[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10878-10881]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94280; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE
Clear Europe CDS Clearing Stress Testing Policy and CDS Clearing Back-
Testing Policy

February 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 10, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'')

the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to modify certain provisions of its CDS
Clearing Stress Testing Policy (``CDS Stress-Testing Policy'') and CDS
Clearing Back-Testing Policy (``CDS Back-Testing Policy'') to make
certain clarifications and updates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules and the
CDS Clearing Stress Testing Policy and the CDS Clearing Back-Testing
Policy (as applicable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe 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

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to [sic] its CDS Back-Testing Policy
and its CDS Stress-Testing Policy to describe more fully certain
existing Clearing House practices, as discussed herein.
CDS Back-Testing Policy
    The amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy would generally
clarify the types of back-testing the Clearing House performs of its
CDS risk models. The amendments would also make minor terminology
updates to conform uses of defined terms, make typographical
corrections throughout the document, and add and/or update section
names and numbering to improve organization and readability.
    The general discussion of the Clearing House's Back-testing
approach would be amended to add a new paragraph which would specify
that the Clearing House conducts several types of back-tests described
in the CDS Back-Testing Policy and that the Clearing House adopts all
the available reliable and validated data for each back-test in order
to assess the model performance over a long period in which stressed
market conditions and idiosyncratic events are likely to have occurred.
    A new section would be added (and numbering would be updated
accordingly) to describe the use of overlapping and non-overlapping
data in the back-testing of the CDS risk model performed by the
Clearing House. The section would state explicitly that using non-
overlapping back-testing for static portfolios is the preferred
approach because the CDS risk model is designed to cover a multi-days
risk horizon, but that the lack of sufficiently long data sets may
limit the use of the approach. Overlapping back-testing is used in
order for the Clearing House to have a statistically significant
sample, but the count of exceedances is artificially duplicated. The
amendments also would discuss the ways the Clearing House addresses the
problem of time dependent observations.
    The discussion of the implementation of the Basel Traffic Light
System (BTLS) would be updated to state explicitly that one of the main
assumptions of BTLS is that excessive losses are time independent. The
amendments would describe how, because multi-horizon overlapping back-
testing is time dependent, the problem would be addressed by correcting
the number of consecutive exceedances within the risk time horizon.
    The discussion of Multi-horizon back testing (renamed Multi-days
horizon back-testing) would clarify that the observed loss is
calculated as the minimum NAV change over 5 days for house accounts.
Further clarificatory updates that would be made include specifying
that shortfall is also known as ``back-test exceedances'' and that
unrealized loss is also known as ``worst N-days P&L''. These updates
would be made throughout the CDS Back-Testing Policy in order to be
more descriptive and improve readability. The amendments would further
reflect that the Clearing House's use of the worst N-days P&L may lead
to multiple consecutive back-test exceedances following one large
market move in the overlapping back-testing approach.
    The discussion of detailed daily back-testing results would be
updated to include further explanations of the information presented in
Table 2 (Example of the minimum 5-day P/L detail for daily back-
testing). Specifically, the amendments would provide that the last two
examples in Table 2 shows the worst N-days P/L could be the 4-days P/L
or 3-days P/L.
    The section relating to back-testing the production model with
Clearing Members accounts would be amended to clarify that a minimum of
one year of observations is required to define the statistical
significance of back-testing results.
    Provisions relating to back-testing the production model with
Special Strategy portfolios would be updated to describe that the set
of portfolios tested include strategies like Index arbitrage portfolios
with long Index and short Single Names constituent of the current
Index. The strategies would refer to the main Indices where the
Clearing House clears part of the underlying Single Names.
Additionally, the amendments would provide that back-test results at
the 99.5% quantile would be reviewed on at least a monthly basis, and
that back-test results at the 99.75% quantile would be reviewed on an
ad-hoc basis, when there is a large market move. A table showing
portfolio reconstruction for special strategy back-testing would be
removed as unnecessary detail now covered in the more general
description of the special strategies.
    A new section addressing stylized portfolios back-testing would be
added and would provide that the Clearing Risk Department would perform
back-testing on a series of stylized portfolios when a new risk factor
is introduced for clearing. Such stylized portfolios aim at replicating
certain trading strategies in order to make sure that the risk related
to the newly introduced risk factors can be managed through the current
CDS risk model. Stylized portfolios back-testing may be carried out
more frequently on the risk factors that [sic] the largest open
interest at the Clearing House in order to provide further assurance
regarding the CDS risk model performance. The changes reflect current
back-testing practice, and are intended to more clearly document such
practices in the Back-Testing Policy.
    The provisions relating to univariate back-testing would be updated
to provide that back-testing results at 99.5% quantile would be
reviewed on at least a monthly basis by the Clearing Risk Department
and reported to the Model Oversight Committee on a monthly basis, which
reflects current practice. Back-testing results at 99.75% quantile
would be reviewed on ad-hoc basis, when stress market conditions might
cause breaches at 99.5% quantile.
CDS Stress-Testing Policy
    In the CDS Stress-Testing Policy, the description of the use of
Hypothetical Scenarios would be updated to clarify

