[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9448-9450]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02372]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79904; File No. SR-NSCC-2016-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect
Updates to the Consolidated Trade Summary, Eliminate Re-Pricing in the
Foreign Security Accounting Operation and Make Other Changes

January 31, 2017.
    On December 15, 2016, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2016-008, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 29, 2016.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule
change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting
approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79655 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96146 (December 29, 2016) (SR-NSCC-2016-008)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') \4\ in order to (1) consolidate the file layouts
into one common file layout, (2) provide more details in the revised
Consolidated Trade Summary (``CTSs''), (3) discontinue a current output
format (print image) and introduce a more user-friendly format
(referred to as comma separated value or ``CSV'') and an online query
tool, (4) simplify the terminology in the Rules by referring to each
iteration of the CTS as the ``Consolidated Trade Summary'' (instead of
the way in which the Rules are currently drafted to refer to a
``Consolidated Trade Summary'' and a ``Supplemental Consolidated Trade
Summary''), and (5) discontinue the Foreign Securities transaction file
because information contained in that additional file would be
reflected in the revised CTSs, each of which is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Changes to the CTS and Technical Changes to the CTS-Related Rules

    First, the proposed rule change would consolidate the file layouts
of the current CTSs into one common file layout that would be used for
each of the three CTSs that are issued each day. Currently, each of the
main CTS file, the supplemental CTS file, and the Foreign Securities
file has its own individual file layout. NSCC would consolidate these
multiple file layouts into one common file layout in the revised CTS
file. Having one common layout in the revised CTS would eliminate the
need for Members to maintain coding for multiple file layouts.
    Second, the proposal would update the CTS output file layout to
provide Members with additional transparency and clarity regarding
their trade summary, balance orders and receive and deliver
instructions, which would help with reconciliation. For example, the
current CTS output file layout specifies if a security is a CNS
security or a non-CNS security but does not further clarify the non-CNS
obligations as guaranteed or not guaranteed. Under the proposal, the
CTS output file layout would be expanded to include a field for the
guarantee/not guarantee designation to clearly indicate to users
whether a trade obligation is guaranteed or not guaranteed. Other
examples of new fields that would be added include: (1) Netting type to
describe whether netted (e.g., multilaterally netted or bilaterally
netted) or trade-for-trade instructions resulted, and (2) a net reason
code to add clarity as to the netting type.
    Third, Members have also expressed interest in having NSCC change
the current file format of the CTSs, which are currently available in
print image format and machine-readable (``MRO'') format. As a result,
NSCC would discontinue the current print image format while maintaining
the current MRO format and would also introduce an online query tool.
The print image format would be replaced by CSV which can be downloaded
into spreadsheet programs. In addition to the three iterations of the
CTS that would continue to be distributed to Members, Members would
also be able to use a new online query tool to search information and
create their own custom data view and custom reports. The new online
query tool would enable users to research information that has been
previously distributed in a CTS. Members have expressed interest in
this change in file formats and the online query tool which allows
results to be downloaded to spreadsheet programs.
    Fourth, from a Rules perspective, the terminology in Procedure II,
Section H, Procedure V, Section E and Procedure VII, Section B would be
revised, so that each CTS would be referred to as the ``Consolidated
Trade Summary'' and more than one CTS would be referred to as the
``Consolidated Trade Summaries.'' The proposed rule change would
eliminate references to alternate terminology such as ``Supplemental
Consolidated Trade Summary,'' ``Supplemental Consolidated Trade
Summaries,'' and ``CTS.'' In addition, conforming changes would be made
to Procedure V, Section C and Procedure VII, Section B to add phrases
and terms such as ``next available,'' ``applicable'' and ``prior''
before references to ``Consolidated Trade Summary.'' Additional
technical changes would be made to clarify that the CTS would continue
to be issued to Members three times a day and would continue to be non-
cumulative; these changes would apply to Procedure II, Section H,
Procedure V, Section E and Procedure VII, Section B. Procedure VII,
Section B would also be amended to reflect the change in output format
of the Consolidated Trade Summaries (specifically, because the print
image format is being discontinued and the CSV format is being
introduced, the Rules and terminology must be changed to use
terminology consistent with the different format).
    Fifth, the Foreign Securities transaction file would be
discontinued. Information that is currently in this additional file
would be reflected in the revised CTSs.
    NSCC would continue to issue the CTSs to Members three times a day,
at approximately the same intervals as it does today.\5\ The revised
CTSs would continue to be iterative (i.e., any information that
appeared on prior CTSs would not appear again on any successive CTSs),
and also continue to be available in MRO format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The header of the CTS output file would indicate whether the
CTS is for Cycle 1 (i.e., the one issued at approximately 21:00 ET),
Cycle 2 (i.e., the one issued at approximately 24:00 ET) or Cycle 3
(i.e., the one issued at approximately 12:00 ET on the next business
day).

