[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5844]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 16, 2009, vol. 74, no. 199, page
53315. This rule set safety and oversight rules for a broad variety of
sightseeing and commercial air tour flights.

DATES: Please submit comments by March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: National Air Tour Safety Standards.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0717.
    Form(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 3,480 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3.5 minutes
per response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 30,320.6 hours
annually.
    Abstract: This rule set safety and oversight rules for a broad
variety of sightseeing and commercial air tour flights.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2010.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-2475 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 37074-37076]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60354; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-065]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Modify Routing of
Orders From NASDAQ Options Market to an Affiliate Exchange

July 21, 2009.
    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 June 29, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. On July 17, 2009, Nasdaq filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On July 17, 2009, Nasdaq filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\3\ Nasdaq has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule
change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Nasdaq made minor non-substantive
corrections to the rule text.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to amend Chapter VI, Sections 1(e)(7) and 11(b) of
the Rules of the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') to modify the
restriction on routing of certain orders to a facility of an exchange
that is an affiliate of NOM.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Options Rules
Chapter VI Trading System
* * * * *
Sec. 1 Definitions
    The following definitions apply to Chapter VI for the trading of
options listed on NOM.
    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include:
    (1)-(6) No change.
    (7) ``Exchange Direct Orders'' are orders that are directed to an
exchange other than NOM as directed by the entering party without
checking the NOM book. If unexecuted, the order (or unexecuted portion
thereof) shall be returned to the entering party. This order type may
only be used for orders with time-in-force parameters of IOC.
    Directed Orders may not be directed to a facility of an exchange
that is an affiliate of Nasdaq other than the Boston Options Exchange.
    (f)-(h) No change.
Sec. 11 Order Routing
    (a) No change.
    (b) For Non-System securities, the order routing process shall be
available to Participants from 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time until market
close and shall route orders based on the participant's instructions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the order routing process will not be
available to route Non-System Securities to a facility of an exchange
that is an affiliate of Nasdaq other than the Boston Options Exchange.
    (c)-(e) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
a. Background
    The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''), a Delaware
corporation, acquired the Boston Stock Exchange (``BSE'') in August
2008. Prior to the acquisition, BSE owned a 21.87% interest in Boston
Options Exchange Group, LLC, the operator of the Boston Options
Exchange facility (``BOX''). Boston Options Exchange Regulation, LLC
(``BOXR'') was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BSE, to which BSE was
delegated, pursuant to a delegation plan, certain self-regulatory
responsibilities related to BOX.
    In connection with the closing of the acquisition by NASDAQ OMX,
BSE transferred its interest in Boston Options Exchange Group to MX US,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Montreal Exchange Inc. NASDAQ OMX
renamed BSE as NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') and relaunched its equity
trading market as the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market in January 2009.
Although BX no longer holds an ownership interest in Boston Options
Exchange Group, it continues to hold self-regulatory obligations with
respect to BOX, a facility of BX. BX, together with BOXR, retains
regulatory control over BOX and BX, as the SRO, remains responsible for
ensuring compliance with the federal securities laws and all applicable
rules and regulations.
    NASDAQ OMX also currently indirectly owns NASDAQ Options Services,
LLC (``NOS'' or the ``Routing Facility''), a registered broker-dealer
and a BOX market participant. Thus, NOS is deemed an affiliate of BX,
BOX and BOXR.
b. Affiliation and Order Routing
    Nasdaq is proposing that NOS be permitted to route Exchange Direct
Orders in System Securities \5\ to BOX without checking the NOM book
prior to routing. Exchange Direct Orders are orders that route directly
to other options markets on an immediate-or cancel basis without first
checking the NOM book for liquidity.\6\ In addition, the proposed rule
change would permit the routing by NOS of orders (including Exchange
Direct Orders) in Non-System Securities from NOM to BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 1(b), ``System Securities''
are all options that are currently trading on NOM pursuant to
Chapter IV of the NOM rules. All other options are ``Non-System
Securities.''
    \6\ Chapter VI, Section (1)(e)(7) of the NOM Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOS is the approved outbound routing facility of Nasdaq for NOM.
Under NOM Rule Chapter VI, Section 11: (1) NOM routes orders in options
via NOS, which serves as the sole ``Routing Facility'' of NOM; (2) the
sole function of the Routing Facility is to route orders in options to
away markets pursuant to NOM rules, solely on behalf of NOM; (3) NOS is
a member of an unaffiliated self-regulatory organization, which is the
designated examining authority for the broker-dealer; (4) the Routing
Facility is subject to regulation as a facility of Nasdaq, including
the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19 of the
Act; (5) NOM must establish and maintain procedures and

