[Federal Register: June 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 35044]
[DOCID:fr26jn07-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-769-000]

Cedar Rapids Transmission Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 19, 2007.
    Cedar Rapids Transmission Company (Cedar Rapids) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Cedar Rapids also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Cedar Rapids requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under
18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Cedar Rapids.
    On June 15, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Cedar Rapids should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
July 16, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Cedar Rapids is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Cedar Rapids, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Cedar Rapids' issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12308 Filed 6-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80852-80853]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90606; File No. SR-NSCC-2020-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to Establish Implementation Date of National Securities Clearing
Corporation's Enhancements to the Haircut-Based Volatility Charge
Applicable to Illiquid Securities and UITs and Making Certain Other
Changes to Procedure XV

December 8, 2020.
    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 7, 2020, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency.
NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\
of the Act and subparagraph (f)(4) \4\ of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules &
Procedures (the ``Rules'') \5\ in order to establish order to establish
the implementation date of rule changes submitted pursuant to rule
filing SR-NSCC-2020-003 (``Rule Filing'') \6\ and advance notice SR-
NSCC-2020-802 (``Advance Notice'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at
    http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88474 (March 25,
2020), 85 FR 17910 (March 31, 2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-003).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88615 (April 9,
2020), 85 FR 21037 (April 15, 2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On November 6, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') issued a notice of no objection to the Advance
Notice,\8\ which was filed with the Commission pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 \9\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act.\10\ The
Commission also issued an order approving the Rule Filing on November
24, 2020,\11\ which was filed by NSCC pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90367 (November 6,
2020) 85 FR 73099 (November 16, 2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-802).
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90502 (November 24,
2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-003).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Rule Filing and the Advance Notice is to amend
the Rules to enhance the calculation of certain components of the
Clearing Fund formula.
    NSCC is filing this proposed rule change to establish the rule
changes submitted pursuant to the Rule Filing and the Advance Notice
will be implemented by February 28, 2021. NSCC would add a legend to
Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions) of the Rules (``Rule 1'') \13\
and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters) of the Rules
(``Procedure XV'') \14\ to state that the rule changes submitted
pursuant to the Rule Filing and the Advance Notice have been approved
and not objected to, respectively, but are not yet implemented. The
legends would provide that these rule changes would be implemented by
February 28, 2021 and include the file numbers of the Rule Filing and
the Advance Notice. The legends would also state that when the rule
changes are implemented, NSCC will announce the implementation by
important notice and the legends would automatically be removed from
Rule 1 and Procedure XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 1, supra note 5.
    \14\ Procedure XV, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to (i) promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and (ii) remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\15\ The proposed
rule change would establish the implementation date of rule changes
described above and provide Members with an understanding of when these
rule changes will begin to affect them. Knowing when the rule changes
will begin to affect Members would enable them to timely fulfill their
obligations to NSCC, which would in turn ensure NSCC's processes work
as intended. Therefore, NSCC believes that the proposed rule change
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions as well as remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change to establish an
implementation date for the rule changes described above would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition because the proposed rule
change is intended to provide additional clarity in the Rules with
respect to when these rule changes would be implemented. As such, the
proposed rule change would not affect the rights or obligations of the
Members or NSCC other than establishing when the rule

changes described above would begin to impact the Members.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \17\ of Rule 19b-4
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2020-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2020-020. 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 NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-NSCC-2020-020 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27396 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73410-73416]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0538]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Animation in Direct-
to-Consumer Advertising

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 25, 2016.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising

OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA-regulated products in
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
    Advertisers use many techniques to increase consumer interest in
their ads, including the use of animated spokes-characters. These
characters may be fictional or nonfictional and human or nonhuman (Ref.
1). Despite variations in form, animated characters are often used to
grab attention, increase ad memorability, and enhance persuasion to
ultimately drive behavior (Refs. 2-4). Animated characters have long
been used for low-involvement products (e.g., food products) and have
made their way into direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug
advertising. However, to our knowledge, one study (Ref. 5) has examined
how animation affects attitudes toward products and risk perceptions in
drug ads, and no studies have examined how various animation strategies
(e.g., symbolizing the disease vs. the benefit) and product
characteristics (e.g., low-risk medication vs. high-risk medication)
influence these perceptions.

