[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79956-79960]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 53

[USCG-2009-0239]
RIN 1625-AB33

Protection for Whistleblowers in the Coast Guard

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: By this direct final rule, the Coast Guard is amending its
``Coast Guard Whistleblower Protection'' regulations to conform to
statutory protections for all members of the Armed Forces. The revised
regulations broaden the protection already afforded uniformed members
of the Coast Guard by: Providing that uniformed Coast Guard members may
make protected communications to other persons and organizations in
additiPn to Members of Congress or an Inspector General, and expanding
the subject matter of protected communications to include information
that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence of sexual
harassment and discrimination, among other subjects. Additionally,
changes to the regulations update the responsibilities of the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security to conform to relevant
statutory provisions.

DATES: This rule is effective April 20, 2011, unless an adverse comment
or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is either submitted to
our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before February
22, 2011, or reaches the Docket Management Facility by that date. If an
adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is
received by February 22, 2011, we will withdraw this direct final rule
and publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0239 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, e-
mail or call Commander Michael Cavallaro, U.S. Coast Guard Office of
General Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory Information
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Regulatory Analysis
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Collection of Information
    D. Federalism
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Taking of Private Property
    G. Civil Justice Reform
    H. Protection of Children
    I. Indian Tribal Governments
    J. Energy Effects
    K. Technical Standards
    L. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0239), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and type ``USCG-2009-0239'' in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box type ``USCG-2009-0239'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may also view the docket
online by visiting 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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting for this rulemaking.
But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the
methods specified under ADDRESSES. In your

request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial.
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

III. Regulatory Information

    We are publishing this direct final rule under 33 CFR 1.05-55
because we consider this rule to be noncontroversial and we do not
expect adverse comments regarding this rulemaking. If no adverse
comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received by
February 22, 2011, this rule will become effective as stated in the
DATES section. In that case, approximately 30 days before the effective
date, we will publish a document in the Federal Register stating that
no adverse comment was received and confirming that this rule will
become effective as scheduled. However, if we receive an adverse
comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, we will
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal of
all or part of this direct final rule. If an adverse comment applies
only to part of this rule (e.g., to an amendment, a paragraph, or a
section) and it is possible to remove that part without defeating the
purpose of this rule, we may adopt, as final, those parts of this rule
on which no adverse comment was received. We will withdraw the part of
this rule that was the subject of an adverse comment. If we decide to
proceed with a rulemaking following receipt of an adverse comment, we
will publish a separate notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and
provide a new opportunity for comment.
    A comment is considered ``adverse'' if the comment explains why
this rule or a part of this rule would be inappropriate, including a
challenge to its underlying premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without a change.

IV. Background

    Section 1034 of Title 10 of the United States Code protects
communications made by members of the Armed Forces to Members of
Congress, Inspectors General, and certain other persons and
organizations. It prohibits any person from taking, withholding, or
threatening any personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces
as reprisal for making or preparing any protected communications.
Uniformed members of the Coast Guard are members of the Armed Forces
and are covered by section 1034. See 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4) (defining
``Armed Forces'' to mean ``the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard''). Section 1034 covers allegations and disclosures of
sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination, and gives specific
procedural rights to a complainant alleging reprisal for making a
protected communication. Amending 33 CFR part 53 is necessary to
conform Coast Guard regulations to 10 U.S.C. 1034.

V. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is amending paragraph (a) of section 53.1, Purpose,
to expand the list of organizations and persons to whom protected
communications may be made. The existing language limits protection to
communications made to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.
Under amended paragraph (a), protected communications may also be made
to ``a member of a Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement
organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established
administrative procedures for such communications.'' Through this
amendment to paragraph (a), the Coast Guard is designating the Coast
Guard Investigative Service as an organization to which a uniformed
member of the Coast Guard may make a protected communication. The Coast
Guard Investigative Service is a Federal investigative and protective
program established to carry out the Coast Guard's internal and
external criminal investigations; to assist in providing personal
security services; to protect the welfare of Coast Guard personnel; to
aid in preserving the internal integrity of the Coast Guard; and to
support Coast Guard missions worldwide.
    The Coast Guard is amending section 53.5 to revise and add several
definitions, including adding a definition of ``Protected
Communication,'' which defines the communications covered by 33 CFR
part 53. A ``Protected Communication'' is (1) any lawful communication
to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General; or (2) a communication
in which a member of the Coast Guard communicates information that the
member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation
(including sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination), gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, when such
communication is made to any of the following: A Member of Congress, an
Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense or Department
of Homeland Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law
enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service);
any person or organization in the chain of command; and any other
person or organization designated pursuant to regulations or other
established administrative procedures to receive such communications.
The Coast Guard is also adding a definition for ``Chain of Command,''
which tracks a similar definition used by the Department of Defense in
implementing 10 U.S.C. 1034.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Department of Defense Directive 7050.06, ``Military
Whistleblower Protection,'' Enclosure 2, section E2.3 (July 23,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition for ``Inspector General'' is revised to include any
other Inspector General appointed under the Inspector General Act of
1978, in addition to the Inspector General in the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. The revised
definition of ``Reprisal'' now uses the defined term ``protected
communications.'' The Coast Guard is also removing the definition of
``Law Specialist'' and replacing it with a definition for ``Judge
Advocate,'' which reflects a nomenclature change within the Coast Guard
legal program. A similar nomenclature change is made in section
53.9(c)(2): the parenthetical phrase ``(who may also be serving as the
Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard)'' is added after the term
``Chief Counsel.''
    The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 53 to utilize these new and
revised definitions and to make conforming changes throughout part 53.
Sections 53.7 and 53.11 are amended to incorporate the new and revised
definitions, and section 53.11 is revised to update the contact
information for the DHS Office of the Inspector General. Sections 53.9
and 53.11 are amended to ensure that part 53 consistently covers
allegations of personnel action that was taken, withheld, or threatened
in reprisal by making consistent use of the terms ``taken, withheld, or
threatened.'' Section 53.9 is also amended to consistently indicate
that the ``Secretary'' referred to is the ``Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security.'' Finally, section 53.11(b) is