internal controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow
of confidential and proprietary information between Nasdaq and its
facilities (including the Routing Facility), and any other entity; and
(6) the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and
employees of the Routing Facility, as a facility of Nasdaq, shall be
deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents,
and employees of Nasdaq for purposes of and subject to oversight
pursuant to the Act, and the books and records of the Routing Facility,
as a facility of Nasdaq, shall be subject at all times to inspection
and copying by Nasdaq and the Commission.
    The Commission has approved NOS's affiliation with BX subject to
the conditions that: (1) NOS remains a facility of Nasdaq; (2) use of
NOS's routing function by Nasdaq members continues to be optional \7\
and (3) NOS does not provide routing of orders in options from NOM to
BX or any trading facilities thereof, unless such orders first attempt
to access any liquidity on the NOM book.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because only Nasdaq members who are Options Participants may
enter orders into NOM, it also follows that routing by NOS is
available only to Nasdaq members who are Options Participants.
Pursuant to Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40) of the NOM Rules, the term
``Options Participant'' means a firm, or organization that is
registered with Nasdaq for purposes of participating in options
trading on NOM as a ``Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm'' or ``Nasdaq
Options Market Maker''.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58324 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 46936 (August 12, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-
23; SR-BSE-2008-25; SR-BSECC-2008-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to modify the conditions noted above regarding the
operation of NOS and allow NOS to route Exchange Direct Orders directly
to BOX, Nasdaq is proposing to amend the restriction in Chapter VI,
Section (1)(e)(7) of the NOM Rules that prohibit the routing of
Exchange Direct Orders to a facility of an exchange that is an
affiliate of Nasdaq. Under the proposed rule change, an Options
Participant could enter an order into NOM designated as an ``Exchange
Direct Order'' with instructions to route that order directly to BOX
without first checking the NOM book.
    In addition, Nasdaq is proposing to amend Chapter VI, Section 11(b)
of the NOM Rules to permit the routing of orders in Non-System
Securities via NOS from NOM to BOX. As a result, orders in Non-System
Securities that are routed to away markets under normal procedures
could be routed to BOX, as well as those that are entered as Exchange
Direct Orders with instructions to route directly to BOX.
    Other exchanges previously have adopted rules that permit exchanges
to accept routing of inbound orders from affiliates, subject to certain
limitations and conditions intended to address the Commission's
concerns regarding affiliation.\9\ In the orders approving these rule
changes, the Commission noted its concerns about potential
informational advantages and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when
the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, but determined that
the proposed limitations and conditions were sufficient to mitigate its
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59153 (December 23,
2008), 73 FR 80485 (December 31, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-098); 59154
(December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-
48); 59010 (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73373 (December 2, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2008-130); 58681 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October
6, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-90); 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR
58283 (October 6, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-76); 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62)
(collectively, the ``Affiliation Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to concerns identified by the Commission regarding the
potential for informational advantages favoring NOS vis-[agrave]-vis
other non-affiliated BOX market participants, these concerns are
addressed by existing NOM Rule Chapter VI, Section 11(e) which requires
NOS to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between Nasdaq and its facilities (including
NOS) and any other entity.
    In addition, BX is proposing a rule change and certain undertakings
intended to manage the flow of confidential and proprietary information
between NOS and BOX and to minimize potential conflicts of
interest.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SR-BX-2009-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change would permit routing of Exchange Direct Orders from NOM to
BOX through NOS while minimizing the potential for conflicts of
interest and informational advantages involved where a broker-dealer is
affiliated with an exchange facility to which it is routing orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ thereunder in
that it effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its recent guidance on the proposed rules of Self-Regulatory
Organizations (``SROs''),\15\ the Commission concluded that filings
based on the rules of another SRO already approved by the Commission
are eligible for immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6). The
Commission noted that ``a proposed rule change appropriately may be
filed as an immediately effective rule so long as it is based on and
similar to another SRO's rule and each policy issue raised by the
proposed rule (i) has been considered previously by the Commission when
the Commission approved another exchange's rule (that was subject to
notice and comment), and (ii) the rule change resolves such policy
issue in a manner consistent with

such prior approval.'' \16\ Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is
``based on and similar to'' the rule changes recently approved in the
Affiliation Orders and furthers efforts to effectively address the
concerns previously identified by the Commission regarding the
potential for conflicts of interest and informational advantages when
an exchange is affiliated with one of its market participants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58092 (July 3, 2008),
73 FR 40144 (July 11, 2008).
    \16\ Id. at 40149.
    \17\ See the Affiliation Orders, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on July 17, 2009, the date on which Nasdaq submitted
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-065 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-065. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-065 and should
be submitted on or before August 17, 2009.