    Animation in Drug Ads. Animation is used in prescription drug ads
in a variety of ways. Perhaps the simplest way is the use of rotoscoped
animation, which involves tracing live-action images frame-by-frame to
create animated characters. ABILIFY has used this technique in
advertisements (Ref. 6). In this instance, the animated character was
not central to the informational content of the ad; instead, the
animation appeared to be a visual technique to attract attention.
Whether a drug ad with a rotoscoped human results in greater
comprehension of product benefit and risk information than an ad with a
human actor is unclear. The few studies that have examined this
technique in drug ads have found that animated human characters either
had no effect on perceived product risk (Ref. 7) or led to poorer
recognition of drug side effects (Ref. 6).
    Animation also has been used in drug ads to symbolize the disease
(e.g., IMITREX and LAMISIL ads), the sufferer (e.g., MYBETRIQ and
ZOLOFT), the benefit (e.g., ROZEREM), the mode of administration (e.g.,
FLUZONE), and the mechanism of action (e.g., LUNESTA). Drug companies
may use a personified nonhuman character to illustrate, in a visually
memorable way, the medical condition or drug attributes. Using
secondary data from copy-testing studies, Pashupati found that drug ads
featuring animated characters led to much stronger brand recall and
brand association scores (Ref. 8); however, the other elements of these
studies (e.g., ad characteristics, presence of control group) are
unclear.
    Animated characters may provide marketers with a way to explain
product benefits in an engaging and even humorous manner. Thus, the
majority of research on animated characters in advertising focuses on
outcomes such as product evaluations (Ref. 9), emotional responses
(Refs. 1, 10-11), brand attitudes (Ref. 12), and perceived product
value (Ref. 13). The extent to which emotional responses can be
fostered by animated characters is especially relevant to this study,
as the positive effects these animations induce might transfer to the
brands being advertised. It is also possible that animated characters
may lead to lower perceived risk by minimizing or camouflaging side
effects (Ref. 14).
    Animation and Message Communication. Personifying animated
characters may interfere with message communication. Although
personification may increase involvement with the characters in the ad
(i.e., perceived as engaging and likeable), it may not increase
involvement with the message itself (e.g., risk and benefit
information). Whether personified characters lead to reduced
comprehension of risk and benefit information in drug ads is an
important and unanswered question. Based on a theory called the limited
capacity model of mediated message processing (Ref. 15), advertising
content that is engaging, relevant, and maximizes audio/visual
redundancy should improve learning and memory (Ref. 16). However,
others argue that the entertainment aspects can distract from learning
key information and may lead to message complexity that interferes with
message communication (Ref. 17).
    It is important to examine whether animation in drug ads inflates
efficacy perceptions, minimizes risk, or otherwise hinders
comprehension of drug risks and benefits. To investigate these issues,
we will conduct a two-part experimental study to examine how: (1) Type
of animation and (2) nonhuman personification in drug ads influence
consumer comprehension, processing, and perception of risk and benefit
information. Understanding how issues of animation and personification
affect perceptions of both risks and benefits can inform FDA regarding
how prescription drug risk and benefit information is processed. These
strategies will be examined across two different medical conditions to
see if the findings are consistent across patient populations.

General Research Questions

    1. How does consumer processing of a DTC prescription drug ad
differ depending on whether the ad is live-action, rotoscoped, or
animated?
    2. Does consumer processing differ depending on whether the
sufferer, the disease, or the benefit is the focus of the animation?

Design

    To test these research questions, we will conduct two experiments.
Both experiments will be examined in two different medical conditions:
Chronic dry eye and psoriasis. The mock drugs we will create for these
conditions mimic currently available medications and were chosen for
their variance in serious side effects, i.e., medications for psoriasis
have very long, serious lists of risks and side effects, whereas
chronic dry eye medications have relatively few risks and side effects.
    The first experiment will examine whether animation itself
influences consumer processing, defined as consumer recall of risks and
benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and
emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the
character (table 1). We will examine two different types of animation
in addition to a control ad which will be shot with live actors: An
``in-between'' animation technique, rotoscoping, in which live scenes
are drawn to look animated, and full animation with nonhuman
characters. The live action and rotoscoped ad will be identical except
for the rotoscope treatment. The animated ad will follow the theme and
message as closely as possible within the limitations of animation
itself. The benefits and risks of the product will be identical,
although the ad's storyline may vary somewhat to account for a nonhuman
protagonist.

                                     Table 1--Experiment 1: Animation Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Type of Animation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Nonhuman        Rotoscoped
                      Medical condition                            sufferer      human sufferer   Human sufferer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dry Eye..............................................
Psoriasis....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second experiment will examine whether the object of the
animation influences consumer processing of the ad (table 2), defined
as consumer recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and
benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand,
the product, and the character. The animation will focus on the
animated character who will personify either the sufferer of the
medical condition, the disease itself, or the

benefit from the drug. In this study, all ads will contain the same
kind of full animation and the general theme will be as similar as
possible, accounting for the variations in focus of character. The
experiments will be conducted concurrently, and the same participants
in the nonhuman sufferer groups will be part of both.