amended by adding the words ``name(s) of the'' before the words
``individual(s) believed to be responsible'' to clarify what
information is required to be included in the complaint to identify the
individual or individuals believed to be responsible for the alleged
reprisal.
    In 33 CFR 53.9, the Coast Guard is revising slightly the
responsibilities of the Inspector General to conform to those
responsibilities as set forth in 10 U.S.C. 1034. In paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2), the Inspector General now must determine whether there is
sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation before initiating an
investigation of the alleged reprisal. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(c)(3)(A).
Such an investigation is necessary only if there was no prior
investigation or if the prior investigation was biased or inadequate.
See 10 U.S.C. 1034(d). In paragraph (a)(2), the word ``reasonably'' is
inserted to show that information that a Coast Guard member presents as
evidence of a reprisal need only be information that the member
``reasonably believes'' evidences wrongdoing. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(c)(2).
Additionally, the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2), which states ``The
Inspector General is not required to make such an investigation if the
information that the Coast Guard member reasonably believes evidences
wrongdoing relates to actions that took place during combat,'' is
removed because similar language was removed from section 1034. See
Pub. L. 103-337, 531(c)(2) (replacing 10 U.S.C. 1043(c)(4)).
    The time period in which the Inspector General must complete the
investigation is revised from ``90 days'' to ``180 days'' in 33 CFR
53.9(a)(3) and (a)(5) to align with the statute's requirements. See 10
U.S.C. 1034(e)(3). The Coast Guard is also eliminating the requirement
of a final interview of the member alleging reprisal by removing
paragraph (a)(7) because a similar requirement was removed from 10
U.S.C. 1034.
    Additionally, in section 53.9, the following text is being added to
paragraph (a)(4) to clarify what information will be made available to
an individual pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request:
``However, the copy need not contain summaries of interviews conducted,
nor any document acquired, during the course of the investigation. Such
items shall be transmitted to the member, if the member requests the
items, with the copy of the report or after the transmittal to the
member of the copy of the report, regardless of whether the request for
those items is made before or after the copy of the report is
transmitted to the member.'' See 10 U.S.C. 1034(e)(2).

VI. Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis
based on 12 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of
Management and Budget has reviewed it under that Order. It requires an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. However, we believe that a full regulatory analysis is
unnecessary because this rule only affects uniformed members of the
Coast Guard and DHS personnel and has no economic impact on U.S.
industry or the general public.
    This rule will benefit the Coast Guard. Because the rule provides
protection for uniformed Coast Guard members from retaliation by
supervisors or any other member of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard may
now receive information from Coast Guard members on potential breaches
of government policies and regulations that they would not otherwise
have received. This will ensure that uniformed Coast Guard members
receive the same protections Congress affords other uniformed members
of the Armed Forces.

B. 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.
    This rule provides protection for uniformed Coast Guard members
from retaliation and addresses responsibilities of the DHS Inspector
General. Because this rule only affects uniformed Coast Guard members
and DHS personnel, it is unlikely to have any effect on small
businesses.
    Therefore, 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.

C. 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).

D. 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.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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 will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

I. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would 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.

J. 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. Although it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it 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.

K. 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.

L. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 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 that this action
is one of a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(b), of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(b) covers
promulgation of regulations concerning internal agency function or
organization or personnel administration. This rule only affects
uniformed Coast Guard members and DHS personnel and provides protection
from retaliation, and as such concerns internal agency operations. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 53

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Military
personnel, Whistleblowing.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 53 as follows:

PART 53--COAST GUARD WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1034, Pub. L. 100-456, 102 Stat. 1918; Pub.
L. 101-225, 103 Stat. 1908; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.

0
2. In Sec.  53.1, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  53.1  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Establishes policy and implements section 1034 of title 10 of
the United States Code to provide protection against reprisal to
members of the Coast Guard for making a protected communication to a
Member of Congress; an Inspector General; a member of a Department of
Defense or Department of Homeland Security audit, inspection,
investigation, or law enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast Guard
Investigative Service); any person or organization in the chain of
command; and any other person or organization designated pursuant to
regulations or other established administrative procedures for such
communications.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  53.5 as follows:
0
a. Remove the definition for ``Law Specialist''; and
0
b. Revise the definitions for ``Inspector General'' and ``Reprisal''
and add the definitions for ``Chain of Command'', ``Judge Advocate'',
and ``Protected Communications'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:

