Memorandum to File
Subject:  Meeting with CalPortland on Proposed Reasonable Progress FIP
From:      Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division
To:  File
Date:  March 26, 2014
Participants:
 CalPortland: Jay Grady Director, Environmental Affairs, CalPortland
                        Bruce Shafer, Senior VP Cement Operations, CalPortland
                        Wayne Nastri, Co-President, E4 Strategic Solutions, Inc.
                        Howard Berman, Co-President, E4 Strategic Solutions, Inc.

EPA:              Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9
                       Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division
                        Eugene Chen, Engineer, Permits Office
                        Shaheerah Kelly, Engineer, Permits Office
                        Thomas Webb, Project Lead, Planning Office
                        Charlotte Withey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Regional Counsel

Summary:  Representatives of CalPortland went over their comments on the proposed FIP in advance of submittal. They went over several areas in EPA's technical analysis where they asserted that EPA had made errors. Their overall position was that no controls should be required at CalPortland because the visibility benefits are minimal. Their major points were:
   * They did not want the option of an annual tonnage limit (cap) because it would limit production.
   * They believed EPA had made errors in its modeling.  CalPortland redid the modeling with revised inputs and planned to submit that as part of its comments.
   * CalPortland asserted that a 50% control efficiency number was too high and EPA should use a 35% control efficiency number because the kiln was a retrofit design.
   * CalPortland planned to submit revised cost information with its formal comments


                      EPA HCl Performance Specification
                         Draft Conference Call Summary
                  Thursday August 4, 2011 from 1:30-2:00 EDT.
        Call in Conference Number 1-866-299-3188, code is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
                         Stakeholder Discussion Topic:
                            RATA  -  Requirements?

1) Welcome  -  Introduction
   a) EPA plans to have stakeholder calls on various topics at a frequency of once every two weeks
   b) We will work from the list of issues previously sent to the stakeholder. We will try to limit discussion to the announce topic so stakeholders can choose which conference calls to attend.  Our timing remains to start the first draft by the middle of August and have the first full draft for Stakeholder review by the end of the calendar year (2011).
   c) Today's agenda includes:
      i) Should a RATA be required?
      ii) What is the reference method? (Method 26A or Method 320)
      iii) Should RATA be done at the level of the standard?
   d) For the performance specification EPA will follow the existing template that includes the initial instrument qualification.  Ongoing QC will be promulgated separately.  General provision in 60.13 and 63.8 will be reviewed and may apply.
2) Is a RATA necessary for some or all of the HCl technologies?
   a) Is a RATA required that includes traversing the stack with the reference method
   b) How should stack gas stratification be addressed
   c) What RATA methodology can be applied to the new low standards for Cement MACT (~3 ppm) and Utility Industry MACT (proposed ~1.2 ppm).

      Ralph Roberson, RMB Consulting: How can you do a relative accuracy test using a conventional reference method with a CEM and expect there to be a 10% agreement at these low emission limits?  The alternative example is the option in for mercury analysis including allowable mean differences to be on the order of the standard limit.  Conventional RATAs don't seem to provide useful comparison information at these low concentration levels.

      Jim Peeler, Emission Monitoring Inc.: Most cement plants running with inline raw mills will have fractional ppm of HCl emissions when the mill is operating and much higher HCl emissions when the mill is off line.  Neither the CEMs nor Method 321 (FTIR) have the ability to provide meaningful RATA comparison at the fractional ppm concentrations expected during "mill off" operation.  Since cement kiln operators don't have a way to set their HCl emissions at a particular level, it is not possible to specify performing a RATA during process operation that generates HCl at the standard limit.

Ray Merrill, EPA: Under consideration is self validating performance based measurements in sufficient replicates with one instrument to generate statistically valid precision and bias results that qualify the initial setup of an HCl CEM.   Examples of method evaluation/validation include Method 320 and Method 301.  Each of these methods requires spiked and unspiked measurements to generate statistically valid precision and bias method performance measures.  The object for the performance evaluation is to ensure data of known and useful quality are generated during the initial setup and use of the HCl CEM.

Jim Peeler: I'm assuming RATA is used in the conventional sense of using a reference method for comparison to the CEMs.  Analyte spiking with an appropriate number of replicates would be a substitute for a RATA.