                                  Table 2--Experiment 2: Personification Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Nonhuman Personification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Medical condition                            Sufferer         Disease          Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dry Eye..............................................
Psoriasis....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both cases, a professional firm will create all ads such that
they are indistinguishable from currently running DTC ads.
    Pretesting will take place before the main study to evaluate the
procedures and measures used in the main study. We will recruit adults
who have experienced chronic dry eye or psoriasis. We will exclude
individuals who work in healthcare or marketing settings because their
knowledge and experiences may not reflect those of the average
consumer. We propose to test 300 participants for the pretest. Each
experiment will include 30 participants per condition for a total of
180 participants each, but 60 of those in the nonhuman sufferer
conditions will overlap between the two experiments. We will need 1,500
unique participants for the main study to obtain 90 percent power to
detect a moderately small effect size. There will be 150 participants
per condition for a total of 900 participants in each experiment, with
300 participants in the overlapping nonhuman sufferer conditions.
    In both experiments, participants who have been diagnosed with
either chronic dry eye or psoriasis will be recruited via an opt-in
Internet panel to watch one ad for a prescription drug that treats
their medical condition. In experiment 1, participants will be randomly
assigned to view either a live-action, rotoscoped, or fully animated
ad. All themes in experiment 1 will focus on the main character as the
sufferer of the condition. In experiment 2, participants will be
randomly assigned to a personification condition: Sufferer, disease, or
benefit. All ads in experiment 2 will be fully animated. Participants
will watch the ad once and then answer an online survey with questions
addressing recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and
benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand,
the product, and the character. The questionnaire is available upon
request. Participation is estimated to take approximately 25 minutes.
    To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance.
    With online surveys, several participants may be completing the
survey at the time that the total target sample is reached. Those
participants are allowed to complete the survey, which can result in
the number of completes going slightly over the target number. Thus,
our target number of completes is 1,500, so we have rounded up by an
additional 150, or 10 percent, to allow for some overage.
    In the Federal Register of March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10867), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received a number of comments as
enumerated and discussed here. Of these comments, 22 were out of the
scope of the proposed project (``Ban DTC'' or ``Ban animated DTC'').
1. AbbVie
    (Comment 1) Note that the accuracy of the findings will be highly
dependent on the quality of the stimuli (i.e., the animation).
    (Response 1) We agree.
2. Lilly
    (Comment 2) Assume that stimuli will conform to FDA regulations and
standards.
    (Response 2) Reviewers from the Office of Prescription Drug
Promotion have been involved throughout the development of the stimuli
to ensure that the mock ads conform to FDA regulations and standards.
    (Comment 3) Question the use of such a large (n = 300) pretest and
recommends the use of a qualitative, in-person pretest.
    (Response 3) Before the pretests and main studies are conducted, we
will conduct nine cognitive interviews to obtain verbal in-person
feedback on the questionnaires and the stimuli. We believe this will
accomplish what this commenter is suggesting. The pretest is designed
to test procedures, verify that the online questionnaire is working as
intended, identify and correct any challenges to nesting the stimuli
within the questionnaire, and examine data trends to check that the
manipulations and questionnaire items are appropriate. A qualitative
in-person pretest would not meet those objectives.
    (Comment 4) Recommend screening and quotas by length of time since
diagnosis as this may influence the urgency with which individuals
watch the ads and their familiarity with previous treatments.
    (Response 4) We have included a question toward the end of the
questionnaire to measure time since diagnosis, which will enable us to
assess its association with attention to the ad and statistically
control for it if necessary. However, statistical control will likely
be unnecessary, since random assignment to conditions in our study
design should prevent there from being systematic differences among
groups in time since diagnosis or any other extraneous variable.
    (Comment 5) For question 5, the item ``think rather than feel''
seems out of place in the question bank and Lilly recommends deletion.
    (Response 5) The items in Question 5 make up a validated scale
developed by Stephenson and Palmgreen (Ref. 18). Niederdeppe (Ref. 19)
used the same scale items to measure cognitive processing. There may be
psychometric consequences to deleting this item--in other words, the
reliability of the scale may be reduced if we remove this item. Since
it was previously validated as a scale, we will maintain the item.
    (Comment 6) Questions 6 and 8 (``In your opinion, if 100 people
take [DRUG X], for how many will the drug work?'') may be difficult to
answer, as pharmaceutical ads rarely have specific side effect
information. Recommend changing to ask how frequently side effects will
occur, from ``very frequent'' to ``never occurs.''
    (Response 6) We agree and will revise these questions to focus on
perceived frequency or likelihood of side effects and efficacy in more
general terms.
    (Comment 7) Questions 13 and 14 (overall comprehension closed-ended