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

B. Discontinuation of the Re-Pricing of Foreign Securities and
Technical Clarifications/Corrections to Procedure VI (Foreign Security
Accounting Operation)

    Based on Member feedback, NSCC is also proposing to update the code
associated with NSCC's Foreign Security Accounting Operation, which
receives and processes Foreign Securities traded over-the-counter and
settled in U.S. Dollars.\6\ The current foreign netting process
aggregates Foreign Securities obligations, bilaterally nets these
obligations and then re-prices these obligations using a uniform
Settlement Price. As further explained below, NSCC is proposing to no
longer re-price these Foreign Securities obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Procedure VI (Foreign Security Accounting Operation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foreign Securities would continue to be bilaterally netted, but
would no longer be re-priced at uniform Settlement Prices. Instead,
they would be bilaterally netted at their contract prices to eliminate
the risk of a cash adjustment (which is not guaranteed by NSCC) due to
re-pricing.
    To effectuate this proposed change, NSCC proposes to remove
language in Procedure VI, Section C that permits NSCC to establish a
uniform Settlement Price and calculate any related Foreign Security
Clearance Cash Adjustment associated with the re-pricing. Unlike the
underlying Foreign Securities transactions (which are settled in the
local markets and not at NSCC), the payments of any Foreign Security
Clearance Cash Adjustment (whether due to netting or re-pricing)
related to those underlying Foreign Securities transactions are made
through NSCC today and under the proposed rule change, this would
continue to be the case with respect to Foreign Security Clearance Cash
Adjustments that arise due to netting. The proposed rule change would
revise the language in Procedure VI to clearly state that the failure
of a Member to make payment of the Foreign Security Clearance Cash
Adjustment with NSCC will cause NSCC to reverse all such cash
adjustment debits and credits (rather than generally stating this would
be caused by the failure to ``make settlement with the Corporation'').
The proposed rule change would further clarify that neither the
settlement of the underlying transaction nor the payment of the related
Foreign Security Clearance Cash Adjustment would be guaranteed by NSCC
(which is also the case today).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the proposed rule change, only a Foreign Security
Clearance Cash Adjustment due to re-pricing would be eliminated. A
Foreign Security Clearance Cash Adjustment due to netting is still
possible, so this Procedure is still applicable to such Foreign
Security Clearance Cash Adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional clarifying changes to Procedure VI include revising the
reference from ``T+2'' in Section B to ``SD-1'' because Foreign
Securities transactions are not always settled on T+3 (according to
local market practices) and thus, are not always compared on T+2, as
Section B of Procedure VI states. Therefore, using Settlement Date
(i.e., ``SD'') as the reference point is more appropriate. Furthermore,
Foreign Securities transactions are reported on the CTSs, which are
Settlement Date-based. In addition, in Section C, ``produced'' would be
revised to ``reported,'' because ``reported'' more accurately describes
what occurs today--that is, NSCC reports the netted Member-to-Member
receive and deliver instructions. In addition, the proposed rule change
would make the following corrections: (i) The reference in Section C to
``Foreign Security Clearing Cash Adjustment'' would be revised to the
correct term, ``Foreign Security Clearance Cash Adjustment'' and (ii)
the cross-references to ``Section II'' and ``Section IV'' in Section A
would be replaced with references to ``Procedure II'' and ``Procedure
IV,'' respectively.

