Administrator, and
Advisory Committee members is available at https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
    \11\ See https://www.utpplan.com/governance.
    \12\ See Transmittal Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendment has been filed by the Participants pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\13\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, contemporaneously with the issuance of
this notice, it has issued a notice of proposed order (``Governance
Notice'') \14\ soliciting public comment on a proposed order that would
direct the national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'') to act jointly in
developing and filing with the Commission a proposed new single
national market system plan, which will replace the existing national
market system plans that govern the public dissemination of real-time,
consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks
(``Equity Data Plans''). The Commission stated in the Governance Notice
its view that, among other concerns,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87906 (January 8,
2020).

conflicts of interest are inherent to the Equity Data Plans' current
governance structure because some exchange Participants have a dual
role as both an SRO jointly responsible for the operation of the
Equity Data Plans and part of a publicly held company that offers
proprietary data products. Moreover, an SRO representative on the
operating committee may have direct responsibility for some or all
of an exchange's proprietary data business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at A-66 to A-67 (footnotes omitted).

    The Governance Notice solicits public comment on a proposed order
that would direct the SROs to include provisions in the New Data Plan
(as defined in the Governance Notice) addressing several issues arising
from the current governance structure of the Plan, and the proposed
order discusses the Commission's view that the new data plan should
include a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy.
    In addition, contemporaneously with the publication of notice of
the Amendment set forth below, the Commission also is publishing a
separate proposed amendment from the Nasdaq/UTP Plan concerning a
confidentiality policy.

II. Text of the Amendment

    Set forth below is the entirety of the Amendment submission that
the Participants prepared and filed with the Commission, which includes
a statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the
information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statement of the Purpose of the Amendment

1. Background
    With Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data
products and also acting as Participants in running the public market
data stream, potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the
structure developed under Regulation NMS. There may be instances in
which representatives from the Participants and Advisory Committee
members have responsibilities with respect to both proprietary data and
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') data. Drawing on the
expertise of persons with such overlapping responsibilities may give
rise to potential conflicts of interest, and to address such potential
conflicts of interest, the Participants adopted a voluntary conflicts
disclosure regime.
    After discussion among the Participants and the Advisory Committee
at several meetings of the Plan's Operating Committee, the Participants
believe that a disclosure regime is a pragmatic step to address
potential conflicts of interest.
    As noted below, the Disclosing Parties have voluntarily provided
responses to the disclosure regime questions. The responses are
available on the Plan's website. The purpose of the Amendment is to
make the disclosures a requirement on a going forward basis instead of
relying on voluntary disclosures.
Required Disclosures
    As part of the disclosure regime, the Participants propose that the
Participants, the Processors, the Administrators, and members of the
Advisory Committee respond to questions that are tailored to elicit
responses that disclose the potential conflicts of interest.
    The Participants propose that the Participants respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Participant's firm for profit or not-for-profit? If
the Participant's firm is for profit, is it publicly or privately
owned? If privately owned, list any owner with an interest of 5% or
more of the Participant, where to the Participant's knowledge, such
owner, or any affiliate controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the owner, subscribes, directly or through a third-party
vendor, to SIP and/or exchange Proprietary Market Data products.
     Does the Participant firm offer real-time proprietary
equity market data that is filed with the SEC (``Proprietary Market
Data'')? If yes, does the firm charge a fee for such offerings?
     Provide the names of the representative and any
alternative representatives designated by the Participant who are
authorized under the Plans to vote on behalf of the Participant. Also
provide a narrative description of the representatives' roles within
the Participant organization, including the title of each individual as
well as any direct responsibilities related to the development,
dissemination, sales, or marketing of the Participant's Proprietary
Market Data, and the nature of those responsibilities.
    The Participants propose that the Processors respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Processor an affiliate of or affiliated with any
Participant? If yes, disclose the Participant(s)?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by the manager employed by the Processor to provide Processor
services to the Plans and the staff that reports to that manager
(collectively, the ``Plan Processor'').