that forward looking credit event scenarios are based on both
historically observed and hypothetical extreme but plausible market
scenarios. This update is intended to more clearly reflect current
stress testing practice.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the amendments to the CDS Back-
Testing Policy and the CDS Stress-Testing Policy are consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it. In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \5\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing
agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable,
derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy are generally
designed to enhance and clarify the descriptions of back-testing
performed on ICE Clear Europe CDS risk models. Although these changes
are largely not intended to represent a change in current Clearing
House practices, they are intended to more clearly reflect those
practices and thereby enhance the ongoing implementation and monitoring
of back-testing. In particular, the amendments clarify the use of
overlapping and non-overlapping data sets, the back-testing of stylized
portfolios when new risk factors are rolled out, assumptions around
time independence of exceedances, and the review process for the 99.75%
quantile back tests (including the frequency of review and the Clearing
House committees responsible for review). The amendment to the CDS
Stress-Testing Policy would clarify the use of hypothetical scenarios
in constructing forward looking credit event scenarios in stress
testing of the CDS risk model. Therefore, the amendments will help ICE
Clear Europe ensure that its risk model will effectively measure credit
exposures and default risks, and thus that the Clearing House
adequately maintains adequate financial resources to support its CDS
operations. The amendments will therefore enhance the stability of the
Clearing House and overall promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, and the public interest in the sound
operation of clearing agencies. Accordingly, the amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\6\ (ICE Clear
Europe does not believe the amendments will affect the safeguarding of
securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody or control or for
which it is responsible.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the proposed amendments are also consistent
with relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22. ICE Clear Europe believes
that the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(A),\7\ which provides that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as
applicable [. . .] effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage
its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by [. . .]
testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources available to
meet the minimum financial resource requirements [. . .] by conducting
stress testing of its total financial resources once each day using
standard predetermined parameters and assumptions'', among other
requirements. The amendments to the CDS Stress-Testing Policy clarify
that construction of certain forward looking stress scenarios is based
on hypothetical as well as historical scenarios. As amended, the CDS
Stress-Testing Policy will facilitate the ongoing stress-testing of
financial resources and effective management of credit exposures to CDS
Clearing Members. As such, the amendments are consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)-(B) [sic].\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) \9\ provides that ``[e]ach covered clearing
agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .]
cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central counterparty
services, its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a
risk-based margin system that, at a minimum [. . .] is monitored [sic]
on an ongoing basis and is regularly reviewed, tested and verified by
(A) conducting backtests of its margin model at least once each day
using standard predetermined parameters and assumptions; (B) conducting
a sensitivity analysis of its margin model and a review of its
parameters and assumptions for backtesting on at least a monthly basis,
and considering modifications to ensure the backtesting practices are
appropriate for determining the adequacy of [its] margin resources; (C)
conducting a sensitivity analysis of its margin model and a review of
its parameters and assumptions for backtesting more frequently than
monthly during periods of time when the products cleared or markets
served display high volatility or become less liquid, or when the size
or concentration of positions held by the covered clearing agency's
participants increases or decreases significantly; and (D) reporting
the results of its analyses . . . to appropriate decision makers . . .
.''. The amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy will, as discussed
above, enhance the framework for ICE Clear Europe to conduct back-
testing of CDS risk models by more clearly addressing the use of
overlapping and non-overlapping back-testing data sets, the back-
testing of stylized portfolios when new risk factors are implemented,
and assumptions around time independence of excessive losses, among
other changes. The amendments also clarify the procedures for review of
back-testing at certain quantiles (on a monthly or ad hoc basis, as
appropriate). As such, ICE Clear Europe believes the amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) \11\ provides that ``[e]ach covered
clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable
[. . .] provide for governance arrangements that are clear and
transparent [and] specify clear and direct lines of responsibility''.
As described herein, references to the roles of certain committees and
departments with respect to reviews and approvals throughout the CDS
Back-Testing Policy have been updated to reflect existing practice with
respect to the roles of groups. As such, the amendments provide
additional clarity with respect to Clearing House governance and lines
of responsibility consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the

purpose of the Act. In general, the amendments are intended to provide
clarifications and additional details where necessary in order to
reflect existing practices for CDS stress-testing and back-testing and
are not intended to impose new requirements on Clearing Members. The
terms of cleared CDS contracts and of clearing are not otherwise
changing. As such, the amendments will apply to all CDS Clearing
Members and are unlikely, in ICE Clear Europe's view, to materially
affect the cost of clearing for CDS products or affect access to
clearing for CDS products at ICE Clear Europe or the market for cleared
services generally. To the extent the changes could lead to changes in
margin rates, based on the results of stress-testing and/or back-
testing, ICE Clear Europe believes any such changes would be designed
to appropriately reflect its credit risk from CDS Clearing Members with
respect to cleared positions. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not
believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that
is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-004 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-ICEEU-2022-004. 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 such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. 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-ICEEU-2022-004 and should be
submitted on or before March 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03960 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


           Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under
                          The Paperwork Reduction Act

                                    PART A

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

      Title: EPA's Safer Choice Label Consultations

      EPA ICR No.:   2487.02   	OMB Control No.:   2070-0189

      EPA Docket ID No.:   EPA-HQ-2016-0111

      1(b)	Short Characterization / Abstract

      This renewal information collection request (ICR) addresses the consultation process that would assist the EPA with the refinement and enhancement of the logo redesign and education approach for the Safer Choice Product Recognition Program (Safer Choice program), formerly known as the Design for the Environment Program. The Safer Choice program recognizes products where all ingredients meet EPA's stringent requirements for human health and the environment as found in the Safer Choice Standard. Under the encouragement of the current program, leading companies have already made great progress in developing safer, highly effective chemical products. Since the program's inception in 1997, formulators have been using the program as a portal to OPPT's unique chemical expertise, information resources, and guidance on greener chemistry. Safer Choice partners enjoy Agency recognition, including the use of the Safer Choice label on qualifying products.

      The Safer Choice program adopted a new logo in March 2015 in response to stakeholder feedback. Following the launch of the new logo, consumer surveys will be used to gauge consumer recognition of the new logo and understand how the new logo and educational activities are diffusing over time and changing purchasing decisions. This ICR would enable Safer Choice to collect feedback from consumers through focus groups and online surveys and integrate it into the program, which would help to strengthen the visibility of the logo and program, improve product recognition among formulators and partners, and further promote chemical safety.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

      Authority for the Safer Choice program derives from Section 6604(b)(5) of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(5) (see Attachment A), which directs EPA to facilitate the adoption of source-reduction techniques by businesses, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), which encourages safety in technological innovation in chemistry. In recognition of this statutory directive, and through consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, EPA developed the Safer Choice program.

      Testing of the Safer Choice logo and educational activities via by consumer focus groups and consumer online surveys will help ensure that the logo effectively communicates the Agency's missions under the PPA and TSCA. A logo that is clear and signals a focus on human health and the environment will increase demand for and encourage the development of safer chemical-based products, to the benefit of consumers, manufacturing partners, retailers, other stakeholders, and the environment. Effective outreach can help determine if the logo is permeating the marketplace and identify strategies for further enhancing its visibility to consumers.

      Safer Choice has carefully tailored its request for information to ensure that it only asks for information essential to testing the qualities of the selected redesigned logo concepts and outreach efforts.

	2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      The information collected by the Safer Choice program is not designed or intended to support regulatory decision-making by EPA. EPA uses the information collected in these consultations to design or verify that the redesigned logo: (1) conveys the program's scientific expertise and the human health and environmental benefits of using safer products, as shown in consumer focus groups and survey testing; (2) increases consumer recognition of safer products carrying the redesigned Safer Choice logo; and (3) encourages businesses to participate in the Safer Choice program, given a positive response to the new logo among consumers.

3.    	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
	CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-Duplication

      Respondents will not be asked to provide information that has been or is currently being collected by EPA, other federal or state agencies, or proprietary sources. The information collected by the Safer Choice program is unique and is not duplicative of previous information collection requests.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

	3(c)	Consultations

      The Agency received input from its diverse group of Safer Choice stakeholders regarding its logo redesign. These stakeholders include chemical manufacturers, product manufacturers, non-governmental organizations, government agencies, academics, and retailers.

      For the post-launch activities included in this ICR, the focus group respondents and consumers online survey respondents will be members of the general population, so there are no established, organized entities with which EPA has a purposeful relationship. Since EPA was not able to readily identify potential respondents, consultations with the general public have not been conducted. However, EPA personnel, with the assistance of a contractor with experience in conducting consumer market research, will design the materials for the screening questionnaires, focus groups, and consumer online surveys. The overall conclusions (descriptive and summary statistics) of the focus groups and online survey will be publicly available; however, all information will be aggregated, with no identification of the individuals. Participants will be informed in advance that there will be an aggregated report of conclusions available to the public following the completion of the research. Participants will be reassured that no individually identifiable information will be included in the report.

      Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA will pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the development of the renewal of this collection.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      Up to three consumer focus groups will be convened to test the redesigned Safer Choice logo for familiarity and usefulness. Additional details about recruitment for and implementation of the focus groups are provided in Attachments B, C, and D. Each consumer focus group consultation is designed to be a one-time information collection activity with consumers specifically recruited for the Safer Choice logo redesign. The three post-launch consumer online surveys will be conducted to gauge recognition of the new logo. Each post-launch consumer online survey will be a one-time information collection activity. This means that once these activities end, no additional information collection activities will be required. Without these information collection mechanisms, Safer Choice will not have the ability to test and verify consumer perceptions and understanding of the new design and whether products displaying the new logo are affecting the likelihood of acceptance, use, and recognition.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

      The information collection activities discussed in this renewal ICR comply with all regulatory guidelines under 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). The collection is tailored to the Agency's purposes under the Pollution Prevention Act to maximize the integrity and utility of the information while imposing the least burden on potential respondents. In addition, EPA has detailed the statistical methods that will be applied to the collection activities in Supporting Statement Part B.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

      EPA does not expect that any information collected under this ICR will involve confidential business or trade secret information given that the data collection instruments are oriented towards consumers. The information collected will only pertain to the opinions of the respondents on the specific characteristics of the redesigned logo concepts as to their clarity, relevance, appeal, and likelihood of using products which are displaying the new design and the effectiveness and usefulness of educational and outreach activities. The Safer Choice program will use the information provided by consumers solely for purposes related to determining how to more effectively educate consumers and other stakeholders on the redesigned logo. In the report of the research, all information will be aggregated, with no identification of individuals. Participants will be informed in advance that there will be an aggregated report of conclusions available to the public following the completion of the research. Participants will be reassured that no individually identifiable information will be included in the report.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

      The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions involving sexuality, religious beliefs, political affiliation, or other matters considered private, as referred to in the Supporting Statement for PRA Submissions in the document "Guidance on Agency Survey and Statistical Information Collections," from January 20, 2006. EPA will adhere to its Privacy Policy (EPA classification number 2151) that establishes requirements for safeguarding the collection, access, use, dissemination, and storage of personally identifiable information (PII) and Privacy Act information in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and policy and guidance issues by the President and Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents

      Respondents will be adult members of the general population who are consumers, including consumers who consider the environment when making purchasing decisions (i.e., "leaning green" consumers).

	4(b)	Information Requested

      Respondents screened for focus group participation will listen to questions and provide answers to those questions. Respondents selected to participate in the focus groups will listen to directions, be presented with materials for discussion, participate in group discussions, and complete forms. Consumer online survey participants will read directions, answer questions, and submit the online survey.

5.     	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
	METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

    EPA and its contractor will engage in the following activities related to the logo redesign survey and focus group process:

 Prepare and review focus group materials;
 Prepare and review screener questionnaires;
 Conduct focus group screening calls;
 Conduct focus groups;
 Review and analyze focus group results;
 Prepare and review consumer online surveys;
 Conduct consumer online surveys;
 Review and analyze consumer online surveys; and
 Use focus group and consumer online survey information to evaluate consumer recognition of the redesigned logo and effectiveness of outreach efforts.

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA and its contractor will use a telephone system and personal computers. The contractor will employ transcription to collect information from focus group participants. The transcriptions will be kept on file but will not be distributed publicly. Personal computers will be used for the consumer online surveys. Detailed information on survey resources is included in Supporting Statement Part B.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

      The intended respondents to the information collection activities addressed in this ICR are individual consumers and not small entities, as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. No information will be collected from small entities during this information collection.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

      Screening calls, focus groups, and the online surveys will be scheduled after this ICR is approved. Up to three consumer online surveys to gauge recognition of the new logo will be distributed during the course of the three-year approval period.

      A proposed timetable is outlined as follows:

Activity
Time Frame
Secure facilities for focus group sessions
Two weeks after ICR approval
Screen individuals for focus group sessions
Four weeks after ICR approval
Conduct focus group sessions
Six to eight weeks after ICR approval
Develop report of focus groups (with aggregated, de-identified information only)
10 weeks after ICR approval
Review logo design and outreach efforts based on feedback from focus groups
11 weeks after ICR approval
Program and launch survey to evaluate logo redesign and outreach efforts
13 weeks after ICR approval
Field survey among participants
14-15 weeks after ICR approval
Analyze survey data and draft report with recommendations for changes to outreach efforts
16 weeks after ICR approval
Field survey and conduct focus group to test consumer recognition and perception of new design and effectiveness of outreach efforts
Fall 2017
Field survey and conduct focus group to test consumer recognition and perception of new design and effectiveness of outreach efforts
Fall 2018

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

      The average respondent burden is estimated to be 10 minutes or 0.17 hours for respondents screened for the focus groups. This estimate is based on the length of time needed to complete a screening questionnaire. There will be two sets of screening questions used for this information collection, one for general adult consumers and one for adult consumers that lean towards the purchase and use of green products. For each focus group, 90 people will be screened using the respective questionnaire. A total of 900 people will be screened as part of this information collection. There is an estimated total respondent burden of 150 hours for the ten focus group screenings.

      The average respondent burden is estimated to be 2 hours for focus group participants. This estimate is based on the length of time designated for each focus group session. There will be ten focus groups conducted during this information collection, five for general adult consumers and five for adult consumers that lean towards the purchase and use of green products. Each focus group will have between 8 to 10 participants and we expect a no-show rate of no more than 2 participants per focus group. For the purpose of calculating burden, we assume that each focus group will have 9 participants. A total of 90 people will participate in the focus groups conducted as part of this information collection. For the ten focus groups, there is an estimated total respondent burden of 180 hours.