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

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17767 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15502

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Continental Airlines, Inc.  filed  6/24/03 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Nassau, Bahamas; between Boston,
Massachusetts, and Bermuda; between Atlanta, Georgia, on the one hand,
and Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Bogota, Colombia, on the other hand; between
Paris, France, and Bombay, India;  between Atlanta, Georgia, and Dublin,
Ireland; between Atlanta, Georgia, on the one hand, and Cancun,
Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey, and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico, on
the other hand; between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Cancun, Mexico; between
Los Angeles, California, on the one hand, and Guadalajara and Mexico
City, Mexico, on the other hand; between New York (JFK), New York, and
Mexico City, Mexico;  between Atlanta, Georgia, and Lima, Peru; between
New York, New York, and Moscow, Russia; between Atlanta, Georgia, New
York, New York, and Madrid and Barcelona, Spain;  and between New York,
New York, and Istanbul, Turkey; and to combine the authority requested
with Continental’s other exemption and certificate authority.
Continental states that it will use the authority pursuant to a
code-share arrangement with Delta Air Lines, Inc., whereby Continental
will place its code on flights operated by Delta.

XX  Allocation of 3.5 U.S.-Russia code-share frequencies:

Continental requests 3.5 U.S.-Russia frequencies to permit Continental
to offer daily New York-(JFK)-Moscow service on Delta’s flights.

Applicant rep:   R. Bruce Keiner<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The above exemption authority granted was effective when taken:  August
21, 2003, through  August 21, 2005.

The above frequency allocation granted was effective when taken:
August 21, 2003, and will remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the
conditions described below.

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the overall aviation
relationships between the United States and the foreign countries
involved.

- see next page - 											2

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted
is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7
of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.   All of the exemption authority granted
is limited to service provided on a code-share basis only.  Consistent
with our standard practice, the frequency allocation granted is subject
to the condition that if the frequency is not used for a period of 90
days, the allocation as to this frequency will expire automatically and
the frequency will revert to the Department for reallocation.  The
90-day dormancy period will begin on the date of this Notice.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
Continental rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond
rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless
Continental notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any such
carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
Continental’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority
granted here, but that are not then being used by Continental, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Continental in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:  (a) The code-sharing operations conducted
under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment
to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements
that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract
between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon
the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in
the name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and (b)	 the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither Continental nor
Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual provisions
between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

										APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003

   Continental states that it will provide U.S.-Bombay service via
Paris.

   Continental states that all Mexico services will be offered on a
seasonal basis.

   Continental states that it will not offer local New York (JFK)-Madrid
service on Delta flights.

   Continental states that it requires a half frequency for each
roundtrip U.S.-Russia flight on which it codeshares.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24686-24688]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0451; Product Identifier 2017-NM-172-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to untimely
inboard flap retraction. This proposed AD would require modification of
the slat/flap control wiring and replacement of the slat/flap control
box with an improved box. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South
Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0451; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0451;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-172-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0219, dated November 14, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON
900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where, during the take-off run, a red
CAS [crew alerting system] message ``NO TAKE OFF'' was displayed,
and an aural warning was given. The flight crew elected to abort the
take-off. The configuration of the affected aeroplane was SF1 and
indicated airspeed (IAS) was at 100 kts. Investigations showed that
the outboard slat extended microswitch, located at track #7, was not
correctly adjusted. A design review revealed that this deficiency
may affect only Falcon 900LX (commercial designation) without
modification M5636, during take-off in SF1 configuration.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded
retraction of inboard slats and flaps during take-off, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, DA [Dassault
Aviation] designed modification M6043 and published Service Bulletin
(SB) F900EX-522 to provide instructions for embodiment of this
modification in-service.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a
wiring modification and replacement of the slat/flap control box
with an improved box.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0451.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin
F900EX-522, also referred to as 522, dated March 8, 2017. This service
information describes procedures for modifying the slat/flap control
wiring and replacing the slat/flap control box. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification and replacement.......  22 work-hours x $85 per              $8,495         $10,365        $134,745
                                      hour = $1,870.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in
our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0451; Product Identifier
2017-NM-172-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number 240 and
serial numbers 242 through 273 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to
untimely inboard flap retraction. We are issuing this AD to prevent
an uncommanded retraction of the inboard slats and flaps during
take-off, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Modification and Replacement

    Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
modify the slat/flap control wiring and replace the slat/flap
control box having part number (P/N) 6-7061 with an improved control
box, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-522, also referred to as 522, dated
March 8, 2017.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, no person may install any slat/flap control box having
P/N 6-7061 on that airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0219, dated November 14, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0451.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 15, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11422 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49770-49771]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0296]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Western
Equipment Dealers Association (WEDA)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Western Equipment Dealers Association
(WEDA) has requested an exemption on behalf of several other
organizations and their membership from the requirement that no later
than December 18, 2017, a motor carrier require each of its drivers to
use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-
service (HOS). WEDA states that equipment dealer operations in
agriculture constitute unique circumstances that warrant the requested
exemption, and not granting it will pose an undue burden on equipment
dealers and their customers without any measurable safety benefit. In
its application, WEDA seeks a five-year, renewable exemption from the
ELD requirements which, the organization states, if granted will
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption. FMCSA requests
public comment on WEDA's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0296 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2017-0296), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0296'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. 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 comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    WEDA filed this application for exemption on behalf of its own
organization and the following: Northeast Equipment Dealers
Association; North Dakota Implement Dealers Association; Midwest-South
Eastern Equipment Dealers Association; Far West Equipment Dealers
Association; Deep South Equipment Dealers Association; Equipment
Dealers Association and the United Equipment Dealers Association.
    These groups represent approximately 6,000 farm, industrial and
outdoor power equipment dealers in North America. WEDA states that in
the agriculture sector, equipment dealers play a key role in selling
and servicing equipment for farmers and ranchers, as they transport
machinery to and from farms and between dealerships. They partner with
agricultural producers to increase productivity through the training
and use of new equipment technologies. Complying with the ELD
requirement will be unduly burdensome for equipment dealers and their
customers--farmers and ranchers, without providing the sought-after
safety advancements contemplated by the rule.
    Many of the vehicles owned by equipment dealers require a
commercial driver's license to operate. When transporting equipment to
and from the farm, on behalf of the farmer, they are either delivering
new equipment or transporting equipment to a dealership to be serviced.
Equipment dealers also employ service trucks that drive to farms and
ranches to work on customer's equipment and deliver parts to the
customer's location. In either instance, these vehicles usually operate
within a confined distance from the dealership of less than 150 miles,
and are primarily in rural regions of their respective states.
    WEDA states that due to the seasonal, unpredictable and rural
nature of agriculture production, Congress has granted agriculture
businesses numerous exemptions from transportation requirements. The
clear intent was to accommodate agricultural operations by broadening
the scope of existing agribusiness exemptions in terms of distance and
types of entities covered by the exemption because the reality of
farming and ranching operations required it.
    WEDA explains that the agribusiness exemption to the HOS rules is
separate and distinct from the short-haul exemption. Under 49 CFR
(k)(1-3), equipment dealers are exempt from HOS and log book
requirements during State-defined harvest and planting seasons when:
(1) Transporting farm supplies for an agricultural purpose; (2) from
the dealership to a farm; and (3) within a 150 air-mile radius of the
distribution point. This exemption, however, does not cover
transportation of equipment from the farm to a dealership.
    The ELD rule, according to WEDA, creates confusing and overlapping
scenarios due to the conflicting rules placed on equipment dealers.
Depending on the State definition of harvest and planting season, an
equipment dealer may be required to install an ELD for only the couple
of months of the year when the agribusiness exemption is not in effect.
The agribusiness exemption is limited in scope; therefore, an equipment
dealer could be exempt from using an ELD in certain cases, while still
required to utilize an ELD in others.
    The ELD requirements threaten to limit the exemptions and weave a
complex regulatory framework that would be difficult for equipment
dealers to comply with, advises WEDA. The short-haul and agribusiness
exceptions apply in different scenarios at different times, and it is
unclear in the first instance whether both can be combined to cover a
single driving operation. For example, the agribusiness exemption would
not currently apply to an equipment dealer hauling a broken tractor
from a farm to the dealership for repair. The short-haul exemption
would apply, though, so long as the farm is within 100 miles and the
HOS requirements are met. However, suppose a service truck hauling a
trailer visits a farm 120 miles from the dealership to repair a
tractor. After attempting repairs for several hours and working beyond
12 hours in the day, the technician must return with the tractor or
another piece of equipment to perform services at the dealership. The
short haul exemption would not apply because it is beyond the 100-mile
radius and the HOS requirements have been exceeded, nor would the
agribusiness exemption apply because a driver is not covered while
transporting equipment from a farm to the dealership. The driver would
then be required to record the entirety of the day's driving on an ELD
because no exemption applies. This is but one scenario of many where
three complex rules overlap at different intervals to create confusion
about the regulations that should be followed, and do not contribute to
increased safety for the driver or the driving public.
    As a practical matter, WEDA states that equipment dealers are
required to install ELDs in all of their commercial vehicles despite
never or very rarely utilizing them. Because of the complex and
confusing overlap, many dealers will install and utilize ELDs when
unnecessary to avoid harsh penalties including thousands of dollars in
fines and potential shutdown orders. Equipment dealers will not claim
the exemptions intended for them by Congress because the confusion and
complexity spawned by the ELD rule creates the risk of penalties being
imposed which outweigh the benefits. The result will be severely
diminished hours of operation for equipment dealers, and, consequently,
reduced responsiveness to their customers. Costs and downtime for
farmers and ranchers will undoubtedly increase making their agriculture
producers less competitive in a global market.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    WEDA states that its request falls within the FMCSA's discretion to
grant because the law currently provides overlapping exemptions and
exceptions that, taken together with the ELD mandate, create confusing
and contradicting requirements for equipment dealers. In addition,
equipment dealers' operations constitute unique aspects that should
warrant an exemption from the ELD rules. WEDA therefore seeks a five-
year, renewable exemption from the ELD requirements in the Federal
regulations. WEDA believes the request should be granted because the
exemption will achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent the proposed exemption.
    A copy of WEDA's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: October 23, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-23403 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49476-49478]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0023; Notice 2]