questions) may be too difficult to answer because they are nuanced and
involve multiple concepts. Recommend changing to an open-ended
response.
    (Response 7) We appreciate the commenter's concerns about the
complexity of the response options. We will examine the closed-ended
questions in cognitive testing, with careful attention to participant's
ability to understand and choose among the response options. If
participants have notable difficulty with the closed-ended questions,
we will revise them to enhance accessibility, or we will replace those
items with open-ended items.
    (Comment 8) Question 16b for Chronic Dry Eye does not have any
question or response options.
    (Response 8) We have since developed question and response options
for this item.
    (Comment 9) Recommend moving questions 17-28 to before question 15
because questions 15 and 16 are specific and starting with question 17,
questions again refer to general ad perceptions.
    (Response 9) We always approach question ordering carefully,
attempting to balance a number of considerations, including the
reduction of bias from one question to another, flow, and importance of
each item. In this case, we feel that specific claim comprehension is
more important than the other more general questions in our
questionnaire, which is why they are placed afterwards. We will examine
this issue closer in cognitive testing.
    (Comment 10) Recommend reducing question 18 to only ``like/
dislike'' because the results will be too similar and will be
confounded.
    (Response 10) We selected these items because they have been used
consistently in past research. We use three items rather than one to
achieve reliability, which provides a fuller understanding of the
dependent variable. However, we will pay close attention to this in
cognitive testing to ensure that participants are not confused or
annoyed by the three questions.
    (Comment 11) For question 21, recommend adding clarifying language:
``. . . in terms of dealing with your psoriasis/chronic dry eye'' to
provide context for participant to understand how to compare themselves
with the character.
    (Response 11) We will present the additional context as an
alternative way of asking the question in cognitive interviews.
    (Comment 12) Recommend removing question 26 about how ``eerie'' the
character is because the essence of this question is answered in
question 25 and the question is leading, as it directs participants to
respond only negatively about their perceptions of the character.
    (Response 12) Given the uncanny valley theory concerning rotoscoped
images (Ref. 6), we feel it is crucial to maintain this specific
question about the eeriness of the character.
    (Comment 13) Recommend adding an open-ended question, preferably
near the beginning of the survey (e.g., after question 2), about how
well they feel they took away all of the relevant information and
understood the risks and benefits of the drug after viewing the ad.
    (Response 13) Although we do not include questions that directly
measure perceived understanding of the overall message, risks, and
benefits, much of the questionnaire is focused on measuring
participants' memory and comprehension of that information in the ad.
    (Comment 14) Recommend adding demographic questions about how much
television participants watch per week and whether English is their
primary language to provide extra detail for analyses.
    (Response 14) We appreciate this suggestion and will add the
recommended demographic items to the questionnaire.
    (Comment 15) Recommend adding another open-ended question about
whether any additional information could have or should have been
included in the ad (e.g., disease information, accessibility of the
drug) to provide information on what participants feel could be added
and communicated via DTC ads.
    (Response 15) This is a great question and may provide fruitful
avenues for future research. We will include the item in the pretest
and if timing is not an issue, we will maintain it in the main study.
3. Merck
    (Comment 16) Concerned that execution-specific learnings from this
research may not translate readily into FDA DTC policy/guidance. The
research may not have practical utility for the general public and may
be unnecessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions.
    (Response 16) On the contrary, this particular study has the
potential to directly influence policy in an area that we have no prior
research on. We have attempted to address the execution-specific nature
of the research by investigating our questions in two distinct medical
conditions with two distinct products and ad executions. Although one
research study cannot answer all questions, we believe we have designed
the study in such a way that we will be able to provide information on
the issue of animation in DTC ads. Because there is no previous
research of this kind, this will be an informative study that will help
FDA develop guidance and policy in the future, should the research
reveal a need to.
    (Comment 17) FDA should conduct research on how all of the elements
investigated previously combine to influence DTC viewing.
    (Response 17) We appreciate this suggestion and will look for
opportunities to do so in the future. Note we have conducted research
combining the results of two previous studies--toll-free wording and
distraction--in our recent eye-tracking study.
4. GSK
    (Comment 18) Suggests a number of additional reasons for animation
besides those stated in the FRN: Education, to help consumers quickly
identify relevant ads, and to de-personalize an ad to make it more
relevant to a variety of people.
    (Response 18) We will keep these in mind in writing up the results
of the studies.
    (Comment 19) The proposed research may oversimplify animation by
not incorporating multiple types of animation or examining ads that are
100 percent versus partially animated, and thus be unlikely to yield
any general conclusions about the use of animation.
    (Response 19) We acknowledge that we are not studying all types and
executions of animation. As the first study of its kind, we feel the
animation manipulations that we propose to examine will provide
information on a reasonable number of variations (i.e., full animation,
rotoscoping, and three different foci of animated character). We will
ensure that our conclusions are reasonable with regard to the issues we
studied.
    (Comment 20) The proposed methodology fails to measure the
relevance of the ads. A copy-testing methodology, whereby the ads are
embedded in a clutter reel, may more accurately gauge the recall of
risks and benefits that might occur in the real world.
    (Response 20) We needed to make difficult choices in this study, as
in all of our studies, regarding the tradeoff between experimental
control and real-world generalizability. Given the lack of data
available regarding animation in DTC, we chose to err on the side of
experimental control in this study. Our