C. Implementation Timeframe

    These proposed rule changes would become effective by July 14,
2017. After Commission approval of these proposed rule changes, a
legend would be added to each of Procedures II, V, VI and VII stating
that there are approved but not yet operative changes to the respective
Procedure and specifying the applicable section or sections that would
be amended by the proposed rule change. The legend would state that
such changes would be operative by July 14, 2017, but if such changes
become operative before July 14, 2017, NSCC would notify Members by
Important Notice 30 days before the actual implementation date. The
legend would also state that underlined and boldface text indicates new
text and strikethrough and boldface text indicates deleted text.
Additionally, the legend would include a reference to the file number
of the proposed rule change and would state that once operative, the
legend would automatically be removed from the Rules, and the
formatting of the text of the changes in the applicable section or
sections would automatically be revised to reflect that these changes
have become operative.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that NSCC's
Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and to protect investors and the
public interest.\9\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC, in particular Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F), because the proposed rule changes promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, by updating the CTS to provide more details and
information in one common file layout, the proposal would provide
Members with more transparency and clarity regarding their trade
obligations, which could help Members better understand their
reconciliation of trades for settlement. Furthermore, Members would
receive the CTS in a more user-friendly format (i.e., CSV). With the
new online query tool, Members would also be able to access trade
obligation information that has been distributed in prior CTSs and
customize searches of trade obligation information according to their
needs. Therefore, the Commission believes that these changes to the CTS
would make it a more effective tool for Members to help manage their
settlement obligations, thus promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of securities transactions.
    Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
changes associated with the Foreign Security Accounting Operation are
designed to protect investors and the public interest.\11\
Specifically, the proposed rule change would address the timing
mismatch between the receipt of the CTS by Members and the settlement
of Foreign Securities trades in the local markets by Members by
discontinuing

the practice of re-pricing Foreign Securities at the uniform Settlement
Prices. This change also would eliminate Member exposure from a cash
adjustment due to re-pricing and the associated risk that a solvent
Member could be liable for the cash adjustment if its counterparty
defaults because the cash adjustment is not guaranteed by NSCC.
Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
promotes investor protection and the public interest.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the proposed rule change pertains to technical changes to the
Rules, the Commission finds the technical changes also consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \13\ because the technical updates are
designed to make the Rules more clear, consistent, and current for
Members that rely on them. Therefore, the proposed technical changes
help support NSCC's prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions made by Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \14\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2016-008 be, and hereby is,
approved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02372 Filed 2-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4329-4332]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0020]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study of Consumer Response to Health
Claims and Disclaimers About the Relationship Between Selenium and Risk
of Various Cancers

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on a study entitled ``Experimental Study of
Consumer Response to Health Claims and Disclaimers About the
Relationship Between Selenium and Risk of Various Cancers.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by March 27, 2012.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley II, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Experimental Study of Consumer Response to Health Claims and
Disclaimers About the Relationship Between Selenium and Risk of Various
Cancers--(OMB Control Number 0910--NEW)

I. Background

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the labeling of
food products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as
amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA).
NLEA regulations

establish general requirements for voluntary health claims in food
labeling; health claims are labeling statements that characterize the
relationship between a food substance and a disease or health-related
condition (21 CFR 101.14(a)(1)). Under the petition process for new
health claims (21 CFR 101.70), the petitioner must submit the
scientific evidence supporting a proposed health claim to FDA for
review. If FDA determines that there is significant scientific
agreement (SSA) among experts that the proposed health claim is
supported by the totality of publicly available evidence, FDA issues a
regulation authorizing the claim (21 CFR 101.14(c)-(d)). Health claims
must be ``complete, truthful, and not misleading'' (21 CFR
101.14(d)(2)(iii)) and must ``enable the public to comprehend the
information provided and to understand the relative significance of
such information in the context of a total daily diet'' (21 CFR
101.14(d)(2)(v)).
    In a court challenge to FDA's decision not to authorize four
dietary supplement health claims that failed to meet the SSA standard,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the First
Amendment does not permit FDA to prohibit health claims that the Agency
determines to be potentially misleading unless the Agency also
reasonably determines that a disclaimer would not eliminate the
potential deception (Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir.
1999)). Because the court also held that a health claim is not
inherently misleading simply because the evidence supporting it does
not reach the SSA level, the decision effectively requires FDA to
permit health claims that are backed by credible scientific evidence
unless the Agency can demonstrate that the claim would mislead
consumers. In response to the court's decision, FDA issued guidance on
an interim review process for health claims that do not meet the SSA
standard for the issuance of a regulation authorizing the claim (Ref.
1). These claims, referred to as ``qualified health claims'' (QHCs),
include a disclaimer or other qualifying language to distinguish them
from claims that meet the SSA standard and to prevent consumers from
being misled about the level of scientific evidence supporting the
claim (Ref. 2). When FDA reviews a QHC petition and determines that the
proposed claim is supported by credible evidence and that it can be
qualified to prevent consumers from being misled, the Agency issues a
letter stating its intent to exercise enforcement discretion for the
use of the QHC in food labeling.
    In 2003, FDA issued a letter of enforcement discretion for two QHCs
for dietary supplements containing selenium (Ref. 3):

    Claim 1: ``Selenium may reduce the risk of certain cancers. Some
scientific evidence suggests that consumption of selenium may reduce
the risk of certain forms of cancer. However, FDA has determined
that this evidence is limited and not conclusive.''
    Claim 2: ``Selenium may produce anticarcinogenic effects in the
body. Some scientific evidence suggests that consumption of selenium
may produce anticarcinogenic effects in the body. However, FDA has
determined that this evidence is limited and not conclusive.''