Pete Zemek, MKS Instruments:  Moving away from a RATA toward a self validating technique raises concerns:
            (a)            Do you assume the tag value of the spike gas is correct or is a secondary source required for the spiking gas.  His experience is that measured values of two tanks at the same nominal concentration vary by 20%.  When he gets different values from two cylinders that are nominally the same concentration the standard procedure is taking the vendor for recertification.
            (b)             Do you analyze the spike gas directly at the analyzer dry to determine the spike concentration and then measure through the probe to determine bias and precision against the analyzer spike values
               (i) RATAs include much more stringent agreement than the method validation techniques. (e.g.,  30 % is a much looser requirement than  10 % to a reference method.
      Jim Peeler:  His test team always analyzes the cylinder gas directly from the tank. When the tank concentration fails to agree with his IR reference spectra, his team send the cylinders back to the vendor.  He bases this procedure on the fact that his reference spectra are as good as the spectra being used by gas vendors.
3) NIST Certified HCl Gas Standards
   a) Bob Davis, AirGas:  Adopting the self validating procedure using certified calibration gas underscores the need for a NIST certified HCl standard gas to ensure Vendor supplied gases are certified and recertified correctly.
   b) Ray Merrill:  As an update, EPA has spoken with NIST and there is a plan in place to have a reference gas material (RGM) standard HCl certification available to gas vendors. NIST will start their HCl RGM process in June of 2012.  During the call, Frank Gunther at NIST asked about instrumental technologies that are available to measure low level HCl gas.  Bob Wright in EPA's Office of Research and Development will include the HCl RGM in his Green Book descriptions of protocol gases.  VSL in the Netherlands has a memo of understanding and will be working with NIST on the HCl RGM standard.
4) Stack Stratification Measurement related to HCl Performance Specification 24:32/34:14
   a) Pete Zemek: We've assumed HCl was a homogeneous well-mixed gas and that stratification added no bias to the measurement of HCl.  Well mixed gases can be sampled proportionately. Method 321 does not require traversing the CEM probe.    That leaves isokinetic sampling only a requirement if a reference method (such as Method 26A) is selected for the RATA.
   b) Jim Peeler: We think that Method 26A is entirely inappropriate for measuring HCl at any source category where there is reactive particulate that can remove HCl from the gas stream.  Both Method 26A and Method 26 are not allowed by EPA for use in the cement and lime manufacturing industry for over 10 years because of the known low biases with these method at those sources.  The initial flow traverse to determine stratification should be used to select the point of average velocity and that representative sampling point should cover 98% of the cases encountered in the field.
   c) Ray Merrill: A key to the issue of representative HCl measurement, whether it be determining stratification or overall performance of a CEM during installation and setup is the need for a comparison method that is as sensitive and precise as the CEM technology, or for that matter sensitive enough to measure at the lower limits being set in new regulations. If the CEM does not agree with an inferior manual method due to sensitivity, precision, or known bias of the comparison method then the comparison is not reasonable.
   d) Jim Peeler: Speaking of bias, the results from Method 26A are total chloride values with no distinction between HCl and ammonium chloride. The method measures chloride ion in the impingers.  The method cannot distinguish between ammonium chloride, hydrogen chloride, sodium chloride, etc.  Assuming everything is HCl is OK for an area source test, (if a source operator wants to do so) but completely inappropriate for a compliance demonstration.  Cement plants can have high levels of ammonia in the effluent.
5) Other Discussion
   a) Jim Peeler: There are CEM requirements that do not have RATAs. For example, measurements of total hydrocarbons at hazardous waste combustors do not require RATAs per PS-8a.
   b) Topic for next time: Calibration  -  zero and span.  We may also discuss the quality of the HCl standards for this purpose.

      Table 1: Conference Call Attendees and Contact Information
Stakeholder Name
Affiliation
Interest
Email
Present
Rachael Agnew
EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG
EPA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Joe Aldina
Covanta Energy
Facility
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Collin Boswell
EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG
EPA
boswell.collin @epa.gov

Rich Brown
Altech
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Gary Catchatory
Tyco Environmental Systems
Goyen Valve Corporation
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kieth Crab
Cemtech Environmental
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Edul Chikhliwala
EcoChem Analytics
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Michael Corvese
Thermofisher
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bob Davis
AirGas
Gas Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Jason Dewees
EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTG
EPA
dewees.jason@ epa.gov

Frank Duckett
Thermofisher
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Andy Edwards
Ash Grove Cement
Facility
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Gerri Garwood
EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG
EPA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Fred Grunewald
MKS Instruments Inc.
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Desirea Haggard
Cal Portland
Facility
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Jeff Harrington
Tyco Environmental Systems
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Malik Hatar
Altech
Equip Vendor

Mike Hayes
Linde Gas
Gas Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Andre Hegre
Gas Technologies, Finland
Equip Vendor

Stephen Johnson
Thermofishter Inc.
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Dan Kietzer
Sick-Maihak
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Laura Kenner
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Tester
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Dieter Kita
Thermofisher
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Phil McMaster
PermaPure
Equip Add-on
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Barbara Marshick
MKS Instruments
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ray Merrill
EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTG
EPA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Barrett Parker
EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG
EPA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ashmud Patel
Ethyl Smith Automation