Sec.  53.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Chain of Command. The succession of commanding officers from a
superior to a subordinate through which command is exercised; and the
succession of officers, enlisted members, or civilian personnel through
whom administrative control is exercised, including supervision and
rating of performance.
* * * * *
    Inspector General. The Inspector General in the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security, or any other Inspector
General, as appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978.
    Judge Advocate. A commissioned officer of the Coast Guard
designated for the special duty of law.
* * * * *
    Protected Communication. Any lawful communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General; or a communication in which a member
of the Coast Guard communicates information that the member reasonably
believes evidences a violation of law or regulation (including sexual
harassment or discrimination), gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety, when such communication is
made to any of the following: A Member of Congress; an Inspector
General; a member of a Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement
organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established
administrative procedures to receive such communications.
    Reprisal. Taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel
action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel
action, against a member of the Coast Guard for making or preparing to
make a protected communication.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  53.7, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  53.7  Requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) A member of the Coast Guard shall be free from reprisal for
making or preparing to make a protected communication.
    (c) Any employee or member of the Coast Guard who has the authority
to take, direct others to take, or recommend or approve any personnel
action shall not, under such authority, take, withhold, threaten to
take, or threaten to withhold a personnel action regarding any member
of the Coast Guard in reprisal for making or preparing to make a
protected communication.

0
5. Amend Sec.  53.9 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (a)(7); and
0
b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1), (c) introductory
text, (c)(1) and (2), (e), and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  53.9  Responsibilities.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Expeditiously determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
warrant an investigation of an allegation that a personnel action has
been taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for making or preparing
to make a protected communication. No investigation is required when
such allegation is submitted more than 60 days after the Coast Guard
member became aware of the personnel action that is the subject of the
allegation.
    (2) If such investigation is warranted, initiate a separate
investigation of the information the Coast Guard member reasonably
believes evidences wrongdoing if a prior investigation has not already
been initiated, or if the prior investigation was biased or inadequate.
    (3) Complete the investigation of the allegation of reprisal and
issue a report not later than 180 days after receipt of the allegation,
which shall include a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
relevant to the allegation, the relevant documents acquired during the
investigation, and summaries of interviews conducted. The Inspector
General may forward a recommendation as to the disposition of the
complaint.
    (4) Submit a copy of the investigation report to the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security and to the Coast Guard member
making the allegation not later than 30 days after the completion of
the investigation. In the copy of the report transmitted to the member,
the Inspector General shall ensure the maximum disclosure of
information possible, with the exception of information that is not
required to be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 552. However, the copy
transmitted to the member need not contain summaries of interviews
conducted, nor any document acquired, during the course of the
investigation. Such items shall be transmitted to the member, if the
member requests the items, with the copy of the report or after the
transmittal to the member of the copy of the report, regardless of
whether the request for those items is made before or after the copy of
the report is transmitted to the member.
    (5) If a determination is made that the report cannot be issued
within 180 days of receipt of the allegation, notify the Secretary and
the Coast Guard member making the allegation of the reasons why the
report will not be submitted within that time, and state when the
report will be submitted.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Consider under 10 U.S.C. 1552 and 33 CFR part 52 an application
for the correction of records made by a Coast Guard member who has
filed a timely complaint with the Inspector General alleging that a
personnel action was taken in reprisal for making or preparing to make
a protected communication. This may include oral argument, examining
and cross-examining witnesses, taking depositions, and conducting an
evidentiary hearing at the Board's discretion.
* * * * *
    (c) If the Board elects to hold an administrative hearing, the
Coast Guard member may be represented by a Judge Advocate if:
    (1) The Inspector General, in the report of the investigation,
finds there is probable cause to believe that a personnel action was
taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for the Coast Guard member
making or preparing to make a protected communication;
    (2) The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard (who may also be serving
as the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard) determines that the
case is unusually complex or otherwise requires the assistance of a
Judge Advocate to ensure proper presentation of the legal issues in the
case; and
* * * * *
    (e) If the Board determines that a personnel action was taken,
withheld, or threatened as a reprisal for a Coast Guard member making
or preparing to make a protected communication, the Board may forward
its recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security for appropriate administrative or disciplinary action against
the individual or individuals found to have taken, withheld, or
threatened a personnel action as a reprisal, and direct any appropriate
correction of the member's records.
    (f) The Board shall notify the Inspector General of the Board's
decision concerning an application for the correction of military
records of a Coast Guard member who alleged reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected communication, and of any recommendation
to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for appropriate
administrative or disciplinary action against the individual or
individuals found to have taken, withheld, or threatened a personnel
action as a reprisal.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  53.11, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  53.11  Procedures.

    (a) Any member of the Coast Guard who reasonably believes a
personnel action was taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for
making or preparing to make a protected communication may file a
complaint with the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General
Hotline at 1-800-323-8603. Such a complaint may be filed: By letter
addressed to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector
General, Hotline, Washington, DC 20528; By faxing the complaint to 202-
254-4292; or by e-mailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (b) The complaint should include the name, address, and telephone
number of the complainant; the name and location of the activity where
the alleged violation occurred; the personnel action taken, withheld,
or threatened that is alleged to be motivated by reprisal; the name(s)
of the individual(s) believed to be responsible for the personnel
action; the date when the alleged reprisal occurred; and any
information that suggests or evidences a connection between the
protected communication and reprisal. The complaint should also include
a description of the protected communication, including a copy of any
written communication and a brief summary of any oral communication
showing the date of communication, the subject matter, and the name of
the person or official to whom the communication was made.
    (c) A member of the Coast Guard who alleges reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected communication may submit an application
for the correction of military records to the Board, in accordance with
regulations governing the Board. See 33 CFR part 52.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Robert J. Papp, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2010-32017 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5027-5031]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01691]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76971; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Establish Rules To Comply With the Quoting and Trading
Requirements of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Plan Submitted
to the Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS Under the Act