    In 2007, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR
72738; Dec. 21, 2007) announcing the Agency's intent to reevaluate
these two QHCs, among other health claims (the 2007 notice). One of the
other health claims being reevaluated is the authorized health claim
for dietary fat and cancer risk in 21 CFR 101.73. The model health
claims in Sec.  101.73(e) use language similar to the ``certain
cancers'' language used in Claim 1 for selenium, as they state that
low-fat diets may reduce the risk of ``some cancers'' or ``some types
of cancers.'' The 2007 notice explained that, during FDA's reevaluation
of the scientific evidence underlying these claims, the Agency also
planned to consider whether the claims should be revised to replace
generic references to ``certain cancers'' (or similar language) with
the names of specific cancers (e.g., prostate cancer, breast cancer)
because each type of cancer is a separate disease with different causes
and risk factors (72 FR 72740).
    In 2008, FDA received a petition requesting enforcement discretion
for two additional QHCs similar to the ones for which FDA had issued a
letter of enforcement discretion in 2003. The basic claim in the first
sentence of each proposed QHC was the same as the claim in the first
sentence of the corresponding 2003 QHC (``selenium may reduce the risk
of certain cancers'' and ``selenium may produce anticarcinogenic
effects in the body,'' respectively), but the 2008 petition requested
enforcement discretion for the use of the following disclaimer with
each claim: ``Scientific evidence supporting this claim is convincing
but not yet conclusive.'' The 2008 petition also requested enforcement
discretion for a number of other QHCs about selenium and reduced risk
of specific cancers. In 2009, FDA issued a response to the 2008
petition in which the Agency stated its intent to exercise enforcement
discretion for QHCs about selenium and reduced risk of prostate,
thyroid, and bladder cancers (Ref. 4). The Agency declined to exercise
enforcement discretion for QHCs about selenium and several other site-
specific cancers because there was no credible evidence that selenium
reduces the risk of those cancers. The Agency also declined to exercise
enforcement discretion for the two QHCs that were similar to the 2003
``certain cancers'' and ``anticarcinogenic effects'' QHCs because it
concluded that the proposed claims were misleading and could not be
cured with a disclaimer.
    Several of the petitioners filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, challenging FDA's 2009 petition response
under the First Amendment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
court ruled for the plaintiffs on the ``certain cancers'' and
``anticarcinogenic effects'' claims, as well as three of the site-
specific cancer claims (Alliance for Natural Health v. Sebelius, 714 F.
Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2010)). With respect to the ``certain cancers'' and
``anticarcinogenic effects'' QHCs, the court found that FDA had failed
to show with empirical evidence that the claims were misleading and
could not be corrected with disclaimers. The court also concluded that
the Agency's scientific decisions regarding three QHCs for site-
specific cancers were not supported by the record and remanded the case
to FDA for reconsideration of those claims, along with the ``certain
cancers'' and ``anticarcinogenic effects'' QHCs. FDA and the plaintiffs
then reached a settlement whereby FDA agreed to exercise enforcement
discretion for QHCs for selenium and reduced risk of bladder, prostate,
colon, rectal, and thyroid cancers (Ref. 5). In lieu of the ``certain
cancers'' and ``anticarcinogenic effects'' QHCs, plaintiffs agreed to
accept a QHC that listed all five site-specific cancers.

II. Purpose and Methodology of Proposed Study

    The objective of FDA's proposed study is to collect quantitative
data to examine consumer interpretations of two dietary supplement
labeling claims, ``selenium may reduce the risk of certain cancers''
and ``selenium may produce anticarcinogenic effects in the body,'' with
and without various disclaimers. Previous studies conducted by FDA and
others have examined consumer understanding of hypothetical QHCs and
QHCs that are the subject of a letter of enforcement discretion. The
primary goal of the previous studies was to evaluate ways to
communicate the strength of scientific evidence