     Does the Plan Processor provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products or other Plans? If yes,
disclose the services the Plan Processor performs and identify which
Plans. Does the Plan Processor have any profit or loss responsibility
for a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan Processor.
    The Participants propose that the Administrators respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Administrator an affiliate of or affiliated with
any Participant? If yes, which Participant?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by administrative services manager and the staff that reports
to that manager (collectively, the ``Plan Administrator'').
     Does the Plan Administrator provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products? If yes, what services?
Does the Plan Administrator have any profit or loss responsibility for
a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan
Administrator.
    The Participants propose that the Members of the Advisory Committee
respond to the following questions and instructions:
     Provide the Advisor's title and a brief description of the
Advisor's role within the firm.
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's use or procurement of market data?
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's trading or brokerage services?
     Does the Advisor's firm use the SIP? Does the Advisor's
firm use exchange Proprietary Market Data products?
     Does the Advisor's firm have an ownership interest of 5%
or more in one or more Participants? If yes, list the Participant(s).
     Does the Advisor actively participate in any litigation
against the Plans?
    The Participants will post the responses to these questions on the
Plan's website. If a Disclosing Party has any material changes in its
responses, the Disclosing Party must promptly update its disclosures.
Additionally, the Disclosing Parties will update the disclosures on an
annual basis to reflect any changes. This annual update must be made
before the first quarterly session meeting of each calendar year, which
is generally held in mid-February.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance
with Section IV.C of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The Participants also
received and incorporated feedback from the Advisory Committee in
preparing the disclosure requirements.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    The Disclosing Parties have voluntarily completed, and the
Participants have posted, responses to the questions outlined above on
the Plan's website. The purpose of the amendment, going forward, is to
make the disclosures a requirement rather than relying on voluntary
disclosures.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants, together with
the other Disclosing Parties, have determined to implement the
disclosure regime described herein. The Participants believe that
adopting this disclosure regime is an important step in addressing the
potential conflicts of interest.
    The disclosure regime should increase transparency in the
governance of the public market data stream, and consequently, increase
confidence in the proper functioning of the Operating Committee.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section IV.C.1 of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan requires the Participants to
unanimously approve the amendment proposed herein. They so approved it.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

III. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comments on the Amendment. Interested persons
are invited to submit written data, views, and comments concerning the
foregoing, including whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act
and the rules thereunder. Among other things, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether the Amendment to the current Plan
addresses the concerns outlined in the Governance Notice or whether
they should be further enhanced regarding conflicts of interest in
national market system plan governance. Accordingly, the Commission
requests comments on matters including, but not limited to, the
following:

Proposed Disclosure

    1. The text of the Amendment, set forth above, states that: ``With

Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data products and
also acting as Participants in running the public market data stream,
potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the structure developed
under Regulation NMS.'' The Amendment further notes that ``[t]here may
be instances in which representatives from the Participants and
Advisory Committee members have responsibilities with respect to both
proprietary data and [SIP] data'' and that ``such overlapping
responsibilities may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.'' Do
commenters believe the proposed Amendment adequately addresses those
potential conflicts? Please provide sufficient detail to support your
views, including, to the extent available, actual or possible examples.
    2. If commenters do not believe that the proposed Amendment
adequately addresses the potential conflicts of interest arising from
the Plan's current governance structure, is that because commenters
believe the Amendment is inadequate in any particular way? Or is it
because commenters believe that the potential conflicts of interest
have not been characterized accurately? If so, in what ways do
commenters believe the Amendment fails to describe the current
environment and potential conflicts of interest?
    3. In their filing, the Participants state that the proposed
questions in the disclosure document are tailored to elicit information
relevant to assess the extent of an individual's potential conflict of
interests with the Plan. Do commenters believe that the questions for
Participants, Processors, Administrators, and members of the Advisory
Committee are sufficient to elicit information to provide insight into
all potential conflicts? Will public availability of the responses
increase transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plan? Do
commenters believe the proposed disclosures are sufficient or should
enhanced disclosures be required? If so, what additional items of
disclosure should be required and why? Do commenters believe that
additional disclosures should be required for the representatives and
alternative representatives of a Participant, Processor, Administrator,
or member of the Advisory Committee?
    4. In their filing, the Participants state that a disclosure-based
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interests.
Do commenters agree or disagree with that statement? Do commenters
believe that a disclosure-based regime is sufficient to address the
potential conflicts that Participants, Processors, Administrators, and
members of the Advisory Committee may face in their roles within the
Plan?
    5. Do commenters think any other types of persons should be
required to provide disclosures, such as services providers to the
Administrator that provide audit, accounting, or other professional
services? As an example, if auditing services are outsourced to a
Participant's employer or an affiliate that also is offering
proprietary data products to SIP customers and/or conducting audits for
those products, should that entity also be required to disclose its
conflicts and otherwise be subject to the terms of the conflicts of
interest policy, even if it is neither the Administrator nor Processor?
    6. Do commenters believe that an alternative approach could better
identify and address conflicts of interests among Participants,
Processors, Administrators, and the Advisory Committee, as well as
auditors? For example, should a disclosure regime be supplemented with
certain prohibited conduct or procedural requirements, such as a
prohibition on a Participant voting when that Participant has direct
business responsibilities related to producing, selling, or managing
competing data products? If you believe an alternative approach is
appropriate, please provide details on any such alternative approach.
Do commenters regard the Plan's ability to identify and protect the
confidentiality of competitive information as an important component to
the Plan's ability to manage conflicts of interest? If so, how do
commenters regard the interaction between this proposed Amendment and
the separate proposed Plan amendment to govern treatment of
confidential information noted above?
    7. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
each party are sufficient to identify the specific relationships that
may give rise to a conflict under the Plan and related information?
Separately, do commenters believe that the proposed questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made?
    8. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, or financial interests,
and any employment or other commercial relationships that could
materially affect the ability of a party to be impartial regarding
actions of the Plan?
    9. The Participants propose to continue to post the conflicts of
interest disclosures for each party on the Plan's website. Do
commenters believe that doing so provides sufficient public notice of
potential conflicts? If not, in what other manner should the
disclosures be made public? For example, should Participants be
required to acknowledge potential conflicts when discussing specific
matters at Operating Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings that
present a conflict? Should a complete set of the disclosures be
included in the materials for each Plan meeting? Is the timing clear
with respect to the requirement that a Disclosing Party ``promptly''
update its disclosures, or should the Amendment be more specific? What
do commenters consider sufficiently prompt? Within one week? Within 30
days? Some other timeframe?
    10. As proposed, the Amendment states that disclosures will be made
and updated annually or upon any material change. Do commenters believe
that these intervals are sufficient, or should updates be required more
frequently such as in advance of scheduled Plan meetings? What
constitutes a ``material'' change that should require the filing of an
amended disclosure? Please explain.

Proposed Disclosure for Participants

    1. Do commenters believe that any individual representing a
Participant that is directly involved in the management, development,
pricing, or sale of proprietary data products offered to SIP customers
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Participants should address the conflicts their representatives may
face in their dual role of pricing and developing SIP data products as
well as their own proprietary data products?
    2. Do commenters believe that a Participant should be recused from
voting when it or an affiliate is competing for a contract to serve as
a Processor for the Plan? Why or why not? Are there any other scenarios
that present conflicts that should result in a Participant being
recused from voting?
    3. Do commenters believe recusal on certain Plan action when a
potential conflict is present is an appropriate mechanism to address
conflicts? If so, under what circumstances? If applicable, do
commenters believe that recusal should be mandatory or should it be
voluntary? Why or why not?
    4. Do commenters believe that Operating Committee members should

be permitted to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest of
another Participant for discussion before the Operating Committee, even
if the Participant did not itself disclose the potential conflict? Do
commenters believe that the Operating Committee should have the ability
to take action in response to disclosed or undisclosed conflicts, such
as requiring the Participant to recuse itself from a certain discussion
or vote on a particular matter? If so, how should the Operating
Committee take such action? Should the Participants vote on recusal or
should the Participants seek input from the Advisory Committee? Why or
why not?