Jim Peeler
Emission Monitoring Inc.
Tester
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Allan Rilling
ABB
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Ralph Roberson
RMB Consulting
EGU Consultant
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Matthew Rutledge
Lafarge
Facility

Robin Segall
EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTG
EPA
segall.robin@@epa.gov

Luc Sevrette
Gasmet
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ty Smith
Cemtech Environmental
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Candace Sorrell
EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/MTG
EPA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Martin Spartz
Prism Analytical technology
Tester
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bob Vantuyl
Ash Grove Cement
Facility
bob.vantuyl@ashgrove

Henry Vergeer
CEM Specialties
Equip Vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
Dave  Vigowax
Marantee Tile
Facility

Bethany White
RMB Consulting
EGU Consultant
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
James Willis
Titan America
Facility
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Hector Ybanez,
Holcim Inc.
Facility
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Musa  Zada
Altech
Equip Vendor

Peter Zemek
MKS Instruments
Equip vendor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Y
         Y= Higlighted attendance indicates first time participants.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13663-13665]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0186; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Colored Federal Airways Blue 7 (B-7) and
Green 9 (G-9); Bethel, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke Colored Federal airways Blue 7
(B-7) and Green 9 (G-9) in the vicinity of Bethel, AK due to the
pending decommissioning of the Oscarville, AK, (OSE) Non-directional
Beacon (NDB).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0186; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-6 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0186; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-6) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0186; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-6.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from the
dependency on NDBs. The advances in technology have allowed for
alternate navigation methods to support decommissioning of high cost
ground navigation equipment. The FAA has included OSE on their schedule
to be decommissioned. A non-rulemaking study was conducted in
accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters. As a result, the FAA received no objections to its removal.
    Colored Federal airways B-7 and G-9 are dependent on OSE and will
result in the airways being unusable once decommissioning occurs.
Therefore, the FAA is proposing to revoke B-7 and G-9. The proposed
revocation of B-7 can be mitigated currently by utilizing VHF
Omnidirectional Radar (VOR) Federal airways V-462 and V-350 and in the
future the FAA will propose a United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route to overlay the current B-7. The proposed revocation of G-9 is
mitigated by VOR Federal airway V-319 and RNAV route T-269 that
currently overlay the route.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke
Colored Federal airways B-7 and G-9 in the vicinity of Bethel, AK due
to the decommissioning of OSE.
    B-7: B-7 currently navigates between the Cape Newenham, AK, NDB and
OSE. The FAA proposes to revoke the route in its entirety.
    G-9: G-9 currently navigates between OSE and the Cairn Mountain,
AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to revoke the route in its entirety.
    Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(a) and
6009(d) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Colored Federal airways listed in this document would be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6009(a) Colored Federal Airways

* * * * *

G-9 [Remove]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6009(d) Colored Federal Airways

* * * * *

B-7 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-05036 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12274-12275]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2467-020]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2467-020.
    c. Date Filed: February 8, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
    e. Name of Project: Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Merced River on
the border of Merced and Mariposa counties, California, immediately
downstream of the Merced River Hydroelectric Project (No. 2179),
operated by the Merced Irrigation District (MID). The project would
occupy 1.62 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Power
Generation, P.O. Box 770000, MC N11C, San Francisco, CA 94177-0001;
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description:
    The existing Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A
concrete gravity dam with a structural height of 34 feet, and a crest
length of 575 feet; (2) three radial gates, each 20 feet in length and
13.5 feet high; (3) a 1-mile-long project impoundment with
approximately 900 acre-feet of storage capacity, a useable storage
capacity of approximately 579 acre-feet, a total surface area of
approximately 65 acres, and a normal impoundment elevation of 344 feet
above mean sea level; (4) powerhouse facilities consisting of a steel
building housing a 3.4-megawatt (MW) turbine/generator unit and a
vertical Kaplan-type four-blade turbine; (5) a 1,000-foot-long earthen
levee with a crest width of 8 feet; (6) an adjacent intake structure
with a debris rack; and (7) a non-operable fish ladder.
    The Merced Falls Project is operated in a run-of-river mode
dependent on water outflow from MID's upstream Merced River Project
(FERC No. 2179). Inflow to the project passes through the impoundment,
which is kept at a constant water elevation and then either through the
powerhouse or the dam's radial gates. Flows of up to approximately
1,750 cubic feet per second (cfs) are diverted through the powerhouse,
and then discharged to the Merced River via the tailrace. When water
inflows exceed 2,200 cfs, the project spills water through the radial
gates. During flood events with flows greater than 12,250 cfs, the
needle beams can be dropped, allowing the 575-foot-long concrete
section of the dam to act as a spillway.
    The project has a dependable capacity of 1.7 MW and an annual
average generation of approximately 13.5 gigawatt-hours. PG&E is not
proposing any new or upgraded facilities or structural changes to the
project. PG&E proposes to modify the project boundary by removing
approximately 4.8 acres of licensee-owned lands, which PG&E indicates
are not needed for project purposes.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready  November 2013.
 for Environmental Analysis (when
 FERC approved studies are complete).
Filing of recommendations,            January 2014.
 preliminary terms and conditions,
 and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA or EIS...  July 2014.
Comments on Draft EA or EIS.........  August 2014.
Modified Terms and Conditions.......  November 2014.
Commission Issues Final EA or EIS...  February 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4775 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46934-46935]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3562-025]