supporting a claim (Ref. 6 through 9). None of these studies, however,
has investigated whether labeling claims using phrases such as
``certain cancers'' and ``anticarcinogenic effects'' may mislead
consumers into having unjustified perceptions about the effects of a
dietary supplement or food and how such misperceptions may affect
behavioral intentions. The Agency therefore proposes to use selenium
QHCs in this case study to examine consumer reactions to health claims
using those phrases, with and without various disclaimers.
    Specifically, the study plans to examine: (1) Whether one or both
of the selenium claims quoted in this document would lead consumers to
have the impression that selenium reduces the risk of all forms of
cancer (``cancer in general''); (2) whether one or both of these claims
would lead consumers to have the impression that selenium reduces the
risk of a cancer for which there is no credible evidence of risk
reduction, and, if so, whether a disclaimer specifying the names of the
cancers for which there is such evidence (bladder, prostate, colon,
rectal, and thyroid cancers) can communicate to consumers that the
claimed risk reduction effect is only for the named cancers; (3)
whether the ``anticarcinogenic effects'' claim would lead consumers to
believe that selenium not only reduces the risk of cancer, but also
treats or completely prevents cancer; (4) whether various disclaimer
options for the two claims would correct potential consumer
misperceptions about the nature of the relationship between selenium
and various cancers or the scope of the claims; and (5) whether either
of the claims leads consumers to have other erroneous perceptions, such
as that all cancers are alike.
    The proposed study will use a Web-based survey to collect
information from approximately 1,200 adults, including 800 men who are
55 years or older and 400 women who are 50 years or older, who belong
to online consumer panels maintained by a contractor. Data provided by
the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey
(HINTS; Ref. 10) suggest that individuals in the age groups proposed
for this study have a higher overall prevalence of cancer in general,
and a higher prevalence of most of the specific cancers that are the
subject of an existing QHC for selenium (see list in I. Background
section), but do not systematically differ from individuals in other
age groups with respect to their patterns of cancer-related
perceptions. By targeting participants in this age range and with these
characteristics, the study is expected to maximize efficient use of the
limited resources allocated to the project by yielding a greater amount
of information pertinent to people who are more likely to take a
selenium supplement. To that end, the study will aim for increased
representation of potential selenium users by targeting a sample that
includes at least 400 participants who have taken a selenium supplement
at least once. Because the rate of selenium use in the general
population is estimated to be low overall, but somewhat higher among
men than women (Refs. 11 and 12), the sample will consist of a greater
proportion of men. In addition, the screening process for the online
consumer panel will limit female participants to those who report being
married, and women enrolled in the study will be asked to provide
information about their spouses' use of selenium in addition to their
own.
    On a computer screen, participants will view a label image and
answer questions about their perceptions and behavioral intentions in
response to the label they view. Each participant will be randomly
assigned to an experimental condition in which he or she will view one
of the following: (a) A selenium product label containing no claim; (b)
a selenium product label containing the claim that ``selenium may
reduce the risk of certain cancers''; (c) a selenium product label
containing the claim that ``selenium may produce anticarcinogenic
effects in the body''; (d) a selenium product label containing one of
the claims from (b) or (c) plus a selected disclaimer statement. To
help understand the data, the study will also collect information on
each participant's background, including, but not limited to, health
status, race/ethnicity, education, and income.
    The proposed study is part of FDA's continuing effort to enable
consumers to make informed dietary choices and eat healthful diets.
Results of this case study will be used to further the Agency's
understanding of how consumers may interpret ``certain cancers'' and
``anticarcinogenic effects,'' phrases that appear in a number of health
claims that are authorized by regulation, as well as in some QHCs for
which the Agency has issued a letter of enforcement discretion. Results
of the study will not be used to develop population estimates.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
           Activity                Number of     responses per   Total  annual   Average burden     Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses      per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener..              72               1              72  0.083 hr. (5                   6
                                                                                minutes).
Cognitive interview...........               9               1               9  1 hr. (60                      9
                                                                                minutes).
Pretest invitation............             240               1             240  0.033 hr. (2                   8
                                                                                minutes).
Pretest.......................              60               1              60  0.167 hr. (10                 10
                                                                                minutes).
Survey invitation.............          50,000               1          50,000  0.033 hr. (2               1,650
                                                                                minutes).
Survey........................           1,200               1           1,200  0.167 hr. (10                200
                                                                                minutes).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................           1,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

III. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible
for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Interim
Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of
Conventional Human Foods and Human Dietary Supplements, 2003,
available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/

FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm053832.htm.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry:
Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health
Claims, 2009, available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm073332.htm.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ``Selenium and Certain Cancers
(Qualified Health Claim: Final Decision Letter) (Docket No. 02P-
0457),'' 2003, available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm072780.htm.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ``Selenium and a Reduced Risk
of Site-Specific Cancers (FDA-2008-Q-04323),'' 2009, available at
http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm168527.htm.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ``Settlement Reached for
Qualified Health Claims Relating Selenium to Reduced Risk of
Prostate, Colon, Rectal, Bladder, and Thyroid Cancers,'' 2011,
available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm256940.htm.
6. Derby, B.M. and A.S. Levy, Effects of Strength of Science
Disclaimers on the Communication Impacts of Health Claims, 2005,
available at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/dockets/dockets/03N0496/03N-0496-rpt0001.pdf.
7. Choini[egrave]re, C. and L. Verrill, Experimental Studies of
Qualified Health Claims: Consumer Inferences about Monounsaturated
Fatty Acids from Olive Oil, EPA and DHA Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and
Green Tea, 2009, available at  http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm207549.htm.
8. Hooker, N.H. and R. Teratanavat, ``Dissecting Qualified Health
Claims: Evidence from Experimental Studies,'' Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 48, pp. 160-176, 2008.
9. Kapsak, W.R., D. Schmidt, N.M. Childs, et al., ``Consumer
Perceptions of Graded, Graphic and Text Label Presentations for
Qualified Health Claims,'' Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, vol. 48, pp. 248-256, 2008.
10. National Cancer Institute, Health Information National Trends
Survey, 2007, available at http://hints.cancer.gov/.
11. Bailey, R.L., J.J. Gahche, C.V. Lentino, et al., ``Dietary
Supplement Use in the United States, 2003-2006,'' Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 141, pp. 261-266, 2011.
12. Radimer, K., B. Bindewald, J. Hughes, et al., ``Dietary
Supplement Use by US Adults: Data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2000,'' American Journal of
Epidemiology, vol. 160, pp. 339-349, 2004.

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-1692 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43063-43064]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2013-0542]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Arthur Kill, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Arthur Kill AK Railroad Bridge across Arthur Kill, mile 11.6, between
Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey. Under this temporary
deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position for four days to
facilitate scheduled maintenance. This deviation is necessary to
facilitate tie and miter rail replacement on the lift span.

DATES: This deviation is effective from July 19, 2013 through July 31,
2013, and has been enforced with actual notice since July 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0542] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov.

Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AK Railroad Bridge, across Arthur Kill,
mile 11.6, between Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey
has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 31 feet at MHW and
35 feet at MLW. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are
listed at 33 CFR Sec.  117.702.
    The waterway supports both commercial and recreational navigation
of various vessel sizes.
    The operator of the bridge, Conrail, requested a temporary
deviation to facilitate scheduled maintenance, tie and miter rail
replacement at the bridge.
    The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform this
maintenance.
    Under this temporary deviation the draw may remain in the closed
position as follows:
    On July 17, 2013 from 6:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m. and from 12:50 p.m.
to 4:40 p.m.
    On July 18, 2013 from 7:30 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. and from 2:40 p.m. to
5:44 p.m.
    On July 30, 2013 from 6:30 a.m. to 10:43 and from 12:43 p.m. to
4:35 p.m.
    On July 31, 2013 from 7:30 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. and from 1:40 p.m. to
5 p.m.
    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic. The bridge can be
opened in an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-17321 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18444-18446]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06512]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94494; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Enhance Capital
Requirements and Make Other Changes

March 23, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On December 13, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2021-016 (the ``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed
Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2021,\3\ and the Commission has received comments
regarding the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93856 (December 22,
2021), 86 FR 74185 (December 29, 2021) (SR-NSCC-2021-016)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ Comments are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2021-016/srnscc2021016.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 26, 2022, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\
the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.\6\ This order institutes
proceedings, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\7\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94068 (January 26,
2022), 87 FR 5544 (February 1, 2022) (SR-NSCC-2021-016).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change

    As described in the Notice, NSCC proposes to amend the Rules and
Procedures (``Rules'') in order to (1) revise its capital requirements
for Members and Limited Members (collectively, ``members''), (2)
streamline its two credit risk monitoring systems, Watch List and
enhanced surveillance list, and (3) make certain other clarifying,
technical, and