Proposed Disclosures for Processors

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
the Processor are sufficient to identify the specific circumstances in
which a Participant is both voting on an Operating Committee and
competing to act as Processor for the Plan? Do commenters believe that
the disclosure questions are tailored to the role that the Processor
performs and the fact that the Processor is present at Plan meetings
but do not vote on Plan matters, or should different or additional
disclosure be required for the Processor? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Processor questions effectively require all
material facts necessary to not only identify the nature of the
potential conflict, but also the effect it may have on the Plan? Should
the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential effects? Should
the Amendment elaborate on what ``profit or loss responsibility for a
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products'' means in the context
of the required disclosures? Alternatively, do commenters believe that
the Plan's separately-proposed confidentiality proposal would address
some of the potential effects of conflicts of interests if approved?
    2. Do commenters have concerns about affiliations between a Plan's
Processor and a Participant? If so, do commenters believe the conflicts
of interest disclosure is sufficient to address those concerns? Should
the Amendment require a description of the nature of the affiliation?
    3. Do commenters believe that a Participant or its affiliate that
is competing for a contract to serve as a Processor for the Plan should
participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
selection of the Processor for the Plan? If so, how do commenters
believe Participants should address the conflicts they face in their
dual role of competing to serve as a Processor while serving as a
Participant that participates in the discussion of, and ultimately
votes on, selection of the Processor?

Proposed Disclosures for the Administrator

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
the Administrator are sufficient to identify the specific interests and
employment, commercial or other relationships that may give rise to a
conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters believe that the
proposed Administrator questions effectively require all material facts
necessary to not only identify the nature of the conflict, but also the
effect it may have on the Plan? Should the Amendment require more
disclosure of such potential effects or greater details with respect to
the disclosures that are made?
    2. To the extent that the Administrator enlists assistance from an
auditor or any other professional services subcontractor for any of the
Plan(s), and the subcontractor is affiliated with an entity that is
involved in the development, pricing, or sale of proprietary data
products offered to SIP customers, or is subject to any other conflict,
should all of the disclosures and conflicts policies referenced above
also be applicable to them? Or do commenters believe that concerns
arising from potential conflicts of interest would be more
appropriately addressed for a subcontractor if the subcontractor could
attest that it is sufficiently walled-off from the proprietary data
business of its affiliate?

Proposed Disclosures for Members of the Advisory Committee

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
Advisory Committee members are sufficient to identify the specific
interests and employment, commercial, or other relationships that may
give rise to a conflict under the Plan? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Advisory Committee members' questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plan? Should the Amendment require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made? Should the Amendment require Members of the Advisory Committee to
identify affiliations with any Disclosing Party, and clarify that both
direct and indirect ownership interests in a Participant are subject to
disclosure? Is it clear what ``actively participate in any litigation
against the Plans'' means, or should the Amendment require additional
detail?
    2. Do commenters believe that the Plan should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, commercial, or financial
interests, and any employment relationships that could materially
affect the ability of the Advisory Committee Member to participate
impartially in discussing actions of the Plan?
    3. Do commenters believe that Advisory Committee members that
purchase SIP data products should participate in discussions regarding
the pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Advisory Committee members should address that potential conflict?

Participant Statement Regarding Competition

    1. The Participants state in their filing that the Amendment does
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Do commenters
believe that the Amendment to the Plan imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act? Please explain.
    2. What effect might the Amendment have on competition, if any?
Please explain. How would any effect on competition from the proposal
benefit or harm the national market system and/or various market
participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of
the national market system or different market participants would be
affected. Please support any response with data, if possible.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-24-89 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 File Number S7-24-89. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/

sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all written statements with
respect to the proposed Amendment that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed Amendment
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 website
viewing and printing at the principal office of the Plan. 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 S7-24-89 and
should be submitted on or before February 4, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00357 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27313-27315]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8914-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0210]

Draft Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane: In Support of the
Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Listening Session and Peer Review Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on Monday,
July 6, 2009, during the public comment period for the external review
draft document titled, ``Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-09/005). EPA is also announcing that Versar,
Inc., an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will
convene an independent panel of