January 25, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On October 9, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish rules to comply with the quoting and
trading requirements of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program
(``Plan'') submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS under the Act (``Tick Size Pilot''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 28,
2015.\3\ The Commission has received two comment letters on the
proposal.\4\ On December 3, 2015, the Commission designated a longer
period for Commission action on the proposed rule change, until January
26, 2016.\5\ On January 15, 2016, the Exchange, on behalf of NYSE Arca,
Inc., NYSE MKT LLC, and the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''),
submitted a letter in response to the comment letters.\6\ This order
institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to
determine whether to disapprove 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. 76229 (October 22,
2015), 80 FR 66065 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from Mary Lou Von Kaenel, Managing Director,
Financial Information Forum, dated November 5, 2015 (``FIF
Letter''); and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated December 18, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76551, 80 FR 76602
(December 9, 2015).
    \6\ See letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Co-Head, Government
Affairs, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and John K. Kerin, CEO,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., dated January 15, 2016 (``Response
Letter''). In the Response Letter, the Exchange also commented on
proposed rule changes submitted by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') to
implement the quoting and trading requirements of the Tick Size
Pilot. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76483 (November 19,
2015), 80 FR 73853 (November 25, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-047) and 76552
(December 3, 2015), 80 FR 76591 (December 9, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-
108) (together the ``FINRA/BATS Proposals'').
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    NYSE proposes to adopt NYSE Rule 67(a), (c), (d), and (e) \8\ to
implement the quoting and trading requirements of the Tick Size Pilot.
Proposed Rule 67(a)(1) contains definitions \9\ of ``Plan,'' \10\
``Pilot Test Groups,'' \11\ ``Trading Center,'' \12\ and ``Retail
Investor Order.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange has reserved proposed Rule 67(b) for future use
to require compliance by its member organizations with the
collection of data pursuant to the Plan.
    \9\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(E) provides that all capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in proposed NYSE Rule 67 shall have the
meanings set forth in the Tick Size Pilot, Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act, or Exchange Rules.
    \10\ NYSE proposes to define the ``Plan'' as the Tick Size Pilot
plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS. See proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(A).
    \11\ NYSE proposes to define ``Pilot Test Groups'' as the three
test groups established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot
Securities each, which satisfy the respective criteria established
under the Plan for each such test group. See proposed NYSE Rule
67(a)(1)(B).
    \12\ NYSE proposes to define ``Trading Center'' as having the
same meaning as Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS and for purposes
of a Trading Center operated by a broker-dealer, means an
independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation
SHO, within such broker-dealer. See proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(1)(C).
    \13\ NYSE proposes to define ``Retail Investor Order'' as an
agency order or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of
FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by a retail member organization (or a
divisions thereof that has been approved by the Exchange under the
Exchange's retail liquidity program (Rule 107C) to submit Retail
Investor Orders), provided that no change is made to the terms of
the order with respect to the price or side of market and the order
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized technology. A Retail Investor Order is an immediate or
cancel orders that operate in accordance with the Exchange's retail
liquidity program as set forth in NYSE Rule 107C. See proposed NYSE
Rule 67(a)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2) provides that the Exchange is a
Participant \14\ in the Plan and is subject to the applicable
requirements of the Plan.\15\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(3) provides that
member organizations shall establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the
applicable requirements of the Plan.\16\

Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(4) provides that Exchange systems will not
display, quote, or trade in violation of the applicable quoting and
trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the Plan the
NYSE Rule 67, unless such quotation or transaction is specifically
exempted under the Plan.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms not defined in
this order shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.
    \15\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2).
    \16\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(3).
    \17\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5) defines the procedure for dealing with
Pilot Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. If the
price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading but
does not have a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security will
continue to trade according to the quoting and trading requirements of
its originally assigned Test Group in the Plan. If a Pilot Security has
a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security would be moved from its
respective Test Group into the Control Group, and would be quoted and
traded at any price increment that is currently permitted by Exchange
rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period.\18\ Proposed NYSE Rule
67(a)(5) further provides that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary, at all times during the Pilot Period, Pilot Securities
(whether in the Control Group or any Pilot Test Group) will continue to
be subject to the requirements contained in Paragraph (b).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5).
    \19\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has reserved
Paragraph (b) for the data collection contemplated under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group One. Specifically, NYSE
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group One.\20\ Orders priced to trade at the
midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer (``NBBO'') or
best protected bid and best protected offer (``PBBO'') and orders
entered into the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as Retail Price
Improvement Orders may be ranked and accepted in increments of less
than $0.05.\21\ Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to
trade at any price increment currently permitted.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
    \21\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
    \22\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, NYSE
proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person
any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or
indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Two.\23\ Further, NYSE proposes that absent
any enumerated exceptions, no member organization may execute orders in
any Test Group Two Pilot Security in a price increment other than
$0.05.\24\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3) provides for three exceptions
where Test Group Two Pilot Securities could trade in increments of less
than $0.05. First, trading could occur at the midpoint between the NBBO
or the PBBO.\25\ Second, Retail Investor Orders may be provided with
price improvement that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO.\26\
Finally, Negotiated Trades may trade in increment less than $0.05.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Similar to the exception in Test Group One, orders priced
to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and orders entered into
the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as Retail Price Improvement
Orders may be ranked and accepted in increments of less than $0.05.
See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d).
    \24\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(2) applies to all trades,
including Brokered Cross Trades.
    \25\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(A).
    \26\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(B).
    \27\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e) describes the quoting and trading
requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. NYSE proposes for
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three no member organization may
display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-
displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in
increments other than $0.05.\28\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(2) states
that absent an enumerated exception, no member organization may execute
orders in any Test Group Three Pilot Security in a price increment
other than $0.05.\29\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(3) provides for the same
three exceptions as in Test Group Two.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Similar to the exceptions in Test Group One and Test Group
Two, orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the NBBO or PBBO and
orders entered into the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program as
Retail Price Improvement Orders may be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05. See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(1).
    \29\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(2) applies to all trades,
including Brokered Cross Trades.
    \30\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4) states the Test Group Three Pilot
Securities will be subject to a Trade-at Prohibition. Proposed NYSE
Rule 67(e)(4)(A) defines ``Trade-At Prohibition'' as the prohibition
against executions by a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot
Security at the Price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy
order at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading
hours.\31\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(B) states that absent any
enumerated exception, no member organization may execute a sell order
for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected
Bid or a buy order at the price of a Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C) provides that a member organization
may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at
the price of a Protected Bid or a buy order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer under the following
14 circumstances. First, an order may be executed by a Trading Center
within a member organization that has a displayed quotation for the
account of that Trading Center on a principal basis, via either a
processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at
Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was received,
but only up to the full displayed size of the Trading Center's
previously displayed quote.\32\ In the Notice, NYSE stated that ``[b]y
requiring the displayed quotation to be for the account of `that
Trading Center,' the Trading Center cannot rely on any quotations it
may put up on an agency basis, including a riskless principal basis.''
\33\ NYSE further noted that ``[a] Trading Center that is a broker-
dealer also cannot rely on any quotation that is not a displayed
quotation for its own account, such as a quotation of another broker-
dealer, or customer of such broker-dealer.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(i).
    \33\ See Notice at note 26.
    \34\ See Notice at note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second exception permits the execution of an order that
consists of odd lot orders and odd lot portions of partial round lot
orders that are displayed on the SRO Quotation Feed at the price equal
to the traded-at Protected Quotation, up to the size of the displayed
quotation.\35\ The third exception allows the execution of an order
that is of Block Size \36\ at the time of origin and is not: An
aggregation of non-block orders; broken into orders smaller than Block
Size prior to submitting the order to a Trading Center for execution;
or executed on multiple Trading Centers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Proposed Supplementary Material .10 to NYSE Rule
67(e)(4)(c)(ii) states that a member would be prohibited from
breaking round lot order or a round lot portion of a partial round
lot into an odd lot order to avoid the restrictions of the proposed
Rule.
    \36\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market
value of at least $100,000.
    \37\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth exception permits the execution of a Retail Investor
Order

executed with at least $0.005 price improvement.\38\ The firth
exception permits the execution of an order when the Trading Center
displaying the Protected Quotation that was traded-at experiences a
failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or
equipment.\39\ The sixth exception permits the execution of an order as
part of a transaction that was not a regular way contract.\40\ The
seventh exception permits the execution of an order as part of a
single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction on the
Exchange.\41\ The eighth exception permits the execution of an order
when a Protected Bid is priced higher than a Protected Offer in the
Pilot Security.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iv).
    \39\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(v).
    \40\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vi).
    \41\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(vii).
    \42\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ninth exception permits the execution of an order that is
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order.\43\ The tenth
exception permits the execution of an order by a Trading Center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute
against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was
traded at.\44\ The eleventh exception permits the execution of an order
that is part of a Negotiated Trade.\45\ The twelfth exception permits
the execution of an order when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed within one second
prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a
Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the
Pilot Security with a price that was inferior to the price of the
Trade-at transaction.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(ix).
    \44\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(x).
    \45\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xi).
    \46\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The thirteenth exception permits the execution of an order by a
Trading Center, which at the time of order receipt, had guaranteed an
execution at no worse than a specified price (a ``stopped order'')
where: (1) The stopped order was for the account of a customer; (2) the
customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and
(3) the price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order,
equal to the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of
execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to the National Best
Offer in the Pilot Security at the time of execution.\47\ Finally, the
last exception permits the execution of an order that is for a
fractional share of a Pilot Security, provided that such fractional
share order was not the result of breaking an order for one or more
whole shares of a Pilot Security into orders for fractional shares or
was not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Tick Size
Pilot.\48\ Proposed NYSE Rule 67(D) states that no member organization
shall break an order into smaller orders to evade the requirements of
the Trade-at Prohibition or any provisions of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiii).
    \48\ See Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(xiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and the Exchange's Response