supplementary changes to implement items (1) and (2).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The description of the Proposed Rule Change is based on the
statements prepared by NSCC in the Notice. See Notice, supra note 3.
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein are
defined in the Rules, available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, NSCC proposes to revise various aspects of its capital
requirements for several types of members. NSCC proposes to increase
minimum capital requirements for certain members. For example, for U.S.
broker-dealers, the capital requirements would be determined using a
tiered system based generally on the volatility component of a member's
margin (referred to as the value-at-risk tier). NSCC also proposes to
revise how it measures certain members' capital by incorporating common
equity tier 1 capital, and the standards established in the capital
adequacy rules and regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. NSCC would revise the reporting requirements concerning
the capital requirements for certain members. In addition, for certain
types of members who currently do not have specific amounts for their
minimum capital requirements, the proposal would establish such a
requirement.
    Second, NSCC proposes to revise its Watch List and enhanced
surveillance list, which are both currently used for credit risk
monitoring. NSCC proposes to revise its Watch List and delete its
enhanced surveillance list. NSCC also proposes to clarify that members
on the Watch List are reported to NSCC's management committees and
regularly reviewed by NSCC's senior management.
    Third, NSCC proposes to (1) revise or add headings and sub-headings
as appropriate, (2) revise defined terms and add appropriate defined
terms to facilitate the proposed changes, (3) rearrange and consolidate
paragraphs to promote readability, (4) fix typographical and other
errors, and (5) other changes in order to improve clarity and the
accessibility and transparency of the Rules.

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \9\ to determine whether the Proposed Rule
Change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the Proposed Rule Change. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to comment on the Proposed Rule Change,
providing the Commission with arguments to support the Commission's
analysis as to whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\10\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the Proposed
Rule Change's consistency with Section 17A of the Act,\11\ and the
rules thereunder, including the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency must be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and to protect investors and the public interest;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act,\13\ which requires that
the rules of a clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) under the Act,\14\ which requires that
a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to establish
objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for
participation, which permit fair and open access by direct and, where
relevant, indirect participants and other financial market utilities,
require participants to have sufficient financial resources and robust
operational capacity to meet obligations arising from participation in
the clearing agency, and monitor compliance with such participation
requirements on an ongoing basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the Proposed Rule Change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed
Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\15\
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act,\16\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) under the
Act,\17\ or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the Proposed Rule Change should be approved
or disapproved by April 20, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
May 4, 2022.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
NSCC's statements in support of the Proposed Rule Change, which are set
forth in the Notice,\18\ in addition to any other comments they may
wish to submit about the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NSCC-2021-016 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-NSCC-2021-016. 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-2021-016
and should be submitted on or before April 20, 2022. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by May 4, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06512 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48893]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21043]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form SE, SEC File No. 270-289, OMB Control No. 3235-0327

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies
of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or
impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of
Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE
is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE
is a public document and is filed on occasion. Form SE is filed by
individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file
documents electronically. Approximately 19 registrants file Form SE and
it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden
of 2 hours (010 hours per response x 19 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21043 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Memo to:	EPA Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548)
From:		Denise Scott OAR/OAQPS/AQPD/GSG
Subject:		Letter from Alec Messina, Director Illinois EPA

EPA received the attached letter from Alec Messina, Director of the Illinois EPA on April 26, 2018. EPA considered this letter for the designations of McHenry and Monroe Counties in Illinois for the 2015 ozone NAAQS air quality designations, but it was inadvertently not submitted for inclusion in the docket at the time the final designations were issued. It can be found on EPA's website at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/il_april_26_2018_letter.pdf.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37470-37471]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C65a, Airborne Doppler Radar
Ground Speed and/or Drift Angle Measuring Equipment (for Air Carrier
Aircraft)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to cancel Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C65a,
Airborne Doppler radar ground speed and/or drift angle measuring
equipment (for air carrier aircraft).

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the FAA's intent to cancel TSO-C65a,
Airborne Doppler radar ground speed and/or drift angle measuring
equipment (for air carrier aircraft).
    The effect of the cancelled TSO will result in no new TSO-C65a
design or production approvals. However, cancellation will not affect
current production of articles with an existing TSO authorization.
Articles produced under an existing TSOA can still be installed per the
existing airworthiness approvals, and all applications for new
airworthiness approvals will still be processed.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Sayadian, AIR-130, Federal
Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 4102, Washington, DC
20024. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    You are invited to comment on the cancellation of the TSO-C65a by
submitting written data, views, or arguments to the above address.
Comments received may be examined, both before and after the closing
date at the above address, weekdays except federal holidays, between
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The Director, Aircraft Certification Service,
will consider all comments received on or before the closing date.