experts and organize and conduct an external peer review workshop to
review the external review draft titled, ``Toxicological Review of 1,4-
Dioxane: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) (EPA/635/R-09/005).'' The public may also
attend this workshop as observers through a registration process, and
time will be set aside for observers to give brief oral comments at the
workshop regarding the draft document under review. EPA will consider
public comments and recommendations from the expert panel workshop as
EPA finalizes the draft document.
    EPA previously announced the 60-day public comment period (ending
July 6, 2009) for the draft document in the Federal Register on May 7,
2009 (74 FR 21361). The public comment period and the external peer
review workshop are separate processes that provide opportunities for
all interested parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to
forward public comments submitted in accordance with the aforementioned
FR notice (May 7, 2009) to Versar, Inc. for consideration by the
external peer review panel prior to the workshop. Listening session
participants who wish to have their comments available to the external
peer reviewers should also submit written comments during the public
comment period using the detailed and established procedures included
in the aforementioned FR notice (May 7, 2009). Comments submitted to
the docket prior to the end of the public comment period will be
submitted to the external peer reviewers and considered by EPA in the
disposition of public comments. Comments received in the docket after
the public comment period closes will not be submitted to the external
peer reviewers. Public comments submitted during the 60-day public
comment period ending July 6, 2009, may be observed at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0210. EPA
intends to consider the comments and recommendations from the listening
session, the external peer review workshop, and any public comments
that EPA receives in accordance with the May 7, 2009, Federal Register
notice (74 FR 21361).
    EPA released this draft document as stated in the Federal Register
notice (74 FR21361) solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination public
review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document
has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and
should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or
determination.
    The EPA's draft assessment and peer review charge are available via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's
(NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

DATES: The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for
1,4-dioxane will be held on Monday, June 22, 2009, beginning at 9 a.m.
and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. If you wish to make a
presentation at the listening session, you should register by Monday,
June 15, 2009, and indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the
session, and indicate the length of your presentation. At the time of
your registration, please indicate if you require audio-visual aid
(e.g., lap top and slide projector). In general, each presentation
should be no more than 30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests
for presentations than the allotted time will allow, then the time
limit for each presentation will be adjusted accordingly. A copy of the
agenda for the listening session will be available at the meeting. If
no speakers have registered by Monday, June 15, 2009, the listening
session will be cancelled. EPA will notify those registered to attend
of the cancellation.
    The peer review workshop will begin on Monday, August 17, 2009, at
approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m., Eastern
Standard Time. To attend the workshop, observers must register by
Monday, August 10, 2009, according to the procedures outlined below. At
the time of registration, please indicate if you wish to make brief
oral comments at the workshop.
    The public comment period for review of this draft assessment was
announced previously in the Federal Register (74 FR 21361) on May 7,
2009. As stated in that FR notice, the public comment period began on
May 7, 2009, and ends July 6, 2009. Any technical comments submitted
during the public comment period should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by July 6, 2009. Only those public comments submitted
using the procedures identified in the May 7, 2009, FR notice by the
July 6, 2009, deadline will be provided to the independent peer review
panel prior to the peer review meeting.

ADDRESSES: The listening session on the draft 1,4-dioxane assessment
will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North Building),
7th Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia
22202. To attend the listening session, register by Monday, June 15,
2009, via the Internet at http://epa.versar.com/14dioxane/listening.
You may also register via e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line:
1,4-Dioxane Listening Session), by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 316 or
toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (1-800-283-7727, ask for the 1,4-Dioxane
listening session coordinator, Stephanie Sarraino), or by faxing a
registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please reference the ``1,4-
Dioxane Listening Session'' and include your name, title, affiliation,
full address and contact information). Please note that to gain
entrance to this EPA building to attend the meeting, attendees must
have photo identification with them and must register at the guard's
desk in the lobby. The guard will retain your photo identification and
will provide you with a visitor's badge. At the guard's desk, attendees
should give the name Christine Ross and the telephone number, 703-347-
8592, to the guard on duty. The guard will contact Ms. Ross who will
meet you in the reception area to escort you to the meeting room. Upon
your exit from the building please return your visitor's badge and you
will receive the photo identification that you provided.
    For the listening session, a teleconference line will also be
available for registered attendees/speakers. The teleconference number
is 1-866-299-3188 and the access code is<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the
pound sign (). The teleconference line will be activated at
8:45 a.m., and you will be asked to identify yourself and your
affiliation at the beginning of the call.
    The peer review workshop will be held at Courtyard Arlington
Crystal City/Reagan National Airport, 2899 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. Versar, Inc. is organizing, convening, and
conducting the peer review workshop. To attend the workshop as an
observer, register by Monday, August 10, 2009, via Internet at http://
epa.versar.com/14dioxane/meeting. You may also register by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: 1,4-Dioxane Workshop), by phone:
(703) 750-3000, ext. 316 or toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (1-800-283-
7727, ask for the 1,4-Dioxane peer review workshop coordinator,
Stephanie Sarraino), or by faxing a registration request to (703) 642-
6954 (please reference the ``1,4-Dioxane Workshop'' and include your
name, title, affiliation, full address, and contact information).
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes the attendance of the public at the ``1,4-Dioxane Listening
Session'' and at the 1,4-dioxane peer review