    The Commission has received two comment letters on the proposed
rule change and a response from the Exchange. One commenter expressed
concern with the differences between the NYSE proposal and the rules to
comply with the quoting and trading requirements of the Plan proposed
in the FINRA/BATS Proposals,\49\ particularly with respect to the
Trade-at Prohibition.\50\ The commenter noted that the NYSE proposal
would limit a Trading Center from price matching a Protected Quotation
to when the Trading Center is displaying in a principal capacity, while
the FINRA/BATS Proposals are not so restrictive. The commenter stated
its belief that the FINRA/BATS Proposals are more consistent with the
terms of the Plan, and that the Commission should approve it instead.
The commenter further stressed the importance of consistency in the
rules implementing the Plan, and expressed the view that if the
different proposals are approved, compliance by market participants
``would be virtually impossible.'' \51\ This commenter also noted that
there are differences in certain key defined terms, such as ``Retail
Investor Order,'' between the NYSE proposal and the FINRA/BATS
Proposals.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See supra note 6.
    \50\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \51\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter also expressed concern with the proposal's
limitation of the exception to the Trade-at Prohibition discussed above
to principal quotations, and with the certain defined terms, such as
``Retail Investor Order'' and ``Block Size''.\53\ In addition, it
suggested the inclusion of certain other exceptions that align with
those available, through Commission exemption and guidance, in
connection with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, and raised questions as to
whether the proposal was limited to the exchange-related activities of
NYSE members, or would apply to their off-exchange activities as
well.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See FIF Letter.
    \54\ The commenter stated its belief that the additional
qualifiers will inhibit a Trading Center from facilitating a block
cross trade. See FIF Letter. The commenter also raised other issues
not directly addressed by the Exchange's proposal, such as the
timeline for implementation, additional exceptions for Trade-at
Prohibition, and unanswered questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Response Letter, the Exchange expressed the view that its
proposal is consistent with the goals of the Plan, including testing
whether market participants are incentivized to display more liquidity
in a wider tick environment. On the other hand, in the Exchange's
opinion, the FINRA/BATS Proposals would create an incentive for trading
in Test Group Three to migrate to dark venues, which would be
inconsistent with the goals of the Plan. Specifically, the Exchange
expressed the view that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow an
alternative trading system (``ATS'') to execute matched trades of any
of its participants at the price of a Traded-at Protected Quotation if
the ATS is displaying, on an agency basis, a quotation of another
participant at the Protected Quotation. Thus, the Exchange reasoned
that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow trades by ATS participants at
the price of a Protected Quotation without requiring them to display a
Protected Quotation, but instead ``free-ride'' on the Protected
Quotation of another participant in the ATS that is displayed, on an
agency basis by the ATS. This would, in the opinion of the Exchange,
``eviscerate'' the requirement for dark pools to trade with Protected
Quotations, and be contrary to the Commission's intent for the Trade-At
Prohibition to test whether market participants are incentivized to
display more liquidity in a wider tick environment.
    The Exchange confirmed one commenter's understanding with respect
to the Retail Investor Order exception and that the exception would
allow for over-the-counter trading. Additionally, the Exchange stated
that it opposed changing the Block Size exception as the Exchange does
not believe that a trading center should be permitted to facilitate a
block cross that aggregates multiple smaller orders, even if one
component of the block meets the definition of Block Size Order.

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NYSE-2015-46 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \55\ to determine whether the Exchange's
proposed rule change should be disapproved. Institution of proceedings
is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues
raised by the proposed rule change as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule
change to inform the Commission's analysis whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\56\ 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 6(b)(5) of the Act and Section
6(b)(8) of the Act. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \57\ requires that an
exchange's rules be designed, among other things, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
to protect investors and the public interest, and that they not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \58\ requires that rules
of the exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days
of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed
rule change. Id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be
extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for
such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. Id.
    \57\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \58\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would establish rules for NYSE member
organizations to comply with the quoting and trading requirements of
the Tick Size Pilot. NYSE proposes to adopt a version of the Trade-at
Prohibition that would be more restrictive than required by the Plan,
the applicable provisions of which would permit a Trading Center to
execute an order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three if that
Trading Center ``is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or
an SRO quotation feed, at a price equal to the traded-at protected
quotation but only up to the trading center's full displayed size.''
\59\ The Exchange's proposal would limit the ability of a Trading
Center to rely on this exception to the Trade-at Prohibition to
situations where it is displaying a quotation as principal, and not
where it is displaying a quotation as agent (including riskless
principal). The Exchange justifies this additional restriction out of
concern that Trading Centers that are ATSs might be used to execute a
``matched trade'' by an ATS participant that itself is not displaying a
Protected Quotation, but instead is relying upon another ATS
participant to do so, thereby creating a ``loophole'' in the Trade-at
Prohibition. However, by precluding any Trading Center from relying on
any quotation displayed as agent, the Exchange's proposal effectively
would preclude all ATSs, which necessarily execute orders as agent,
from executing transactions at the NBBO even if they are displaying a
Protected Quotation. The Exchange has not clearly explained why it
believes a new ATS business model--one that allows priority for
participants executing ``matched trades'' over displayed quotations--is
viable and likely to arise in the context of the Tick Size Pilot.
Further, even if the Exchange were able to offer such an explanation,
it has not clearly explained why there is not a more targeted way to
address this potential loophole in the Trade-at Prohibition than one
which precludes all ATSs, including those operating as traditional
electronic communication networks, or ``ECNs,'' from executing
transactions at the NBBO. The Commission therefore believes that
questions are raised as to whether the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) and Section 6(b)(8)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Tick Size Plan Section VI.D.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by February 19, 2016.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016. Although there
do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-46 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-NYSE-2015-46. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2015-46 and should be submitted on or before February 19, 2016.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01691 Filed 1-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 59100-59101]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2007-0007]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0106