Background

    The Doppler radar ground speed and/or drift angle measuring
equipment described by this TSO was used to provide inputs to
semiautomatic self-contained dead reckoning navigation systems which
were not continuously dependent on information derived from ground
based or external navigation aids. The system employed radar signals to
detect and measure ground speed and drift angle, using the aircraft
compass system as its directional reference. This approach is less
accurate than Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), and the use of an
external reference is required for periodic updates if acceptable
position accuracy is to be achieved on long range flights. Use of INS
and Global Positioning System (GPS) has rendered TSO-C65a Doppler
sensor equipment that provides inputs to dead reckoning navigation
systems obsolete.
    On August 18, 1983, the FAA published TSO-C65a, Airborne Doppler
radar ground speed and/or drift angle measuring equipment (for air
carrier aircraft). The FAA has no record of any TSO-C65a applications
from 1990 onward. Our research indicates no new TSO-C65a applications
are in progress, and no authorized manufacturers are manufacturing,
advertising, or selling TSO-C65a compliant equipment. Given the
obsolescence of the equipment, and the lack of industry interest in new
TSO-C65a product designs, we propose cancelling TSO-C65a.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2012.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15209 Filed 6-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From: Reeves, David Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11: 28 AM To: ' Farmer, Mark' Cc: Holloway, Thomas C. ( Tom); Vince Hellwig ( E mail); ' dail. lynn@ epa. gov' Subject: RE: Residual Risk Information Thanks for getting back to me. I was actually working on a draft of a letter to send to you requesting some additional information. So, I guess I'll just swi tch over and use e mail. I am attaching an enclosure and table which asks for d etails regarding your reported TRI emissions for the year 2000 and emission poin t/ source information. Please review and if you have any questions, please give me a call at 919  316  3739. We need to have the information back from you by November 27, 2002 to meet our project time frame.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1397-1398]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31938]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No IC-32406; 812-14622]

DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc., et al.; Notice of
Application

December 29, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Items
22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-07(2)(a),
(b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements''). The
requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain wholly-owned sub-advisers without shareholder approval
and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to
fees paid to the wholly-owned sub-advisers.

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

Applicants:  DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc. (``DFAIDG''),
Dimensional Investment Group Inc. (``DIG'') (each of DFAIDG and DIG is
organized as a Maryland corporation and registered under the Act as an
open-end management investment company), Dimensional Emerging Markets
Value Fund (``DEM''), The DFA Investment Trust Company (``DFAITC'')
(each of DEM and DFAITC is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company)
(DFAITC, DFAIDG, DEM, and DIG, each a ``Trust, '' and together, the
``Trusts'') and Dimensional Fund Advisors LP (the ``Initial Adviser''
collectively with the Trusts, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed March 4, 2016, and amended on
August 11, 2016.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on January 23, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 6300 Bee Cave Road,
Building One, Austin, TX 78746.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6883, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the
Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment management agreement with
the relevant Trust (each an ``Investment Management Agreement'' and
collectively, the ``Investment Management Agreements'').\1\ The Adviser
will provide the Subadvised Series with continuous investment
management of the assets of each Subadvised Series subject to the
supervision of each Trust's board of trustees (``Board''). The
Investment Management Agreements permit the Adviser, subject to the
approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more wholly-owned sub-
advisers (each, a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers'') the responsibility to provide the day-
to-day portfolio investment management of each Subadvised Series,
subject to the supervision and direction of the Adviser. The primary
responsibility for managing the Subadvised Series will remain vested in
the Adviser. The Adviser will hire, evaluate, allocate assets to and
oversee the Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers, including determining whether a
Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser should be terminated, at all times subject to
the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing and
any future series of the Trusts and any other future registered
open-end management company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised
by the Initial Adviser or its successor or by a person controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Adviser or
its successor (each, also an ``Adviser''); (b) uses the multi-
managers structure described in the application; and (c) complies
with the terms and conditions of the application (each a
``Subadvised Series''). For purposes of the requested order,
``successor'' is limited to an entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject
to Board approval, to hire certain Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers pursuant
to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory
Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.\2\ Applicants
also seek an exemption from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a
Subadvised Series to disclose (as both a dollar amount and a percentage
of the Subadvised Series' net assets) the aggregate fees paid to the
Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser (collectively, ``Aggregate Fee
Disclosure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that
is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of a Fund or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a sub-
adviser to one or more of the Funds (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the Application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series shareholders and
notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to
protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants

believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as
further explained in the Application, the Advisory Agreements will
remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role of the Wholly-
Owned Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual
portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-
Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the
Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from
the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve
the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Wholly-Owned Sub-
Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31938 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P