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA), on behalf of Dr. Ing.
h.c.F. Porsche AG (PAG), has determined that certain model year (MY)
2017 Porsche 911 Turbo and Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet motor vehicles
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 101, Controls and Displays, and FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake
Systems. PCNA filed a noncompliance report dated March 16, 2017. PCNA
also petitioned NHTSA on March 17, 2017, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Stu Seigel,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA), on behalf of
Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG (PAG), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2017 Porsche 911 Turbo and Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101,
Controls and Displays, and paragraph S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135, Light
Vehicle Brake Systems. PCNA filed a noncompliance report dated March
16, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. PCNA petitioned NHTSA on March 17, 2017,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 11, 2017, in the Federal Register (82
FR 17507). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0023.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 17 MY 2017 Porsche 911 Turbo
and Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet motor vehicles, manufactured between
May 31, 2016, and January 11, 2017, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: PCNA explains that the noncompliance is that
the telltales used for Brake Warning, Park Brake Warning and Antilock
Braking System (ABS) failure warnings are displayed using International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) symbols instead of the words
``Brake'' and ``ABS'' as required by paragraph

S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 and paragraph S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires in
pertinent part:

    S5.2.1 Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control,
telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or
Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column
2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table
1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to
this paragraph must be substantially similar in form to the symbol
as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each
symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must have the
proportional dimensional characteristics of the symbol as it appears
in Table 1 or Table 2 . . .

    Paragraphs S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5.5. Labeling. (a) Each visual indicator shall display a word
or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49
CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver
under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. Unless
otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2
mm (one-eighth inch) high and the letters and background shall be of
contrasting colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in
addition to those required by Standard No. 101 and this section may
be provided for purposes of clarity.
    (b) Vehicles manufactured with a split service brake system may
use a common brake warning indicator to indicate two or more of the
functions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g). If a common
indicator is used, it shall display the word ``Brake.'' . . .
    (d) If separate indicators are used for one or more of the
conditions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g), the indicators
shall display the following wording: . . .
    (3) If a separate indicator is provided for the condition
specified in S5.5.1(b), the letters and background shall be of
contrasting colors, one of which is yellow. The indicator shall be
labeled with the words ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS''; or
``Brake Proportioning,'' in accordance with Table 2 of Standard No.
101 . . .