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an
extension of their approval for the following collection of
information: 1625-0106, Unauthorized Entry into Cuban Territorial
Waters. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 17,
2007.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material do not enter
the docket [USCG-2007-0007] more than once, please submit them by only
one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Mail or Hand Deliver to: Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand
deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Fax to: Docket Management Facility:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    A copy of the complete ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are

available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal

information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
Docket Management Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy
Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this request [USCG-2007-0007], indicate the specific
section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a
reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter.
This also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission due to technical difficulties and you cannot be contacted,
your submission may not be considered. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change the
documents supporting this collection of information or even the
underlying requirements in view of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to

view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this notice (USCG-2007-0007) in the Docket ID box, and click enter.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room W12-140 on
the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Unauthorized Entry into Cuban Territorial Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0106.
    Summary: This information collection is needed to enforce, comply
with and facilitate application for permits under the unauthorized
entry into Cuban territorial seas regulations (33 CFR part 107)
promulgated under 50 U.S.C. 191 and 194, and Presidential Proclamation
6867, 61 FR 8843, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 8; Presidential Proclamation
7757 (69 FR 9515, March 1, 2004).
    Need: Title 33 CFR part 107 prescribes regulations governing the
unauthorized entry by U.S. vessels into Cuban territorial waters and
their applications for permits to enter. The collection of information
from applicants is required to comply with the regulations and to
facilitate the application process for persons seeking

permits to enter Cuban territorial seas pursuant to the regulation.
    Respondents: Owners, operators and masters of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 133 hours
to 1 hour a year.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
 [FR Doc. E7-20606 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62552-62554]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0960]

 Coast Guard Acceptance of Sewage Treatment Plants for Type-
Approval to International Maritime Organization Resolution MEPC.227(64)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Policy and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its acceptance of sewage treatment
plants (also referred to as marine sanitation devices) for type-
approval to International Maritime Organization resolution MEPC.227(64)
as meeting the requirements for marine sanitation devices. This action
will allow manufacturers as well as shipowners and operators the option
to take advantage of building and using equipment that meets both
domestic and international requirements while also benefitting the
environment. The Coast Guard is also seeking information on simple on
board checks to verify performance of sewage treatment plants.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 16, 2015.
    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0880
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Wayne M. Lundy, CG-ENG-3, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1379, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.
    We are also planning to hold a two-day public workshop in
Washington DC in the fall of 2015. We will issue a separate Federal
Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a
workshop. The purpose of the workshop will be to discuss sewage
treatment technologies, issues concerning testing of marine sanitation
devices for type approval and information on simple on board checks to
verify performance of a marine sanitation device. The workshop will
also consider issues associated with existing federal standards and
MARPOL Annex IV equipment standards (resolution MEPC.227(64)), impact
of No Discharge Zones, and issues concerning gray water.

Background and Purpose

    Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 159,
prescribes requirements for the design and construction of marine
sanitation devices (``MSDs'', also referred to as sewage treatment
plants) and procedures for certifying that MSDs meet the regulations
and standards of the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated under
Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500,
Sec.  312, 86 Stat. 871 (October 18, 1972), as amended; classified to
33 U.S.C. 1322). In October 2012, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) adopted resolution MEPC.227(64)--2012 Guidelines on
implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage
treatment plants. The International Convention on the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships 73/78 (MARPOL) Annex IV requires sewage treatment
plants to be type-approved taking into account the standards of IMO
Resolution MEPC.227(64). While the United States is not a Contracting
Government to MARPOL Annex IV, we recognize that the limits and
standards in IMO resolution MEPC.227(64) are more stringent or
prescriptive than those requirements in 33 CFR 159 concerning threshold
limits and testing of equipment and thus equipment that is type-
approved to the MEPC.227(64) standards would also satisfy U.S.
threshold effluent limits. Specifically, we have determined that a MSD
meeting the design specifications in MEPC.227(64) would exceed the
performance specifications for Type II tanks, as listed in 33 CFR
159.53(b), which states that, ``[u]nder the test conditions described
in Sec. Sec.  159.126 and 159.126a, [the tanks must] produce an
effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200
per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150
milligrams per liter.''
    In recognition of this, the Coast Guard believes MSDs type-approved
in accordance with the requirements of IMO resolution MEPC.227(64) and
installed on U.S. flagged ships comply with those threshold effluent
limits in 33 CFR 159.53(b). MSDs must still meet the other requirements
contained in part 159, and any inconsistencies between part 159 and
MEPC.227(64) must be resolved in favor of part 159. Manufacturers may
submit their equipment to a recognized testing facility recognized by
the Coast Guard for testing of such equipment and may make a submission
to the Coast Guard requesting type approval.
    Resolution MEPC.227(64) also contains a process allowing the Coast
Guard to certify that a type-approved MSD meets the specific effluent
discharge requirements for a vessel to enter Special Areas listed in
MARPOL Annex IV. The Coast Guard would certify that the MSD meets the
enhanced