      The average respondent burden is estimated to be 20 minutes or 0.33 hours for the consumer online survey to gauge consumer recognition of the redesigned logo and outreach efforts. This estimate is based on the length of time needed to complete the survey. There will be three iterations of the consumer online survey conducted during this information collection, each of which will use the same set of questions. The same survey will be administered to all respondents. Each consumer online survey will have 2,000 respondents. A total of 6,000 people will complete the consumer online survey as part of this information collection, resulting in an estimated total respondent burden of 2,000 hours.

      6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

      To value the respondents' time, EPA estimates an average loaded hourly labor rate (base hourly rate plus fringe and overhead) of $38 for a civilian worker, which includes private industry and state and local government workers, based upon wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation from December 2015. The hourly labor rates include a 17% overhead; this overhead rate is used for consistency with OPPT economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report.  In addition, the hourly labor rates have been rounded for the purposes of this ICR. The derivation of the labor rate for a civilian worker is shown in Exhibit 6.1.

Exhibit 6.1. Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates in 2015$
                                Labor category
                                     Wage
                                Fringe Benefit
                               Fringes as % wage
                                Overhead % wage
                           Fringe + overhead factor
                                 Loaded Wages
                            Loaded Wages (rounded)

                                      (a)
                                      (b)
                                  (c)=(b)/(a)
                                      (d)
                                 (e)=(c)+(d)+1
                                (f)=(a)  (e)

                                   Civilian
                                    $23.06
                                    $10.52
                                    45.62%
                                      17%
                                     1.63
                                    $37.50
                                    $38.00

      Providing monetary incentives is a standard market research practice (usually a cash or check payment at the close of their research session) for ensuring an acceptable level of participation. An incentive may significantly improve validity and reliability to the extent beyond what is possible through other means. For example, an incentive will help in the recruitment of participants with diverse views and levels of interest in the topic area. EPA is particularly interested in a balanced group of consumers and believes that providing an incentive will improve the quality of the effort. The total incentive/travel reimbursement offered to each focus group participant will be $75 for 2 hours, which includes time for participating in the focus group and travel to and from the focus group. It is important to note that most of the research on incentives has been based on vehicles other than focus groups, typically large-scale household surveys conducted by mail, internet, or interview. Focus groups involve a higher respondent burden, largely attributable to the time, expense, and inconvenience of getting to and from and being at the focus group site. Given the very real barriers to participation, the incentive must be sufficient to overcome them and increased compensation is a proven means to that end.
      Survey participants receive an incentive for participating in the panel. They receive points for completion of the survey, and the points can be redeemed for cash or prizes. Offering points for taking online surveys is standard practice that Ipsos, the survey vendor for this research, follows. Ipsos stipulates this practice in its agreement with participants.

      In Exhibit 6.2 we show the breakdown of burden costs, assuming 0.17 hours for completing the consumer focus group screening, 2 hours for participating in consumer focus group interviews, and 0.33 hours for completing the consumer online survey. Note that the 2 hours for participating in consumer focus group interviews includes 1.5 hours for the focus group sessions and 0.5 hours for travel. A total of 900 respondents are expected to complete the screening for consumer focus groups, along with 90 respondents who will then be selected to participate in the consumer focus group interviews. An additional 6,000 respondents are expected to complete the consumer online survey. No capital or operating and maintenance costs are incurred by respondents under this ICR.

Exhibit 6.2. Estimated Burden and Costs to Respondents (Over Three Years)
                              Collection Activity
                             Number of Respondents
                             Frequency of Response
                              Hours Per Response
                              Total Burden Hours
                                  Total Cost
Screening for  Consumer Focus Groups
                                      900
                                       1
                                     0.17
                                      150
                                                                         $5,700
Consumer Focus Group Interviews
                                      90
                                       1
                                       2
                                      180
                                                                         $6,840
Consumer Online Survey
                                     6,000
                                       1
                                     0.33
                                     2000
                                                                        $76,000
Total
                                     6,990
                                      --
                                      --
                                     2,330
                                                                        $88,540

      6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden

      Exhibit 6.3 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR. EPA based its burden estimates on the costs of conducting focus groups and online surveys that occurred under the previous ICR (OMB no. 2070-0819).

      The cost to prepare, organize, and conduct the ten focus groups is $35,750. This fixed amount includes facility rental, recruiting costs, and transcription. This fixed amount also includes the $75 incentive paid to each of the focus group participants. Although the contractor will make the focus group screening calls, prepare the focus group materials, and conduct the focus groups, Agency staff will need to review the focus group materials, the screening questionnaires, and the focus group results. EPA expects that review of the focus group materials will take about 2.5 hours (0.5 managerial, 2 technical). Reviewing the focus group screening questionnaires will take about 2.5 hours (0.5 managerial, 2 technical). Reviewing the focus group results will take about 25 hours (5 managerial, 20 technical).