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 3562-025.
    c. Date Filed: July 26, 2018.
    d. Submitted By: KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Barker Mill Upper Project.
    f. Location: On the Little Androscoggin River, in Androscoggin
County, Maine. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Lewis C. Loon, KEI (USA) Power
Management Inc., 423 Brunswick Avenue, Gardiner, Maine 04345; (207)
203-3025; [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Karen Sughrue at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (KEI Power) filed its
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 26, 2018. KEI
Power provided public notice of its request on July 25, 2018. In a
letter dated September 10, 2018, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved KEI Power's request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA

Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint
agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries
under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are
also initiating consultation with the Maine State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating KEI Power as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. KEI Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 3562. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a subsequent license
and any competing license applications must be filed with the
Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing
license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by
July 31, 2021.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: September 10, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20079 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 13283-13286]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59605; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt FINRA Rule 2114 (Recommendations to Customers
in OTC Equity Securities) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

March 19, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On November 4, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt FINRA Rule 2114
(Recommendations to Customers in OTC Equity Securities) in the
consolidated FINRA Rulebook. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008.\3\ The Commission
received three comments in response to the proposed rule change.\4\ On
February 13, 2009, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to amend the proposed
rule change and respond to the comment letters.\5\ This order provides
notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and
approves the proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59075 (December 10,
2008), 73 FR 76429 (December 16, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-055)
(``Rulemaking Notice'').
    \4\ See Ronald C. Long, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Wachovia
Securities LLC, dated December 9, 2008 (``Wachovia Letter''); Dale
E. Brown, CAE, President and CEO, Financial Services Institute,
dated January 6, 2009 (``FSI Letter''); and Amal Aly, Esq., Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated January 6, 2009 (``SIFMA
Letter'').
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 permits a General Securities Sales
Supervisor (i.e., a Series 8 or Series 9/10 qualified supervisor) to
perform certain reviews the proposed rule would otherwise have
required a Series 24 principal to perform or supervise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA proposed to adopt NASD Rule 2315 (Recommendations to
Customers in OTC Equity Securities) as FINRA Rule 2114 in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, subject to certain amendments including
those contained in Amendment No. 1 discussed further below.

1. The Current Rule

    NASD Rule 2315 is intended to address potential fraud and abuse in
transactions involving securities not listed on an exchange and certain
other higher risk securities. The rule mandates that a member conduct a
due diligence review of an issuer's current financial and business
information before recommending a covered security. The rule
supplements existing FINRA rules and the Federal securities law,
including suitability obligations and the requirement that any
recommendation to a customer have a reasonable basis. The rule
requirements go beyond the basic suitability obligations to ensure that
a registered representative has, at a minimum, confirmed the existence
of and reviewed essential information that reveals the financial
condition and business prospects of these riskier issuers.
    Specifically, the rule requires a member to review ``current
financial statements'' and ``current material business information''
before it recommends the purchase or short sale of those securities
that are published or quoted in a ``quotation medium'' and are either
(1) not listed on Nasdaq or a national securities exchange or (2) are
listed on a regional securities exchange and do not qualify for
dissemination of transaction reports via the Consolidated Tape. Such
securities may be more susceptible to fraud and abuse because they
often are thinly capitalized or lack the profitability, liquidity or
available business and financial information that listing standards
require. The rule does not apply to recommendations to sell long
positions and also exempts certain other transactions, including those
with an ``institutional account'' under NASD Rule 3110(c)(4), a
``qualified institutional buyer'' under Rule 144A of the Securities Act
of 1933 (``Securities Act''), or a ``qualified purchaser'' under
Section 2(a)(51) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Among the other exemptions, the Rule's requirements also do
not apply to transactions that meet the requirements of Rule 504 of
Regulation D of the Securities Act; those involving a security of an
issuer with at least $50 million in total assets and $10 million in
shareholder's equity; and those involving a security with worldwide
average daily trading volume value of at least $100,000 during each
of the six months preceding the recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule defines ``current financial statements'' to include
balance sheets, statements of profit and loss and