research questions involve the issue of recall and comprehension of the
ads when people have watched the ads. Depending on the findings of the
current study, further research examining the effects of animation
within a clutter reel or considering other variables may be warranted.
    (Comment 21) Advertising concepts are generally not designed to be
adapted or translated to different creative formats, and because
whether an ad is animated or in live action is an integral part of the
concept itself, this is an inherent limitation of the research.
    (Response 21) We agree that animated ads often have different
storylines or different approaches to conveying information from live
action ads. However, if we were to use completely different ads for our
animated, rotoscoped, and live-action ads, we would be unable to
determine what caused any differences in our dependent variables.
Indeed, by maintaining as much similarity as possible among these three
conditions, we will be able to determine whether it is the animation
form per se that causes differences or not.
5. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
    (Comment 22) Encourage FDA to acknowledge that this study is
exploratory and that results will not be generalizable beyond the two
medical conditions studied.
    (Response 22) We acknowledge that this is the first study to
directly examine animation in DTC advertising. We are always mindful of
how far we can extrapolate our research. We chose to examine two
different medical conditions because this will provide some assurance
that our findings are not exclusive to one medical condition or
execution, if that is what we find. We note that the strength of the
study is in its experimental design. Participants will be randomly
assigned to cells, which will allow us to determine whether differences
exist between different levels of our independent variables. Random
assignment will somewhat allay concerns about demographic differences
and other individual characteristics, which should even out across
cells. However, we agree that other medical situations may cause
different reactions and we will acknowledge the limitations of our
study, which include not examining all medical conditions and levels of
risk, in any writeup we produce.
    (Comment 24) The major statement is required to be in the audio and
the amount and type of risk information will vary by drug. We request
that the professional ad agency designing the TV ads ensure that the
major statement is presented consistently across the ads studied for
the given ``mock drug.''
    (Response 24) We have designed the fictitious ads to very closely
align with both FDA policies and with the types of DTC ads that
currently air on TV. Our ads have been reviewed by staffers in the
Office of Prescription Drug Promotion multiple times throughout the
ads' development. The mock products closely mimic existing drugs in
their respective classes. We agree that the quality of the ads strongly
influences the success of our research and the professional development
of these ads is a high priority.
    (Comment 25) An imbalance of gender distribution in the diseases
and study groups could skew the results due to potential gender
differences in consumer processing and perception of information from
drug ads. To ensure a gender balance between the study groups, we
propose a randomization scheme stratified by gender. Also, please
capture patient demographic information and important confounding
factors and report on a comparison of the baseline patient
characteristics.
    (Response 25) Stratified randomization by gender would be
methodologically appropriate and conservative, but in practice would
make our already complex survey even more complicated. We will
acknowledge a potential gender-disease confound as a limitation of the
design in reports of the results.
    (Comment 26) While the results from this proposed study may suggest
hypotheses on difference in how prescription drug risk and benefit
information may be perceived by consumers viewing live versus animation
ads, the results from this study should not be used to guide or
influence FDA's current thinking on the use of animation in DTC ads.
More robust and controlled studies will be required in the future to
test specific hypotheses generated from this two-part survey
experiment.
    (Response 26) Although this is the first study to directly examine
animation in DTC ads the way we have proposed here, the research we
have designed is robust and well controlled. As trained research
psychologists, we adhere to the highest standards in terms of rigorous
control, prespecified hypotheses, appropriate statistical analyses, and
reasonable and responsible interpretations. Our research undergoes many
internal and external reviews before and after data collection,
including a stringent OMB review (of which public comment is a part),
multiple levels of internal clearance, and peer review at well-
respected academic journals in relevant fields. Although FDA never
exclusively uses the findings of one scientific study to make policy
decisions, the quantitative research we conduct is one part of the
calculus that FDA uses to inform policy decisions.
6. AstraZeneca
    (Comment 27) Recommend that questions 18 and 19 be switched in
order to avoid participants being confused by the questions. Also
suggest some kind of bolding for emphasis.
    (Response 27) We agree that formatting these questions to emphasize
and differentiate the target object will be useful and have no problem
changing the order of questions 18 and 19 and will do so.
    (Comment 28) The term ``main character'' needs to be clarified. As
it is, it could mean the human character or the animated character
which may, or may not, be the human character.
    (Response 28) Participants will only view one version of the ad
corresponding to the ad condition to which they've been randomized, and
each ad will either be animated or live action. In terms of screen time
and storyline, a single character will be dominant in each ad. We do
not expect ambiguity surrounding who the main character is in each ad,
but we will test this phrase in cognitive interviewing.
    (Comment 29) For question 23, the commenter agrees that trust is a
useful metric to study but questions whether our options are valid
measures of trust, particularly ``ethical.'' Suggest the use of the
following adjectives instead: Exaggerated, deceptive, manipulative,
trustworthy, informative, credible.
    (Response 29) The negative adjectives on the list are from an
existing scale (Refs. 20-21) and we would like to keep those consistent
with the prior literature. We will revise the positive adjectives to
reflect the commenter's suggestion: Trustworthy, informative, credible,
and reliable.
    (Comment 30) For questions 24 and 25, suggest the addition of
``hopeful,'' ``empowered,'' and ``informed.''
    (Response 30) The emotional reaction questions were adapted from
existing scales (Ref. 22), but we think it would be useful to test a
longer set of emotions in cognitive interviews and narrow down from
there.
    (Comment 31) We feel that question 26 should be deleted because it
is a leading question. If not deleted, change ``eerie'' to ``strange.''
    (Response 31) We agree that this is an unusual question and may
seem offputting without context. However,

previous research has compared live action and rotoscoped action in
advertisements and has determined that people feel uncomfortable with
rotoscoping because it is very similar to what we expect from live
renditions, but not exactly. This theory is called the uncanny valley
theory (Ref. 6). Question 26 comes directly from this previous research
and we feel strongly that we need the question as it is to ground our
comparison of live action and rotoscoping in the prior literature.
    (Comment 32) Question 29 about anthropomorphism seems inappropriate
to gauge audience acceptance of the premise. Suggest using a question
such as: ``To what extent do/can bodily organs or pills have
personalities?''
    (Response 32) The purpose of question 29 is to measure an
individual difference variable, namely to what extent people tend to
anthropomorphize. The question is modified from a validated measure
(Ref. 23). We do not intend to assess people's acceptance of animated
DTC ads through this question. Instead, we are using this as a possible
moderator variable to explain some of the variance we might find in
responses to other questions. Indeed, another commenter wrote that we
should measure demographics and other possibly confounding variables.
This is one of these variables. The amount of humanization people
ascribe to nonhuman objects may influence their attitudes and
perceptions, and these items have been validated in past research. It
is not an outcome measure.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                            Table 3--Estimated Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of                     Average burden
           Activity                Number of     responses per   Total annual   per response (in    Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses         hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pretesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number to complete the                     660               1             660  .08 (5 minutes).              53
 screener (assumes 50%
 eligible).
Number of completes...........             330               1             330  .42 (25 minutes)             139
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Main Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number to complete the                   3,300               1           3,300  .08 (5 minutes).             264
 screener (assumes 50%
 eligible).
Number of completes...........           1,650               1           1,650  .42 (25 minutes)             693
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Hours...............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................           1,149
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