      The cost to prepare and conduct the three consumer online surveys is $23,625. This fixed amount includes questionnaire development, programming, online fielding, results reporting, and the rewards points that consumers receive upon completing the survey. Although the contractor will prepare and conduct the consumer online surveys, Agency staff will need to review the survey content, design, and results. EPA expects that review of the survey content and design will take about 5 hours (1 managerial, 4 technical). Reviewing survey results will take about 10 hours (2 managerial, 8 technical).

      6(d)	Estimating Agency Costs

      Agency labor costs are calculated based on hourly basic rates for federal employees in the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2016. The average hourly labor rate for managerial staff is estimated as the rate for a GS-13 Step 5 employee, for technical staff as a GS-10 Step 10 employee, and for clerical staff as GS-5 Step 1. These GS-level assumptions are consistent with those used in past EPA OPPT ICRs. The hourly rates were multiplied by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead. This loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).

      The resulting average hourly labor rates, rounded to the nearest dollar amount, are $80 for managerial staff, $59 for technical staff, and $27 for clerical staff. The Agency expects most activities related to this ICR to be performed by managerial staff (20 percent) and technical staff (80 percent).

Exhibit 6.3. Estimated Agency Burden/Cost (Over Three Years)
                              Collection Activity
                               EPA Burden Hours
                                   EPA Costs

                                     Mgr.
                                   Technical
                                Total EPA Hours
                               Contractor Cost*
                                   EPA Cost

                                    $80/Hr
                                    $59/Hr

Consumer Focus Groups
Prepare focus group materials
                                                                            0.5
                                                                              2
                                                                            2.5
                         $35,750 for ten focus groups
                                                                       $158.00
Prepare screener questionnaires
                                                                            0.5
                                                                              2
                                                                            2.5

                                                                       $158.00
Organize and conduct focus groups
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0

                                                                         $0.00
Review focus group results
                                                                              5
                                                                             20
                                                                             25

                                                                     $1,580.00
Subtotal
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                             30
                                                                       $35,750
                                                                     $1,896.00
Consumer Online Surveys
Prepare consumer online surveys
                                                                              1
                                                                              4
                                                                              5
                   $23,625 for three consumer online surveys
                                                                       $316.00
Review consumer online survey results
                                                                              2
                                                                              8
                                                                             10

                                                                       $632.00
Subtotal
                                                                              3
                                                                             12
                                                                             15
                                                                       $23,625
                                                                       $948.00
Total
                                                                              9
                                                                             36
                                                                             45
                                                                       $59,375
                                                                     $2,844.00
 *Contractor cost includes facility rental, recruiting, incentives and rewards points, and transcription

	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

      a.	Respondent Tally

      Exhibit 6.4 below summarizes the total annual estimated respondent burden and cost. These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three years covered by this ICR. However, the ten focus groups, and their respective screening calls, and the consumer online surveys will only be conducted once over the three-year period.

Exhibit 6.4. Total Annual Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary
                            Total # of Respondents
                              Total Burden Hours
                                  Annual Cost
                                     2,330
                                      777
                                    $29,513

      b.	Agency Tally

      Exhibit 6.5 below summarizes the total annual estimated Agency burden and cost (including contractor cost). These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three years covered by this ICR. However, the ten focus groups, their respective screening calls, and the consumer online surveys will only be conducted once over the three-year period.

Exhibit 6.5. Total Annual Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary
                                 Burden Hours
                                  Annual Cost
                                      15
                                    $20,740

	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      There is a decrease of 1,220 hours in the estimate of respondent burden hours compared with that identified in the information collection most recently approved by OMB (from 1,997 hours to 777 hours). This decrease reflects a reduction in the total number of responses because EPA will conduct fewer consumer online surveys (three versus four surveys over the course of three years). This decrease is partially offset by an increase in per-response burden estimates for completing the consumer online survey based on experience from the previous ICR. The change is an adjustment.

	6(g)	Burden Statement

      The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0189, is estimated to range between 0.17 hours and 2.0 hours per response depending upon the nature of the respondent. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current and valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

      The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2016 - 0111, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

      You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2016 - 0111 and OMB Control No. 2070-0189, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

      - To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

      - To OMB by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

                    ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

      Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2016 - 0111. These attachments are available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(g) of the Supporting Statement.

Attachment A:	42 USC 13103 - Pollution Prevention Act Section 6604.