publicly available financial statements and reports. The definition
makes certain distinctions between foreign private issuers and all
other issuers. FINRA has interpreted the term ``current material
business information'' to mean information that is available or relates
to events that have occurred in the 12 months prior to the
recommendation. The proposed definition of ``current material business
information,'' discussed below, would supersede this prior
interpretation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Telephone conference among Philip Shaikun, Associate Vice
President and Associate General Counsel, FINRA, and Haimera Workie,
Branch Chief, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Darren Vieira,
Attorney Advisor, Commission, on December 3, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The required review must be conducted by a Series 24 principal or
someone supervised by a Series 24 principal. Members are required to
keep a written record of the information reviewed, the date of the
review and the name of the person who conducted the review.

2. Proposed Changes to the Current Rule

    The proposed rule change would expand the scope of the rule to
cover a recommendation to buy any ``OTC Equity Security,'' irrespective
of whether the security is published on a quotation medium. The term
``OTC Equity Security'' would have the same meaning as in NASD Rule
6610 (which has been renumbered as FINRA Rule 6420 in the Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook \8\) and encompasses any non-exchange-listed security
and certain exchange-listed securities that do not otherwise qualify
for real-time trade dissemination. FINRA believes that those OTC Equity
Securities not published on a quotation medium pose the same, if not
greater, risk of fraud and manipulation that the rule seeks to redress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25,
2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (Order Approving SR-FINRA-2008-
021; SR-FINRA-2008-022; SR-FINRA-2008-026; SR-FINRA-2008-028 and SR-
FINRA-2008-029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would add a definition of ``current
material business information'' to include ``information that is
ascertainable through the reasonable exercise of professional diligence
and that a reasonable person would take into account in reaching an
investment decision.''
    The proposed rule change would eliminate the exemption from the
rule for a security with a worldwide average daily trading volume value
of at least $100,000 during each of the six calendar months preceding
the recommendation, as well as a related exemption for a convertible
security where the underlying security satisfies the trading volume
exemption requirements. FINRA believes that the advent of the Internet
and the increased number of trading venues has rendered that threshold
unreliable to screen out less risky securities.
    Finally, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the proposed rule requires
that the due diligence review must be conducted by a person registered
as a General Securities Principal (Series 24) or General Securities
Sales Supervisor (Series 8 or 9/10), or someone supervised by a General
Securities Principal or General Securities Sales Supervisor.\9\ Members
are required to keep a written record of the information reviewed, the
date of the review and the name of the person who conducted the review.
The proposed rule change would add a requirement that, in the event the
person designated to perform the review is not registered as a General
Securities Principal or General Securities Sales Supervisor, the member
must document the name of the General Securities Principal or General
Securities Sales Supervisor who supervised the designated person. FINRA
believes this change will help document the person with supervising
responsibility in association with review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Series references relate to the relevant FINRA qualifying
examination series. The Series 8 examination was replaced by the
Series 9 and 10 examinations effective August 16, 1999. A list of
qualifying series examinations is available at FINRA's Web site,
http://www.finra.org.
    \10\ Telephone conference among Philip Shaikun, Associate Vice
President and Associate General Counsel, FINRA, and Haimera Workie,
Branch Chief and Darren Vieira, Attorney Advisor, on December 3,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received three comments on the proposal,\11\ as well
as FINRA's response to comments,\12\ all of which are discussed below.
Two commenters, a full service brokerage firm and a trade association
of securities firms, banks and asset managers, offered qualified
support for the proposed rule change.\13\ One commenter, a trade
association for the independent broker-dealer community, opposed the
proposed rule change.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Ronald C. Long, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Wachovia
Securities LLC, dated December 9, 2008 (``Wachovia Letter''); Dale
E. Brown, CAE, President and CEO, Financial Services Institute,
dated January 6, 2009 (``FSI Letter''); and Amal Aly, Esq., Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated January 6, 2009 (``SIFMA
Letter'').
    \12\ Letter from Philip Shaikun, Associate Vice President and
Associate General Counsel, FINRA, dated February 13, 2009 (``FINRA
Letter'').
    \13\ See SIFMA and Wachovia Letters.
    \14\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Review by a Series 24 Principal