    V. Summary of PCNA's Petition: PCNA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, PCNA submitted the following reasoning:
    (a) The Owner's Manual for the subject vehicles is written for
multiple markets and depicts both the ``BRAKE'' and ISO symbols
telltales for brake warning, as well as the ``ABS'' and ISO symbol
telltales for ABS lamp.
    (b) The ISO symbol for ABS lamp also contains the word ``ABS'',
which is additionally embedded in a circle with two vertical lines. In
case of an illumination of the ISO symbol, the malfunction display,
located in the instrument cluster will display an additional warning
message that states ``ABS/PSM failure. Drive with caution'' and an
initial warning chime will sound. Porsche believes that in the event
the ISO ABS telltale is displayed, the driver would recognize a
possible ABS malfunction.
    (c) In the event the brake fluid level in the master cylinder
reservoir is less than the recommended safe level, the ISO symbol will
illuminate, and the multifunction display will display a warning
message that states ``Brake fluid level. Park vehicle safely'' and an
initial warning chime will sound. The message will stay continuously
displayed, provided there are no other serious message(s), which would
result in the messages being displayed in an alternating manner. If the
brake fluid is still low on subsequent ignition key cycles the message
will be redisplayed in the message center.
    (d) The parking brake in the subject vehicles are set by pushing a
button labelled ``P'', which is located on the left hand side of the
steering wheel. Once the parking brake is set, a red light indicator
located in the button will illuminate. Thus, the application of the
parking brake is in full view of the operator. When the parking brake
is engaged it illuminates the ISO symbol and, should the operator
proceed with the parking brake engaged, the parking brake releases
automatically if the following prerequisites are fulfilled:
    1. Engine is running;
    2. Driver's door is closed;
    3. Driver's seat belt is fastened.
    If one of these prerequisites is not fulfilled, the electric
parking brake is not automatically released when the operator attempts
to drive off. A message appears on the multifunction display, and the
red light indicator in the button as well as the ISO symbol for the
brake will flash.
    (e) In all cases the ISO symbols for the brake and ABS telltale
illuminate and remain illuminated in accordance with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 135.
    (f) Porsche is unaware of any field or owner complaints regarding
the issue of non-compliant telltales.
    PCNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed PCNA's analyses that the
subject noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Specifically, the use of an ISO telltale indicating both low fluid and
parking brake actuation instead of the word ``BRAKE,'' as required by
paragraph S5.5.5(b) of FMVSS No. 135 and paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No.
101, and an ISO symbol for the ABS telltale, instead of the words
``Antilock'' or Anti-lock'' or ``ABS'' as required by paragraph
S5.5.5(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 135 and paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101,
poses little if any risk to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below,
NHTSA believes that the inadvertent use of the ISO symbols for these
specific vehicles is inconsequential primarily because multiple sources
of information are simultaneously activated to properly warn the driver
of the conditions, and because drivers have, over time, become
increasingly familiar with ISO symbol meaning as many ISO symbols have
been used on U.S.-certified vehicles in conjunction with the required
text.
    1. Per paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 135, all indicators are
activated as a check function when the ignition (start) switch is
turned to the ``on'' (``run'') position when the engine is not running
or when the ignition (start) switch is in a positon between ``on''
(``run'') and ``start.'' As such, each time the driver activates the
starting system on these affected vehicles, the ISO brake warning
symbol and the ISO ABS Malfunction symbol will illuminate. If the
driver is not familiar with the ISO symbol meaning, the owner's manual
can be referenced, which will explain the relationship between the
symbol and its function. NHTSA also believes that as some vehicles
have, over time, incorporated both the required telltale labeling with
adjacent supplementary ISO symbols, the ISO symbols have evolved to
become increasingly recognizable and understandable to drivers. NHTSA
further believes drivers recognize that a telltale illuminated in red
or amber, as is the case here, even if unlabeled, represents a
malfunction which needs to be remedied.
    2. PCNA uses an allowed common indicator for the condition of low
brake fluid and activation of the parking brake. The symbol is red with
a contrasting background color as required in the standard. In a low-
brake-fluid situation, in addition to the ISO symbol illumination, the
operator is provided multiple sources of information of the existence
of a problem. A multifunction display will display a warning message
that is clear and definitive stating ``Brake fluid level. Park vehicle
safely''. In the affected vehicles, the malfunction display is