Attachment B:	Screening Questionnaire for General Adult Consumer Focus Group

Attachment C: 	Screening Questionnaire for "Leaning Green" Consumer Focus Group

Attachment D:	Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group

Attachment E:	Survey to Test Awareness and Perceptions of EPA's Safer Choice Label:
            General Adult Population Survey


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 54990]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-21-002]

PacificCorp; Notice of Filing

October 16, 2009.
    Take notice that on October 14, 3009, PacificCorp submitted for
filing its compliance filing with corrected pagination, headers, and
footers of the tariff sheets in its Rate Schedule FERC No. 355,
submitted on June 22, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25612 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38441-38442]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ15-15-000]

Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 8, 2015, Orlando Utilities Commission
submitted tariff filing per 35.28(e): Further Regional Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 9, 2015.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16438 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7818-7820]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1272]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Underwater Object, Massachusetts Bay, MA.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary
safety zone surrounding an underwater object located approximately 17
miles northeast of Scituate, Massachusetts in Massachusetts Bay. This
action is necessary to ensure that vessels are not endangered by
dredging, diving, salvage, anchoring, fishing or other activities in
this area. This temporary rulemaking is needed to protect the
environment, the commercial fishing industry, and the general public
from potential hazards associated with the underwater object.

DATES: This rule extends the current temporary regulation, docket
number USCG-2008-1272, Safety Zone; Underwater Object, Massachusetts
Bay, MA which has been in effect since 11 p.m. January 8, 2009, until
11:59 p.m. January 14, 2009. This current rule will be in effect from
12 a.m. January 15, 2009, until 11:59 p.m. March 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-1272 and will be available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. They will also be available for
inspection or copying in two locations: the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, and United States Coast Guard Sector Boston, 427 Commercial
St., Boston, MA 02109 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Chief Eldridge McFadden, Waterways Management, at
617-223-3000. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect
the public from the hazards posed by an unknown underwater object
located in Massachusetts Bay. This object is located in approximately
95 feet of water 17 miles northeast of Scituate, Massachusetts. This
rule extends the existing safety zone, which expired on January 14,
2009, so as to protect the environment, the commercial fishing
industry, and the general public, to the extent practicable, from the
hazards associated with this unknown object, while investigative
efforts continue and risk mitigation strategies are further explored
and implemented.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On January 3, 2009, the vessel PATRIOT, a 54 foot steel-hull boat
was involved in an accident, which resulted in the presumed sinking of
the vessel with the loss of two crewmembers onboard. The F/V PATRIOT
was reported to have an estimated 5000 gallons of fuel onboard. In the
days following the accident, the position of the vessel remained
unknown, but several vessels reported catching their nets on an unknown
object on the bottom of the ocean. On January 8, 2009, the Coast Guard
established a temporary safety zone around this reported underwater
object located in Massachusetts Bay approximately 17 miles northeast
from Scituate, Massachusetts, in position 42[deg]24'27'' N,
70[deg]27'14'' W. This underwater object created an immediate and
significant danger to the environment, the commercial fishing industry,
and the general maritime public, as mariners unaware of its presence
could make contact with the object and cause damage to their vessel
equipment below the water, or fishing gear. While investigative efforts
continue, and risk mitigation strategies are further explored it is
necessary to extend the duration of the safety zone.

Discussion of Rule

    This regulation extends the duration of the temporary safety zone
on the navigable waters of Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts, 17 miles
northeast from Scituate, Massachusetts. The temporary safety zone
extends for 500 yards in all directions from an underwater object
located in approximate position 42[deg]24'27'' N, 70[deg]27'14'' W.
    This action is intended to prohibit vessels and persons from
entering, transiting, anchoring, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing,
trawling, laying cable, or conducting salvage operations in this zone
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Boston,
Massachusetts. This rule extends the current temporary Safety Zone;
Underwater Object, Massachusetts Bay, through 11:59 p.m. March 14,
2009. Once the object can be properly identified and the potential
hazards fully assessed and mitigated, the Coast Guard will cease
enforcement of the safety zone and mariners will be able to transit
through the area. Public notifications will be made of this safety zone
through broadcast notice to mariners. Marine traffic may transit safely
in all other areas of Massachusetts Bay, but are restricted from
entering the area delineated above.
    The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on
vessel traffic due to the limited area and duration covered by this
safety zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and
procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact
on the public. This impact, however, is outweighed by the safety risks
mitigated by the enactment of this zone. Further, the safety zone
covers an area that is so small that mariners will be able to transit
around the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit, anchor, or fish in a portion of the Massachusetts Bay covered
by the safety zone. This rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the
area this rule is affecting is very small and vessels may transit
around the safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation as the rule extends a temporary safety
zone. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are required for this rule because it concerns a safety
zone for an emergency situation of longer than 1 week in duration. A
final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-1272 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-1272  Safety Zone: Underwater Object, Massachusetts Bay,
MA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, of Massachusetts Bay within a 500 yard
radius of underwater object, in approximate position 42[deg]24'27'' N,
70[deg]24'14'' W.
    (b) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port
Boston.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
Sec.  165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, all vessels and persons are prohibited from entering the
safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port Boston. In
addition all vessels and persons are prohibited from anchoring, diving,
dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, laying cable, or conducting
salvage operations in this zone except as authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port Boston.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port Boston or designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed
as directed.
    (5) Persons desiring to enter the safety zone may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Boston via VHF Channel 16 or
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 12:00 a.m.
January 15, 2009, until 11:59 p.m. March 14, 2009.