    Proposed Rule 2114 would require a member to conduct a due
diligence review of an issuer's current financial and business
information before recommending a covered security. The proposed rule
provides that the due diligence review must be performed by a Series 24
registered principal, or by a designee of the Series 24 registered
principal, in which case the member must keep a record of the Series 24
principal who supervised the review. Two commenters suggested that a
person with a Series 9/10 registration should be permitted to perform
the reviews instead of Series 24 principals under the rule.\15\ One of
those commenters also suggested that a person with a Series 8
registration also should be permitted to perform these reviews.\16\ In
response to these comments, FINRA amended the proposed rule to provide
that either a General Securities Principal (i.e., a Series 24
principal) or a General Securities Sales Supervisor (i.e., a Series 8
or 9/10 supervisor) may perform the due diligence review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Wachovia and SIFMA Letters.
    \16\ SIFMA Letter.
    \17\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2008-055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Expanded Scope of the Rule to Any Non-Exempt OTC Equity Security

    FINRA's proposed rule is based on existing NASD Rule 2315. This
rule requires a member to review ``current financial statements'' and
``current material business information'' before it recommends the
purchase or short sale of securities that are published or quoted in a
``quotation medium'' and are either (1) not listed on Nasdaq or a
national securities exchange or (2) are listed on a regional securities
exchange and do not qualify for dissemination of transaction reports
via the Consolidated Tape.\18\ The proposed rule change would expand
the scope of the rule to cover a recommendation to buy any ``OTC Equity
Security,'' irrespective of whether the security is published on a
quotation medium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NASD Rule 2315 had not been amended to reflect Nasdaq's
registration as a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would also eliminate the exemption in NASD Rule
2315(e)(1)(E) for a security with a worldwide average daily trading
volume value of at least $100,000 during each month of the six full
calendar months immediately before the date of the recommendation, and
a related exemption for a convertible security

where the underlying security meets the requirements of NASD Rule
2315(e)(1)(E). Two commenters opposed eliminating this exemption.\19\
One commenter indicated that the elimination of the exemption would
require a due diligence review to be conducted for large, well-
capitalized companies whose securities, in the commenter's opinion,
likely do not pose the type of risk that is intended to be addressed by
the proposed rule.\20\ The commenter also suggested, as an alternative
or in addition to the exemption for securities with a worldwide average
daily trading volume value of over $100,000, that FINRA adopt an
exemption based on the underlying company's market capitalization.\21\
FINRA responded that it proposed to eliminate average daily trading
volume and convertible security exemptions out of concern that the
advent of the Internet and the increased number of trading venues has
rendered the trading volume threshold unreliable to screen out less
risky securities.\22\ FINRA noted that bringing certain larger
companies within the purview of the rule does not dissipate this
investor protection concern, and FINRA additionally noted that certain
larger companies may qualify for another exemption to the rule applying
to the securities of issuers that have at least $50 million of total
assets and $10 million in shareholders' equity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ SIFMA and FSI Letters.
    \20\ SIFMA Letter.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ FINRA Letter.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed any expansion of the scope of the proposed
rule beyond the scope of the NASD rule.\24\ In this commenter's view,
the expansion of the scope of the proposed rule would: (1) ``result in
reduced investor access to these securities by increasing the barriers
to entry in the marketplace''; (2) delay the processing of purchases of
non-exempt OTC Equity Securities; (3) reduce competition as firms leave
the market of providing OTC Equity Security execution; (4) subject
firms that remain in the market to higher compliance burdens; and (5)
cause ``overwhelming'' recordkeeping and compliance burdens. FINRA
disagreed that the proposed amendment would cause such deleterious
effects.\25\ FINRA stated that it believes investors will be better
protected by the proposed rule amendment because recommendations of OTC
Equity Securities that trade in the unlisted market, absent the due
diligence required by the rule, pose substantial risk to investors.\26\
FINRA also noted that the proposal would apply only to recommendations
(as does the current rule), and not to unsolicited transactions, and
therefore would not deny investors access to the OTC Equity Securities
market. FINRA also disagreed that the proposal will result in
processing delays for purchases of OTC Equity Securities, noting that
the required due diligence should be completed before the
recommendation is made.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FSI Letter.
    \25\ FINRA Letter.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Miscellaneous Comments

    One commenter suggested that FINRA provide an exemption from the
proposed rule for firms that (1) generate less than 5% of their
commission revenue from OTC Equity Securities transactions, and (2) do
not make a market in such securities.\28\ The commenter asserted that
such an exemption would allow FINRA to meet its investor protection
goals without causing ``unintended consequences'' such as increasing
compliance burdens or reducing competition.\29\ FINRA stated that it
believes that such an exemption would undermine the purpose of the rule
by allowing a significant volume of OTC Equity Securities to escape the
rule's review requirements.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FSI Letter.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comments, and
FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities association.\31\ In particular, the Commission
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\32\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
will help protect investors against fraud in the trading of unlisted
and certain other securities and will clarify and streamline NASD Rule
2315 for adoption as a FINRA Rule in the new Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook. The Commission has found NASD Rule 2315, upon which the
proposed rule is based, to be consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \33\ See Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 2 to
the Proposed Rule Change by the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. Relating to Microcap Initiative--Recommendation Rule,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46376 (August 19, 2002), 67 FR
54832 (August 26, 2002) (SR-NASD-99-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date
of publication of notice in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 1
clarifies the operation of the proposed rule in response to a comment.
The changes in Amendment No. 1 do not significantly alter the proposed
rule which was subject to a full notice and comment period. The
Commission finds that it is in the public interest to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, as soon as
possible to expedite its implementation. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that there is good cause, consistent with and in furtherance of
the objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) \34\ and 19(b) \35\ of the Act, to
approve Amendment No. 1 on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-FINRA-2008-055 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-FINRA-2008-055. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2008-055 and should be
submitted on or before April 16, 2009.