References

1. Callcott, M.F. and W. Lee, ``Establishing the Spokes-Character in
Academic Inquiry: Historical Overview and Framework for
Definition.'' Advances in Consumer Research. 1995; 22:144-151.
2. Bell, J.A., ``Creativity, TV Commercial Popularity, and
Advertising Expenditures.'' International Journal of Advertising.
1992;11(2):165-72.
3. Heiser, R.S., J.J. Sierra, and I.M. Torres, ``Creativity Via
Cartoon Spokespeople in Print Ads: Capitalizing on the
Distinctiveness Effect.'' Journal of Advertising. 2008;37(4):75-85.
4. Luo, J.T., P. McGoldrick, S. Beatty, and K.A. Keeling, ``On-
Screen Characters: Their Design and Influence on Consumer Trust.''
Journal of Service Marketing. 2006;20(2):112-24.
5. Bhutada, N.S., B.L. Rollins, and M. Perri, ``Impact of Animated
Spokes-Characters in Print Direct-To-Consumer Advertising: An
Elaboration Likelihood Modeal Approach.'' Health Communication.
2016. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1138382.
6. Clayton, R.B. and G. Lesher, ``The Uncanny Valley: The Effects of
Rotoscope Animation on Motivational Processing of Depression Drug
Messages.'' Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media.
2015;59(1):57-75.
7. Bhutada, N.S., B.L. Rollins, and M. Perri, ``Animation in Print
Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: Impact on
Consumers. At the 32nd Association for Marketing and Healthcare
Research Annual Meeting and Conference, February 27-March 1, 2013,
Big Sky, MT.
8. Pashupati, K, ``Beavers, Bubbles, Bees, and Moths: An Examination
of Animated Spokescharacters in DTC Prescription Drug Advertisements
and Web sites.'' Journal of Advertising Research. 2009;49(3):373-93.
9. Chandler, J. and N. Schwarz, ``Use Does Not Wear Ragged the
Fabric of Friendship: Thinking of Objects as Alive Makes People Less
Willing to Replace Them.'' Journal of Consumer Psychology.
2010;20(2):138-145.
10. Callcott, M.F. and B.J. Phillips, ``Observations: Elves Make
Good Cookies: Creating Likeable Spokescharacter Advertising.''
Journal of Advertising Research. 1996;36(5):73-79.
11. Garretson, J.A. and R.W. Niedrich, ``Spokes-Characters: Creating
Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes.'' Journal of
Advertising. 2004;33(2):25-36.
12. Delbaere, M., E.F. McQuarrie, and B.J. Phillips,
``Personification in Advertising: Using a Visual Metaphor to Trigger
Anthropomorphism.'' Journal of Advertising. 2011;40(1):121-130.
13. Hart, P.M., S.R. Jones, and M.B. Royne, ``The Human Lens: How
Anthropomorphic Reasoning Varies by Product Complexity and Enhances
Personal Value.'' Journal of Marketing Management. 2013;29(1-2):105-
121.
14. Moyer-Guse E., C. Mahood, and S. Brookes, ``Entertainment-
Education in the Context of Humor: Effects on Safer Sex Intentions
and Risk Perceptions.'' Health Communication. 2011;26(8):765-774.
15. Lang, A, ``The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated
Message Processing.'' The Sage Handbook of Mass Media Effects. New
York: Sage;2009:193-204.
16. Garretson, J.A. and S. Burton, ``The Role of Spokescharacters as
Advertisement and Package Cues in Integrated Marketing Campaigns.''
Journal of Marketing. 2005;69(4):118-132.
17. Lang, A, ``Using the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated
Mediated Message Processing to Design Effective Cancer Communication
Messages.'' Journal of Communication. 2006;56:557-580.
18. Stephenson, M.T. and P. Pamgreen, ``Sensation-Seeking, Perceived
Message Value, Personal Involvement, and Processing of Anti-
Marijuana PSAs.'' Communication Monographs. 2001;68:49-71.
19. Niederdeppe, J.D., ``Syntactic Indeterminancy, Perceived Message
Sensation, Value-Enhancing Features, and Message Processing in the
Context of Anti-Tobacco Advertisements.'' Communication Monographs.
2005;72(3):324-44.
20. Parvanta, S., L. Gobson, H. Forquer, et al.,

``Applying Quantitative Approaches to the Formative Evaluation of
Antismoking Campaign Messages.'' Social Marketing Quarterly.
2013;19(4):242-64.
21. Thomas, V., K. Fowler, and P. Grimm, ``Conceptualization and
Exploration of Attitude Toward Advertising Disclosures and its
Impact on Perceptions of Manipulative Intent.'' Journal of Consumer
Affairs. 2013;47(3):564-87.
22. Richins, M., ``Measuring Emotions in the Consumption
Experience.'' Journal of Consumer Research. 1997;24:127-46.
23. Waytz, A., J. Cacioppo, and N. Epley, ``Who Sees Human? The
Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in
Anthropomorphism.'' Perspectives on Psychological Science.
2010;5:216-32.

    Dated: October 19, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25727 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31320-31321]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-2013-000]

Rjumr Energy Partners Corp.; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RJUMR ENERGY PARTNERS CORP.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 12, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the

above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 23, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12638 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77369-77371]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1040; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-029-AD;
Amendment 39-16889; AD 2011-26-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Piaggio
Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P-180 airplanes. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as the baggage door lockpins not engaging properly and the
baggage door open light illuminating when the baggage door is not open,
which could lead to the pilot disregarding a valid warning. We are
issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 17, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A-Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154
Genova-Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/after-sales/service-support. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2011
(76 FR 60396). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    One event of in-flight baggage door opening occurred on an in-
service aeroplane due to a defective locking mechanism or
installation thereof; the BAG DOOR warning light went on properly
before the event, but was ignored by the pilot, who misinterpreted
it as a false warning.
    NOTE: false in-service BAG DOOR warnings had occurred on other
P.180 aeroplanes, and Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) had issued
Service Bulletin (SB) No. 80-0223 revision 1 to improve the
installation of the baggage door warning microswitch and to modify
the locking mechanism if necessary.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight detachment of the door, which could hit and damage the left
propeller and/or the vertical or horizontal stabilizer, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane, or in injuries to
persons or damage to property on the ground.
    This AD requires an inspection of the locking mechanism of the
baggage door and its proper adjustment, in accordance with PAI SB
No. 80-0289 revision 1; if baggage door lockpins do not reach the
correct engagement, or false BAG DOOR warnings were reported by
flight crew, this AD requires also a modification of the door
mechanism in accordance with PAI SB No. 80-0223 revision 1.