    Dated: January 14, 2009.
G.P. Kulisch,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. E9-3670 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70398-70399]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2013-0002-N-22]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. The Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collections of information was published on September 16,
2013 (78 FR 56995).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On September 16, 2013, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking
OMB approval. 78 FR 56995. FRA received no comments in response to the
information collection request (ICR) described in this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection request (ICR) and the expected burden. The revised request
is being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Confidential Close Call Reporting System Evaluation-Related
Interview Data Collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0574.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a currently approved
collection.
    Abstract: In the U.S. railroad industry, injury rates have been
declining over the last 25 years. Indeed, the industry incident rate
fell from a high of 12.1 incidents per 100 workers per year in 1978 to
3.66 in 1996. As the number of incidents has decreased, the mix of
causes has also changed toward a higher proportion of incidents that
can be attributed to human and organizational factors. This combination
of trends--decrease in overall rates but increasing proportion of human
factors-related incidents--has left safety managers with a need to
shift tactics in reducing injuries to even lower rates than they are
now.
    In recognition of the need for new approaches to improving safety,
FRA has instituted the Confidential Close Call Reporting System
(C\3\RS). The operating assumption behind C\3\RS is that by assuring
confidentiality, employees will report events which, if dealt with,
will decrease the likelihood of accidents. C\3\RS, therefore, has both
a confidential reporting component, and a problem analysis/solution
component. C\3\RS is expected to affect safety in two ways. First, it
will lead to problem solving concerning specific safety conditions.
Second, it will engender an organizational culture and climate that
supports greater awareness of safety and a greater cooperative
willingness to improve safety.
    If C\3\RS works as intended, it could have an important impact on
improving safety and safety culture in the railroad industry. While
C\3\RS has been developed and implemented with the participation of
FRA, railroad labor, and railroad management, there are legitimate
questions about whether it is being implemented in the most beneficial
way, and whether it will have its intended effect. Further, even if
C\3\RS is successful, it will be necessary to know if it is successful
enough to implement on a wide scale. To address these important
questions, FRA is implementing a formative evaluation to guide program
development, a summative evaluation to assess impact, and a
sustainability evaluation to determine how C\3\RS can continue after
the test period is over. The evaluation is needed to provide FRA with
guidance as to how it can improve the program, and how it might be
scaled up throughout the railroad industry.
    Program evaluation is an inherently data driven activity. Its basic
tenet is that as change is implemented, data can be collected to track
the course and consequences of the change. Because of the setting in
which C\3\RS is being implemented, that data must come from the
railroad employees (labor and management) who may be affected. Critical
data include beliefs about safety and issues related to safety, and
opinions/observations about the operation of C\3\RS.
    The current study is a five-year demonstration project to improve
rail safety, and is designed to identify safety issues and propose
corrective action based on voluntary reports of close calls submitted
to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Because of the innovative
nature of this program, FRA is implementing an evaluation to determine
whether the program is succeeding, how it can be improved and, if
successful, what is needed to spread the program throughout the
railroad industry. Interviews to evaluate the close call reporting
system are being conducted with two groups: (1) Key stakeholders to the
process (e.g., FRA officials, industry labor, and carrier management
within participating railroads); and (2) Employees in participating
railroads who are eligible to submit close call reports to the
Confidential Close Call Reporting

System. Different questions are addressed to each of these two groups.
Interviews are semi-structured, with follow-up questions asked as
appropriate depending on the respondent's initial answer.
    The confidentiality of the interview data is protected by the
Privacy Act of 1974. FRA fully complies with all laws pertaining to
confidentiality, including the Privacy Act. Thus, information obtained
by or acquired by FRA's contractor, the Volpe Center, from key
stakeholders and railroad employees will be used strictly for
evaluation purposes. None of the information that might be identifying
will be disseminated or disclosed in any way. In addition, the
participating railroad sites involved will require Volpe to establish a
non-disclosure agreement that prohibits disclosure of company
confidential information without the carrier's authorization. Also, the
data are protected under the Department of Transportation regulation
Title 49 CFR part 9, which is in part concerned with the Department
involvement in proceedings between private litigants. According to this
statute, if information is subpoenaed, Volpe and Volpe contractors
cannot ``provide testimony or produce any material contained in the
files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any
material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's
official duties or because of that employee's official duty status''
unless authorized by agency counsel after determining that, in legal
proceedings between private litigants, such testimony would be in the
best interests of the Department or that of the United States
Government if disclosed. Finally, the name of those interviewed will
not be requested.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.126A; FRA F 6180.126B.
    Affected Public: Railroad Employees and Key Non-railroad
Stakeholders.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 110 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20503;
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB
at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2013.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-28165 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P