VI. Conclusions

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\36\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2008-055), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6659 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9322]
[DOCID:fr01mr07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-177-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 161, to become
effective March 1, 2007.
    Paiute states that copies of the filing are being served upon all
of Paiute's customers and interested State regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3603 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24947-24949]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10651]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64346; File No. SR-PHLX-2011-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.'s By-Laws

April 27, 2011.
    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 April 14, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to file a rule change related to the By-Laws
of its parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, 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
    NASDAQ OMX recently made certain clarifying amendments to its By-
Laws.\3\ Specifically, the recently approved NASDAQ OMX rule change:
(i) Amended the name of the Nominating Committee to the Nominating &
Governance Committee; (ii) amended the PHLX reference to reflect a
recent conversion to a limited liability company; and (iii) clarified
By-Law Article IV, Section 4.4 that broker nonvotes are not counted as
a vote cast either ``for'' or ``against'' a Director in an uncontested
election.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64285 (April 8,
2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-025) (``Approval Order''). SR-NASDAQ-2011-025
was filed by NASDAQ Stock Market LLC on behalf of NASDAQ OMX to
amend the By-Laws of its parent corporation.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ OMX By-Laws previously provided for a Nominating Committee
which is appointed pursuant to the By-Laws. In addition to the
responsibilities listed in By-Law Article IV, Section 4.13(h), the
Nominating Committee also conducts certain governance functions such as
consulting with the Board and the management to determine the
characteristics, skills and experience desired for the Board as a whole
and for its individual members, overseeing the annual director
evaluation, and reviewing the overall effectiveness of the Board.
Accordingly, NASDAQ OMX renamed and changed all references to the
``Nominating Committee'' in the By-Laws, to the ``Nominating &
Governance Committee'' so that the title of the committee accurately
reflects all of its current functions, including those that are deemed
governance functions. The proposal to rename the Nominating Committee
did not change the function of the committee, but was intended to
clarify the current functions and its governance role with respect to
the Board selection process.
    Additionally, NASDAQ OMX amended Article 1, Section (o) of NASDAQ
OMX's By-Laws to change the reference to ``NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.'' to
``NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC'' to reflect a recently filed rule change by the
Exchange from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability
company.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62783 (August 27,
2010), 75 FR 54204 (September 3, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ OMX added the words ``and broker nonvotes'' to
NASDAQ OMX's By-Law Article IV, Section 4.4 to make clear that broker
nonvotes will not be counted as a vote cast either ``for'' or
``against'' that director's election. In its filing to amend NASDAQ
OMX's By-Laws, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC noted that NASDAQ OMX's past
practice has been to not count a broker nonvote as a vote cast either
for or against a director's election.\6\ Accordingly, this change
clarifies this practice by codifying it into the By-Laws, especially in
light of NASDAQ OMX's recent change to a majority vote standard in the
uncontested election of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63925 (February 17,
2011), 76 FR 10418 (February 24, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, NASDAQ OMX amended its By-Laws to state that in an
uncontested election, a majority voting standard would apply to the
election of its directors, requiring directors to be elected by the
holders of a majority of the votes cast at any meeting for the election
of directors at which a quorum is present in an uncontested
election.\7\ A plurality standard would still remain in a contested
election. While in its filing to amend NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws, NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC noted that it has always been NASDAQ OMX's practice to
not count broker nonvotes ``for'' or ``against'' in director elections,
as the Commission noted in its Approval Order the impact of the broker
nonvote and how such votes are counted will take on added significance
under NASDAQ OMX's newly adopted majority vote standard for director
elections. Although in its filing NASDAQ Stock Market LLC stated that
under Delaware case law,\8\ broker nonvotes are not considered as votes
cast for or against a proposal or director nominee, the Exchange
proposes the change for clarity and transparency purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63925 [sic] (April
8, 2010), 75 FR 19436 (April 14, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-025).
    \8\ See Berlin v. Emerald Partners, 552 A.2d 482 494 (Del Supr.
1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that the
proposal enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and self-regulatory organization rules, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1),(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes changing the name of the Nominating Committee
to the Nominating and Governance Committee and amending references to
an exchange name to reflect a corporate change to a limited liability
company are both clarifying in nature. The changes will ensure that the
committee's title accurately reflects its functions and will ensure
that the By-Laws accurately and properly reflect an exchange entity
name. As discussed above, the amendment that broker nonvotes will not
be counted as a vote either ``for'' or ``against'' in director
elections will codify NASDAQ OMX's past practice, providing clarity and
transparency. Accordingly the Exchange believes that the amendments are
consistent with investor protection and the public interest.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) (iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay to
ensure that NASDAQ OMX is able to implement the rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes in waiving the 30-day operative delay that the
Commission published for comment in the Federal Register the initial
filing to amend NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws, did not receive any comments,\15\
and subsequently approved the proposed rule change.\16\ Further, the
Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal is identical to the
proposed rule change previously approved by the Commission.\17\
Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is consistent with investor
protection and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay
in accordance with 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws can be
effective without undue delay, and therefore designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 6.
    \16\ See supra note 3.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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-Phlx-2011-54 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-Phlx-2011-54. 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 the
Exchange. 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 No. SR-Phlx-
2011-54 and should be submitted on or before May 24, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10651 Filed 5-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 70851]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28862]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76393; File No. SR-BATS-2015-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Adopt New Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited
Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Layering and Spoofing
on BATS Exchange, Inc.