Instances of the baggage door open light illuminating have occurred
when the baggage door was not open. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in the pilot disregarding a valid warning. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 60396, September
29, 2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 102 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 29 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $4,482 per
product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be 708,594, or $6,947 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 60396, September 29,
2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-26-01 Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.: Amendment 39-16889;
Docket No. FAA-2011-1040; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-029-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 17,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. P-180 Model P-
180 airplanes, serial numbers affected 1002 and 1004 through 1189,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 52: Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the baggage door lockpins not engaging
properly and the baggage door open light illuminating when the
baggage door is not open, which could lead to the pilot disregarding
a valid warning. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
baggage door lockpins that do not engage properly and modify the
locking mechanism, if necessary.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) If false in-flight BAG DOOR indications have occurred,
within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS) after January 17, 2012 (the
effective date of this AD) or within the next 60 days after January
17, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, do
the following actions:
    (i) Modify the locking mechanism following the Accomplishment
Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No.
80-0223, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2009.
    (ii) Inspect the screws on the locking device installed on the
door handle for proper tightness and correct as necessary after
applying a thread locker following Part D of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011.
    (2) If false in-flight BAG DOOR indications have not occurred,
within 165 hours TIS after January 17, 2012 (the effective date of
this AD) or within the next 60 days after January 17, 2012 (the
effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, do the following
actions:
    (i) Inspect the baggage door and the baggage door locking
mechanism and do the necessary corrective actions following Parts A
and B of the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries
S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated
January 11, 2011.
    (ii) If after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
this AD, the baggage door adjustment procedure was not required or
was required and was done successfully, inspect the screws on the
locking device on the door handle with the proper tightness. Take
any necessary corrective actions after applying a thread locker
following Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision
1, dated January 11, 2011.
    (iii) If after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
this AD, the baggage door adjustment was required and was not done
successfully, within the next 165 hours TIS after January 17, 2012
(the effective date of this AD) or within the next 60 days after
January 17, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
first, do the following actions:
    (A) Modify the locking mechanism following the Accomplishment
Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No.
80-0223, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2009.
    (B) Inspect the screws on the locking device installed on the
door handle for proper tightness and correct as necessary after
applying a thread locker following Part D of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011.
    (3) If the inspections specified in Piaggio Aero Industries
S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0289, dated November 11,
2010, and the modification, if required, specified in Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0223, Revision 1, dated
July 31, 2009, were done before January 17, 2012 (the effective date
of this AD), we will allow ``unless already done'' credit to comply
with the actions required in this AD. After January 17, 2012 (the
effective date of this AD), you must use Piaggio Aero Industries
S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated
January 11, 2011, to comply with this AD.

(g) FAA AD Differences

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

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this
information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this
collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2011-0132, dated July 12, 2011; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Service Bulletin No. 80-0223, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2009;
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-
0289, dated November 11, 2010; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated January
11, 2011, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information on January 17, 2012:
    (i) Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80-0223,
Revision 1, dated July 31, 2009;
    (ii) Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 80-0289, dated November 11, 2010; and
    (iii) Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 80-0289, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A-Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi
Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39 010
6481881; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/after-sales/service-support.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 2, 2011.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-31623 Filed 12-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 58800]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-242-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Abandon Rate Schedule X-72
Compliance Filing CP18-2-000 to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171206-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-243-000.
    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Settlement Compliance Filing RP17-
898-000 to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171206-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26926 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47386-47388]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20309]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84113; File No. SR-MRX-2018-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees

September 13, 2018
    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 August 31, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to (a) relocate the MRX Schedule of Fees and
current Rule 209 to the Exchange's rulebook's (``Rulebook'') shell
structure,\3\ and (b) make conforming cross-reference changes
throughout the Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2017, the Exchange added a shell structure to its
Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability
and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges,
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC;
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Affiliated Exchanges'').
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82172 (November 29, 2017),
82 FR 57495 (December 5, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the entire MRX Schedule of Fees
and Rule 209 to the Exchange's shell structure; specifically, the
Exchange will relocate the aforementioned rules to the Options 7
(``Pricing Schedule'') section of the shell. In addition, the Exchange
will make conforming cross-reference changes throughout the Rulebook.
(a) Relocation of Rules
    As indicated, the Exchange, as part of its continued effort to
promote efficiency and the conformity of its processes with those of
the Affiliated Exchanges, and the goal of harmonizing and uniformizing
its rules, proposes to relocate the Schedule of Fees and MRX Rule 209
to Options 7, Pricing Schedule, of the shell structure.
    To improve the readability of the relocated Pricing Schedule rules,
the Exchange will update their current ``Preface'' section and rename
it ``Section 1. General Provisions.'' Next, the Exchange will move
current MRX Rule 209, described in the paragraph below, and rename it
``Section 2'' but keeping its current title, ``Collection of Exchange
Fees and Other Claims.''
    MRX Rule 209 was added to the Rulebook to permit the Exchange the
collection of undisputed or final fees, fines, charges and/or other
monetary sanctions or other monies due and owing to the Exchange or
other charges related to Rules 205 and 206.\4\ The Exchange believes
that, unlike other rules in Chapter 2 (``Administration'') of the
Rulebook, which generally refer to the powers of the Board of Directors
and the authority it delegates to Senior Management of the Exchange,
the direct debit process established in Rule 209 will be better
situated among the relocated rules of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79012 (September 30,
2016), 81 FR 69565 (October 6, 2016) (SR-ISEMercury-2016-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to move all the remaining sections,
I through VI, in the current Schedule of Fees, renumber them as
provided in the table below, and add the word ``Section'' to each of
their titles. Relatedly, the Exchange will update all references to the
``Schedule of Fees'' in the proposed rule text and replace them with
the term ``Pricing Schedule.''
    Finally, the Exchange will update all references to ``NASDAQ'' in
proposed Section 8, E., of the Pricing Schedule with the word
``Nasdaq,'' to keep the proposed rule text consistent with changes to
the names of the Affiliated Exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 81917 (October 23,
2017), 82 FR 49879 (October 27, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-111) and No.
81948 (October 25, 2017), 82 FR 50468 (October 31, 2017) (SR-BX-
2017-046).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Options 7--Pricing schedule (Proposed)     Schedule of fees (Current)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. General Provisions.............  PREFACE.
Section 2. Collection of Exchange Fees and  Rule 209. Collection of
 Other Claims.                               Exchange Fees and Other
                                             Claims.
Section 3. Regular Order Fees and Rebates.  I. Regular Order Fees and
                                             Rebates.
Section 4. Other Options Fees and Rebates.  II. Other Options Fees and
                                             Rebates.
Section 5. Legal & Regulatory.............  III. Legal & Regulatory.
Section 6. Ports and Other Services.......  IV. Ports and Other
                                             Services.
Section 7. Market Data....................  V. Market Data.
Section 8. Connectivity Fees..............  VI. Connectivity Fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relocation of the Pricing Schedule rules will facilitate the
use of the Rulebook by Members \6\ of the Exchange, including those who
are members of other Affiliated Exchanges, and other market
participants. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive
nature and will not amend the relocated rules, other than make the
updates previously explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchange Rule 100(a)(32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Cross-Reference Updates
    In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange
proposes to update all cross-references in the Rulebook that direct the
reader to the current location of the Pricing Schedule rules and/or any
of their subsections.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by promoting efficiency and structural conformity of the Exchange's
processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the
Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members
and market participants. The Exchange believes that the relocation of
the Pricing Schedule rules, updating the name ``NASDAQ'' to ``Nasdaq,''
and related cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not
impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i)
are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the
structure of the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated
Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way
that it will ease the Members' and market participants' navigation and
reading of the rules.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the

public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become
operative upon filing. Waiver of the operative delay would allow the
Exchange to promptly relocate the Pricing Schedule rules and continue
to reorganize its Rulebook to promote efficiency and structural
consistency between the Exchange's rules and those of the Affiliated
Exchanges. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-27 and should be submitted on
or before October 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20309 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34266-34267]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0018; OMB No. 1660-NW132]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; FEMA-Administered Disaster Case Management Intake Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of new collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a new
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information collected
during the intake process for a FEMA-administered Disaster Case
Management (DCM) program implemented following a major disaster
declaration.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2021-0018. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID, and will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is
available via a link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebekah Kennedy, Team Lead, Community
Services Section, Individual Assistance Division,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12148, as
amended by E.O. 12673 and E.O. 13286, the President of the United
States has delegated to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
including FEMA, the authority to provide case management services as
stated in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5189d. Under the Stafford Act,
FEMA may provide DCM services directly to survivors through financial
assistance to state, tribal, or local government agencies or qualified
private organizations. DCM services include identifying and addressing
disaster-caused unmet needs of survivors through identification of, and
referrals to, available resources. A disaster-caused unmet need is an
un-resourced item, support, or assistance that has been assessed and
verified as necessary for a survivor to recover from a disaster. This
may include food, clothing, shelter, first aid, emotional and spiritual
care, household items, home repair, or rebuilding.
    When a case manager speaks to a survivor, they will ask the
survivor to provide information through a series of questions (data
elements), as outlined within the intake form. This will allow the case
manager to better understand the survivor's disaster-caused unmet needs
and to then assist them with obtaining the resources needed. The
information gathered within this collection tool is used to determine
the survivor's disaster-caused unmet needs, to identify what types of
referrals the case manager may provide, and to decide whether there is
a need to meet again to address continuing disaster-caused unmet needs.
Case managers then type the responses to the data elements into their
proprietary electronic secured case management database.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA-Administered Disaster Case Management Intake Form.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NW132.
    FEMA Forms: FF-104-FY-21-146 and FF-104-FY-21-147.
    Abstract: This collection tool will primarily be used as a guide to
support FEMA-administered DCM case managers by outlining the allowable
data elements they can collect from survivors on behalf of FEMA. While
there will be a paper collection tool, the case managers will primarily
be using the tool as a reference of data elements they can collect, and
using their own case management database systems to guide the order in
which the elements are collected. The elements within the tool are used
to assess, screen, and refer disaster survivors to available resources
that address their specific disaster-related unmet needs. Case managers
then take the information from the intake form and manually upload the
data into their secured case management database.
    Prior to any data collection, survivors will complete and sign a
FEMA-administered DCM Consent Form, authorizing FEMA, or its agent, to
collect data from the survivor in order to effectively provide case
management services.
    Affected Public: Survivors of Presidentially declared major
disasters where a FEMA-administered Disaster Case Management program is
implemented.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 75,000.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 75,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 48,000 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,746,240.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $51,640,374.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESS caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and

assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Senior Manager, Records Management Branch, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-13869 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P