workshop and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. Please submit your request for accommodation of a
disability at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities at the listening session, please contact Christine Ross at
703-347-8592 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities at the peer review workshop, please contact Versar, Inc.,
6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject
line: 1,4-Dioxane Workshop).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public
listening session, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-
8592; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the peer review workshop, contact Versar, Inc.
6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject
line: 1,4-Dioxane Workshop).
    If you have questions about the draft document, contact Eva D.
McLanahan, Hazardous Pollutant Assessment Group (HPAG) Staff, NCEA,
U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, B243-01, Durham, NC 27711;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

    IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health
effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure
to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database
(available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris) contains
qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than
540 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, the database
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral slope
factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined
with the specific exposure information, government and private entities
can use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. Listening Session Information

    The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested
parties to present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS
health assessments to EPA and other interested parties during the
public comment period and prior to the external peer review workshop.
EPA welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be
provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The
comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft
assessment in response to the independent external peer review and
public comments. All presentations will become part of the official and
public record.

III. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and
there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. Pre-
registration is strongly recommended as space is limited, and
registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The
deadline for pre-registration is August 10, 2009. If space allows,
registrations will continue to be accepted after this date, including
on-site registrations. Time will be set aside to hear comments from
observers, and individuals will be limited to a maximum of five
minutes. Please let Versar, Inc. know if you wish to make comments
during the workshop by registering as detailed in this FR notice and
indicating your intent to make oral comments.

    Dated: May 29, 2009.
Rebecca Clark,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-13478 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67509-67511]
[DOCID:fr07no05-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52709; File No. SR-NASD-2005-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1 Thereto Seeking Permanent Approval of Rules Concerning Bond
Mutual Fund Volatility Ratings Prior to Expiration of Pilot

November 1, 2005.
    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 September 28, 2005 and October 24, 2005 (Amendment No. 1), the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NASD. 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

    NASD is seeking permanent approval of NASD Rule 2210(c)(3) and
Interpretive Material 2210-5 concerning bond mutual fund volatility
ratings prior to the expiration of the pilot on December 29, 2005.
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

IM-2210-5. Requirements for the Use of Bond Mutual Fund Volatility
Ratings

[(This rule and Rule 2210(c)(3) will expire on December 29, 2005,
unless extended or permanently approved by NASD at or before such
date.)]

    (a) through (c) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASD 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

Background and Description of NASD's Rules on Bond Mutual Fund
Volatility Ratings

    On February 29, 2000, the SEC approved on a pilot basis NASD
Interpretive Material 2210-5, which permits members and their
associated persons to include bond fund volatility ratings in
supplemental sales literature (mutual fund sales material that is
accompanied or preceded by a fund prospectus).\3\ At that time, the SEC
also approved as a pilot NASD Rule 2210(c)(3), which sets forth the
filing requirements and review procedures applicable to sales
literature containing bond mutual fund volatility ratings. Previously,
NASD staff interpreted NASD rules to prohibit the use of bond fund
volatility ratings in sales material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IM-2210-5 permits the use of bond fund volatility ratings only in
supplemental sales literature and only if certain conditions are met:
     The word ``risk'' may not be used to describe the rating.
     The rating must be the most recent available and be
current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to use.
     The rating must be based exclusively on objective,
quantifiable factors.
     The entity issuing the rating must provide to investors
through a toll-free telephone number or Web site (or both) a detailed
disclosure on its rating methodology.
     A disclosure statement containing all of the information
required by the rule must accompany the rating. The statement must
include such information as the name of the entity issuing the rating,
the most current rating and the date it was issued, and a description
of the rating in narrative form containing certain specified
disclosures.
    Rule 2210(c)(3) requires members to file for approval with NASD's
Advertising Regulation Department (``Department''), at least 10 days
prior to

use, bond mutual fund sales literature that includes or incorporates
volatility ratings. If the Department requests changes to the material,
the material must be withheld from publication or circulation until the
requested changes have been made or the material has been re-filed and
approved.
    IM-2210-5 and Rule 2210(c)(3) initially were approved on an 18-
month pilot basis that was scheduled to expire on August 31, 2001.\4\
NASD subsequently renewed the pilot several times, most recently with a
proposed rule change that was effective upon filing and extended the
pilot provisions until December 29, 2005.\5\

Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent IM-2110-5 and Rule 2210(c)(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52372 (Aug. 31,
2005); 70 FR 53405 (Sept. 8, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-104); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 48353 (Aug. 15, 2003); 68 FR 50568 (Aug.
21, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-126); NASD Notice to Members 03-48 (Aug.
2003); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44737 (August 22, 2001);
66 FR 45350 (August 28, 2001) (SR-NASD-2001-49); NASD Notice to
Members 01-58 (Sept. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in the SEC's original order approving IM-2210-5 and
Rule 2210(c)(3) on a pilot basis and the NASD Notice to Members
announcing such approval,\6\ NASD requested the 18-month pilot period
to consider whether:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89); NASD Notice to
Members 00-23 (April 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The rule has facilitated the dissemination of useful,
understandable information to investors;
     The rule has prevented the dissemination of inappropriate
or misleading information by members and associated persons;
     Additional guidance concerning the use of certain
terminology may be necessary;
     The rule should apply to in-house ratings;
     The rule should apply to all investment companies; and
     Additional standards or guidance is needed to prevent
investor confusion or minimize excessive variability among ratings of
similar portfolios.
    Due to the small number of bond volatility ratings filings received
during the Rule's initial 18-month pilot, NASD extended the pilot to
accumulate more data with which to evaluate the program. Ultimately,
during the entire period from February 2000, when the Rule was first
approved, until the present, NASD has received a total of 47
submissions from seven NASD members. In general, the filings of sales
material that contained bond fund volatility ratings have met the
Rule's requirements.
    Based on its findings during this period, NASD has concluded that
the Rule's provisions are appropriate and do not require further
amendment before being made permanent. In particular, NASD believes
that the Rule has facilitated the dissemination of useful and
understandable information to investors and has prevented the
dissemination of inappropriate or misleading information. In this
regard, virtually all of the filings NASD has received under the Rule
have met the Rule's requirements, and NASD is not aware of any investor
complaints concerning sales material that contains volatility ratings.
The level of member compliance with the Rule also suggests that members
do not require additional guidance concerning the use of certain
terminology in the Rule. Similarly, NASD is not aware of any concerns
that investors may be confused or that there may be excessive
variability among ratings or similar portfolios.
    NASD also has examined the issue of whether the Rule should apply
to in-house ratings. At the time the Rule was approved, NASD observed
that the Rule should not apply to in-house ratings on the grounds that
they are not procured for a fee, are used primarily by fund investors
as an aid in distinguishing between risk levels within a family of
funds, and may be calculated using different methods from those used in
calculating volatility ratings.\7\ NASD continues to believe that those
are persuasive reasons to not apply the Rule to in-house ratings. NASD
believes that in-house ratings do not raise the same concerns as third-
party ratings, and thus do not merit application of the bond fund
volatility ratings rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD also believes that it is unnecessary at this time to apply the
rule to other types of investment companies, such as unit investment
trusts. At no time throughout the extended pilot period has a member
requested that the rule apply to such material, and NASD is not aware
of third-party volatility ratings that are being used to assess other
types of investment companies. Accordingly, NASD sees no need to expand
the rule's scope in this manner. NASD has stated its willingness to re-
evaluate this conclusion if comments on the proposal suggest that the
Rule should be expanded to cover other types of investment companies.
    NASD believes that the rule strikes an appropriate balance between
the desire of some funds to advertise volatility ratings and the need
to include appropriate disclosures related to those ratings in sales
material. Accordingly, NASD believes that the Commission should approve
the Rule, as is, on a permanent basis.
    Nevertheless, NASD suggests that the Commission seek comment on
whether the timeliness requirements of IM-2210-5 continue to be
appropriate in light of changes to SEC Rule 482 under the Securities
Act of 1933 that have occurred since the adoption of IM-2210-5 and Rule
2210(c)(3). In this regard, IM-2210-5(b)(2) requires supplemental sales
literature that includes bond fund volatility ratings to present the
most recently available rating that ``reflects information that, at a
minimum, is current to the most recently completed calendar quarter
ended prior to use.''
    At the time IM-2210-5 was adopted, this standard mirrored the
timeliness standard for mutual fund performance advertising under Rule
482. However, in 2003, the SEC amended Rule 482 to require mutual fund
performance advertising to show performance that is current to the most
recent calendar quarter ended prior to submission of an advertisement
for publication, and to indicate where the reader may obtain
performance that is current to the most recent month ended seven
business days prior to use through a toll-free (or collect) telephone
number or web site, or to present performance that meets this most
recent month-end standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SEC Rule 482(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASD suggests that the Commission seek comment on
whether the timeliness requirements of IM-2210-5(b)(2) should be
modified to mirror those of amended Rule 482. More specifically, should
the rule require all supplemental sales literature that includes a bond
fund volatility rating either to show a rating that is current to the
most recent calendar quarter ended prior to use, and disclose where the
reader may find the most recent month-end rating, or provide the most
recent month-end rating in the sales literature? NASD understands that
rating agencies typically monitor bond funds on a monthly basis, but
that it is quite rare for such agencies to revise a volatility rating
on a month-to-month basis. Accordingly, NASD does not believe that it
is necessary to require that volatility ratings be current as of the
most recent month end given that, among other things, unlike fund