contained in the instrument panel in plain view of the driver. In
addition, an initial warning chime will sound. The message will be
continuously displayed unless another serious condition is displayed in
which case the messages would be alternating. Low fluid is redisplayed
on subsequent ignition cycles.
    The combination of the red brake ISO symbol, a detailed message on
the instrument cluster for low fluid, and a warning chime provides the
operator ample notification of a brake condition requiring action.
    3. The parking brake on the subject vehicles is electronically
activated by pushing a button labelled ``P'', which is located on the
left side of the steering wheel. When the parking brake is engaged, the
dual-function common ISO symbol will illuminate in red with additional
visual feedback to the operator from illumination of a red indicator
light located in the button. If the operator proceeds with the parking
brake engaged, the brake will release automatically if (1) the engine
is running, (2) the driver's door is closed, and (3) the driver's seat
belt is fastened. These conditions are met most of the time, so the
likelihood of driving with the parking brake engaged is limited.
However, if one these three prerequisite conditions is not fulfilled,
the electric parking brake will not automatically release when the
operator attempts to drive off. Under this circumstance, the red ISO
symbol will flash, which makes it highly noticeable to the driver, the
red parking brake button will remain illuminated, and a message will
appear on the multifunction display. These three redundant visual
indicators to the operator provide ample feedback that the parking
brake remains activated. The agency also believes that the operator in
many cases would be aware of an activated parking brake due to reduced
vehicle drivability from brake drag.
    4. When an ABS malfunction occurs, the amber ISO symbol with the
word ``ABS'' embedded in it illuminates. Although this is the correct
telltale word as specified in the standard, the lettering height is
less than the required 3.2mm. There are two additional redundancies
that provide notification to the operator of an ABS situation: The
statement ``ABS/PSM failure. Drive with caution'' is displayed on the
multifunction instrument cluster and an initial warning chime will
sound. An operator is very unlikely to overlook these three separate
notifications, and remedial action can be taken.
    5. Lastly, the presence of ISO symbols instead of wording on the
instrument panel has no effect on the functionality and performance of
the parking brake system, the service brake system, and the ABS system.
    NHTSA believes that the subject noncompliances on these specific
vehicles--use of the ISO symbol for low brake fluid and parking brake
actuation and ABS malfunction instead of the required words--are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, primarily because illumination
of each ISO symbol is accompanied by multiple redundant operator
notifications including messages on an instrument cluster display and
audible chimes. The manufacturer has stated and we agree, that the ISO
symbol usage for these specific vehicles is unlikely to lead to any
misunderstanding since other sources of correct information beyond the
provided telltales are available.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that PCNA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS Nos. 101 and
135 noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, PCNA's petition is hereby granted and PCNA is
consequently exempted from the obligation to provide notification of,
and a remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that PCNA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery into interstate commerce of the noncompliant
vehicles under their control after PCNA notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-23208 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64906-64907]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

    Extension:
    Order Granting a Conditional Exemption under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 from the Confirmation Requirements of Exchange
Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money Market Funds,
SEC File No. 270-792; OMB Control No. 3235-0739

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
existing collection of information provided for in the following: Order
Granting a Conditional Exemption under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 from the Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a)
for Certain Transactions in Money Market Funds (17 CFR 240.10b-10(a)).
    Rule 10b-10 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) generally requires broker-dealers to provide customers
with specified information relating to their securities transactions at
or before the completion of the transactions. Rule 10b-10(b), however,
provides an exception from this requirement for certain transactions in
money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable net asset value
when no sales load or redemption fee is charged. The exception permits
broker-dealers to provide transaction information to money market fund
shareholders on a monthly, rather than immediate, basis, subject to the
conditions. Amendments to Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``Investment Company Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) among other
things, means, absent an exemption, broker-dealers would not be able to
continue to rely on the exception under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(b) for
transactions in money market funds operating in accordance with Rule
2a-7(c)(1)(ii).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally Money Market Fund Reform; Amendments to Form
PF, Securities Act Release No. 9408, Investment Advisers Act Release
No. 3616, Investment Company Act Release No. 30551 (June 5, 2013),
78 FR 36834, 36934 (June 19, 2013); see also Exchange Act Rule 10b-
10(b)(1), 17 CFR 240.10b-10(b)(1) (limiting alternative monthly
reporting to money market funds that attempt to maintain a stable
NAV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, the Commission issued an Order Granting a Conditional
Exemption under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From The
Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) For Certain
Transactions In Money Market Funds (``Order'') \2\ which allows broker-
dealers, subject to certain conditions, to provide transaction
information to investors in any money market fund operating pursuant to
Rule 2a-7(c)(1)(ii) on a monthly basis in lieu of providing immediate
confirmations as required under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) (``the
Exemption''). Accordingly, to be

eligible for the Exemption, a broker-dealer must (1) provide an initial
written notification to the customer of its ability to request delivery
of immediate confirmations consistent with the written notification
requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a), and (2) not receive any
such request to receive immediate confirms from the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Order Granting a Conditional Exemption Under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From the Confirmation Requirements
of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money
Market Funds, Exchange Act Release No. 34-76480 (Nov. 19, 2015), 80
FR 73849 (Nov. 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of March 31, 2018, the Commission estimates there are
approximately 162 broker-dealers that clear customer transactions or
carry customer funds and securities who would be responsible for
providing customer confirmations. The Commission estimates that the
cost of the ongoing notification requirements would be minimal,
approximately 5% of the initial burden which was previously estimated
to be 36 hours per broker-dealer, or approximately 1.8 hours per
broker-dealer per year to provide ongoing notifications or a total
burden of 292 hours annually for the 162 carrying broker-dealers.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 12, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27267 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49805-49807]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20356]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65039; File No. SR-BX-2011-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Proprietary Traders Qualification Examination (``Series 56'')