effluent discharge and treatment specifications listed in MEPC.227(64).
Under MARPOL Annex IV Regulations 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, vessels with MSDs
conforming to the Special Area specifications contained in MEPC.227(64)
may be permitted to operate in Special Areas. This certification would
allow U.S.-flagged vessels to document that they meet those standards.
    However, U.S.-flagged vessels voluntarily installing MSDs in
accordance with MARPOL Annex IV standards must comply with the U.S.
application of MEPC.227(64), as follows, to receive U.S. certification.
Currently, MEPC.227(64), is vague on the amount of reduction required
for thermotolerant coliform (TC), total suspended solids (TSS),
biochemical oxygen demand without nitrification (BOD5) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD). While Section 3 of MEPC.227(64) states
that ``[i]n meeting the effluent standards in Section 4, an approved
sewage treatment plant should not rely solely on dilution of
wastewater,'' there are no specific levels of reduction given for TC,
TSS, BOD5 and COD (unlike the specific Percent Reductions
given for discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus in Section 4.2).
    IMO Resolution MEPC.227(64) states that an approved MSD not rely
solely on dilution of wastewater in order to meet the effluent limits
stipulated in resolution MEPC.227(64). Resolution MEPC.227(64) further
states that, where amounts of dilution are deemed essential to a
treatment process, the effluent standards in Section 4 should be
adjusted proportionally using dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe to
account for dilution Qd.\1\ In order to demonstrate that the MSD does
not rely solely on dilution of wastewater in order to meet the effluent
standards, the effluent concentration value Ce for any particular
analyte addressed in resolution MEPC.227(64), Section 4.1
(specifically, TC, TSS, BOD5 and COD) will need to be less
than the effluent standard for that analyte multiplied by the dilution
compensation factor Qi/Qe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dilution (Qd)--is dilution water, grey water, process water,
and/or seawater introduced to the sewage treatment plant after the
influent sample point and after the influent flow measurement
device, see figure 1 of resolution MEPC.227(64).
    Effluent (Qe)--is treated wastewater produced by the sewage
treatment plant, see figure 1 of resolution MEPC.227(64).
    Influent (Qi)--is liquid containing sewage, grey water or other
liquid streams, to be processed by the treatment plant, see figure
1of resolution MEPC.227(64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for a MSD to be able to be technically evaluated for type
approval under MEPC.227(64), the concentration value of the effluent
for that analyte being considered must be readable, i.e., at or above
the detection limit for the test method for that analyte. For
consideration by the Coast Guard, a MSD, after application of the
dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe, the revised effluent concentration
value of any analyte measured at the Effluent Sample Point as shown in
figure 1 of this Notice of Policy cannot be below the Test Method
detection limit for that analyte. Figure 1 is replicated from
resolution MEPC.227(64). If the revised concentration value is below
the Test Method detection limit for that analyte, then it becomes
impossible for the concentration value to be physically measured.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC15.037

    To make the above determination for Annex IV certification, the
Coast Guard will use the approved test methods that are listed in the
Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR 136, Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants). The
following methods must be used:
     Thermotolerant Coliform (TC) Test Method EPA 600/8-78-017
Chapter III \2\

(Detection Limit = 1 colony form unit (CFU)/100 mL),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Please refer to Page Number 124 in document USEPA. 1978.
Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment, Water, and
Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/8-78/017;
weblink: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/300014TD.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976%20Thru%201980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C76THRU80%5CTXT%5C00000000%5C300014TD.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Test Method 160.2 (Detection
Limit = 4.0 mg/L),
     Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) without
nitrification \3\ Test Method 5210 B\3\ (Detection Limit = 2.0 mg/L),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The equivalent U.S. EPA Test Method for Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) without nitrification is done as carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) and should not be confused with
the traditional BOD5 test method which measures ``total BOD''. The
addition of the nitrification inhibitor is not a procedural option,
but must be included to report the CBOD5 parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Test Method 410.4 (Detection
Limit = 3.0 mg/L),
     pH Test Method 150.1 (none stated but not normally
reported below 0.01),\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There is no US EPA Test Method listed in 40 CFR 136 so the
US EPA has adopted American Public Health Association (APHA)
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The
current edition is the 22nd edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total Nitrogen \5\ 351.2 (Detection Limit = 0.5 mg/L),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Total Nitrogen means the sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(organic and ammoniacal nitrogen) nitrate-nitrogen and nitrite-
nitrogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Phosphorus Test Method 365.2 (Detection Limit = 0.01 mg/L)
and Disinfectant residual
     Chlorine Test Method 330.5 (Detection Limit = 0.2 mg/L)
    The Coast Guard is also seeking information on possible simple on
board checks that may be available and easily used to verify
performance of a sewage treatment plant with effluent requirements.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: October 9, 2015.
F.J. Sturm,
Deputy Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-26285 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 3128]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventh Meeting, Special Committee 211, Nickel-Cadmium, Lead Acid
and Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 211, Nickel-Cadmium, Lead Acid
and Rechargeable Lithium Batteries.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 211, Nickel-Cadmium, Lead Acid and
Rechargeable Lithium Batteries.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 18-19, 2009 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, Colson Board Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org for directions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 211 meeting. The agenda will
include:
     Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and
Administrative Remarks, Agenda Overview).
     Review/Approval of the Sixth Meeting Summary, RTCA Paper
No. 047-08/SC211-017.
     Discuss steps necessary to incorporate NiMh technology
into DO-293 as requested by the FAA.
     Address other changes proposed for DO-293 based on MOPS
usage experience.
     Address other changes proposed for DO-311 based on MOPS
usage experience.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E9-819 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P