performance, such ratings do not frequently change once they are
issued.
    NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 30 days following
Commission approval. If the Commission approves the proposed rule
change without material amendment, NASD is proposing that the rule
change become effective immediately upon Commission approval, since the
proposed rule is already in effect on a pilot basis. If the proposed
rule change is approved only after material amendment that would
require members to substantially modify their compliance systems or
procedures, NASD will propose a later effective date to provide
adequate time for such modifications.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that making IM-2210-5 and Rule
2210(c)(3) effective on a permanent basis will allow members to
continue to publish sales material that contains bond fund volatility
ratings in a manner that will protect investors and serve the public
interest.

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether such proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. The Commission particularly urges
commenters to consider the proposed rule change in light of the
specific comments that the NASD urged the Commission to seek.
    Specifically, the Commission requests comment on whether the
timeliness requirements of IM-2210-5(b)(2) should be modified to mirror
the requirements pursuant to Rule 482 under the Securities Act of 1933.
In other words, should the rule require all supplemental sales
literature that includes a bond fund volatility rating either to show a
rating that is current to the most recently ended calendar quarter
prior to use, and disclose where the reader may find the most recent
month-end rating, or provide the most recent month-end rating in the
sales literature?
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-117 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-117. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-2005-117 and should
be submitted on or before November 28, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22178 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66027]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Rotorcraft
External Load Operator Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 3, 2009, vol. 79, no. 170, page 52406.
Information required from the public by 14 CFR part 133 is used by the
FAA to process the operating certificate as a record of aircraft
authorized for use, and to monitor Rotorcraft External-Load Operations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0044.
    Title: Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8710-4.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information required by 14 CFR part 133 is used by
the FAA to process the operating certificate as a record of aircraft
authorized for use, and to monitor Rotorcraft External-Load Operations.
FAA Form 8710-4, Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate
Application, provides a record of surveillance activities when
completed by an inspector. If the information was not collected, FAA
would not be able to meet its regulatory responsibilities under Part
133.
    Respondents: Approximately 4,000 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2.26 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,268 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
oira_submissioncommat;omb.eop.gov, or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-26393 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7039-7040]
[DOCID:fr12fe09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

February 5, 2009.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40

CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
            Docket No.                 File date          requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. CP08-15-000................         1-29-09  Clearville Landowner
                                                     Group.\1\
    2. CP08-15-000................         1-29-09  Sandra K.
                                                     McDaniel.\2\
    3. CP08-15-000................         1-29-09  Paul and Helen
                                                     Stup.\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exempt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. P-1971-079.................         1-29-09  Jeffery L. Foss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E-mail submittal from Michael and Christine Bernard, et al.
\2\ E-mail submittal.
\3\ E-mail submittal.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2961 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P