August 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 2, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    BX is filing with the Commission the content outline and selection
specifications for the Proprietary Traders Qualification Examination
(``Series 56'') program. BX will implement the proposal upon notice to
its membership.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Recently, BX filed a proposed rule change to recognize a new
category of limited representative registration for proprietary
traders.\3\ Specifically, BX will recognize the new registration
category ``Proprietary Trader'' and the new examination, the Series 56.
The new Proprietary Trader category would be limited to persons engaged
solely in proprietary trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-BX-2011-051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has been working with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') and certain other exchanges, many of
which have recently enhanced their registration requirements to require
the registration of associated persons,\4\ to develop the content
outline and qualification examination that would be applicable to
proprietary traders. The Series 56 examination program is shared by BX
and the following self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''): Boston
Options Exchange; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated;
International Securities Exchange, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; National Stock Exchange, Incorporated; New York
Stock Exchange, LLC; NYSE AMEX, Incorporated; and NYSE ARCA,
Incorporated. Upon request by the SROs referenced above, FINRA staff
convened a committee of industry representatives, BX staff and staff
from the other SROs referenced above, to develop the criteria for the
Series 56 examination program. This new qualification examination, the
Series 56, was recently filed with the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63843
(February 4, 2011), 76 FR 7884 (February 11, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-
115); and 63314 (November 12, 2010), 75 FR 70957 (November 19,
2010)(SR-CBOE-2010-084).
    \5\ Two exchanges have thus far filed a proposed rule change
respecting the Series 56, which has become effective. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64699 (June 17, 2011), 76 FR 36945 (June
23, 2011)(SR-CBOE-2011-056) and SR-NASDAQ-2011-108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 56 examination tests a candidate's knowledge of
proprietary trading generally and the industry rules applicable to
trading of equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series
56 examination covers, among other things, recordkeeping and recording

requirements, types and characteristics of securities and investments,
trading practices and display execution and trading systems. While the
examination is primarily dedicated to topics related to proprietary
trading, the Series 56 examination also covers a few general concepts
relating to customers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proprietary trading firms do not have customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The qualification examination consists of 100 multiple choice
questions. Candidates will have 150 minutes to complete the exam. The
content outline describes the following topical sections comprising the
examination: Personnel, Business Conduct and Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements, 9 questions; Markets, Market Participants,
Exchanges, and Self Regulatory Organizations, 8 questions; Types and
Characteristics of Securities and Investments, 20 questions; Trading
Practices and Prohibited Acts, 50 questions; and Display, Execution,
and Trading Systems, 13 questions. Representatives from the applicable
SROs intend to meet on a periodic basis to evaluate and, as necessary,
update, the Series 56 examination program.
    The Exchange understands that the other applicable SROs will also
file with the Commission similar filings regarding the Series 56
examination program. The Exchange proposes to implement the Series 56
examination program upon availability in WebCRD and notification to its
membership.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,\8\ pursuant to which a national securities
exchange prescribes standards of training, experience and competence
for members and their associated persons, in particular, by offering a
new, qualification examination for proprietary traders. This filing
provides the content outline and relevant specifications for the Series
56 examination program, which should help ensure that all associated
persons engaged in a securities business are, and will continue to be,
properly trained and qualified to perform their functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78(c)(3)(B) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\10\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\12\ a proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30 day operative period for this filing so that it
may become effective and operative upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(6)
thereunder. The Exchange believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
the waiver will allow the Exchange to make the examination available as
soon as possible to coincide with availability on another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reason stated above, the Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and designates the proposal as
operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f). See also 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-052. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BX. 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-BX-2011-052 and should be
submitted on or before September 1, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20356 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller,

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks many different questions I might want to respond to. As a responsible user of e-cigarettes, I do not find it unreasonable to request an extension of the comment period, especially when considering that the FDA spent such a considerable amount of time coming up with the Proposed Rule. While many of us truly wish to provide informed, thoughtful feedback, there are many hours of reading and research that we need to do, and this is the only opportunity that consumers will have to provide you with our feedback. Most of us have limited time to devote to such issues, in spite of how important they are to us and how big of an impact they may have on our lives, and can only devote a few hours per week reviewing the extensive document outlining the proposed regulations.

In short, I believe that e-cigarettes have saved my life, and have the potential to save the lives of many others. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Thank you for your consideration, and I would be happy to discuss this issue further.