November 9, 2015.
    On July 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to adopt an expedited proceeding for issuing suspension orders,
and if necessary, imposing other sanctions, to prohibit Exchange
Members, or their clients, from engaging in trading activities that
constitute continued layering or spoofing on the Exchange. On August
11, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 19, 2015.\4\ On September 23,
2015, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change to November 17, 2015.\5\ The Commission received six
comment letters on the proposed rule change.\6\ On November 6, 2015,
BATS withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2015-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 amended and replaced the original proposal
in its entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75693 (August 13,
2015), 80 FR 50370.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75970, 80 FR 58527
(September 29, 2015).
    \6\ See letters from: Teresa Machado B., dated August 19, 2015;
Samuel F. Lek, Chief Executive Officer, Lek Securities Corporation,
dated September 3, 2015; R.T. Leuchtkafer to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September, 4, 2015; Mary Ann Burns,
Chief Operating Officer, FIA Principal Traders Group, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September, 9, 2015; Samuel F.
Lek, Chief Executive Officer, Lek Securities Corporation, dated
September 18, 2015; and Anders Franzon, VP, Associate General
Counsel, BATS, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
November 6, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28862 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 46954-46955]
[DOCID:fr15au06-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54284; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-016]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Registration of
Foreign Associates Under Nasdaq Membership Rules

August 8, 2006.
    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 July 21, 2006, 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. 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

    Nasdaq proposes to eliminate the requirement for ``foreign
associates'' to register with Nasdaq. Nasdaq will implement the
proposed rule change immediately upon approval by the Commission. The
text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
1060. Persons Exempt from Registration.
    (a) The following persons associated with a member are not required
to be registered with Nasdaq:
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) Persons associated with a member that are not citizens,
nationals, or residents of the United States or any of its territories
or possessions and that will conduct all of their securities activities
in areas outside the jurisdiction of the United States and will not
engage in any securities activities with or for any citizen, national
or resident of the United States.
    For purposes of Rule 1060(a)(4), the terms ``option'' and ``direct
participation program'' shall have the meanings assigned to such terms
by NASD Rules 2860 and 1022(e)(1)(A), respectively, and the definitions
contained in such NASD rules shall apply to Nasdaq members as if such
Rules were part of Nasdaq's Rules.
    (b) No change.
1100. [Foreign Associates] Reserved
    [(a) All persons associated with a member who are designated as
Foreign Associates shall be required to be registered but shall be
exempt from the requirement to pass a Qualification Examination.
Persons associated with a member shall be designated as Foreign
Associates if they meet the following criteria:]
    [(1) They are not citizens, nationals, or residents of the United
States or any of its territories or possessions;]
    [(2) They will conduct all of their securities activities in areas
outside the jurisdiction of the United States and they will not engage
in any securities activities with or for any citizen, national or
resident of the United States.]
    [(b) Prior to the time the exemption provided for in paragraph (a)
hereof may become effective, the member desiring to employ any such
person must file with Nasdaq a ``Uniform Application for Securities
Industry Registration or Transfer'' for each such person and must
certify that such person meets the criteria of paragraph (a), as well
as that:]
    [(1) Such person is not subject to any of the prohibitions to
registration with Nasdaq;]
    [(2) Service of process for any proceeding instituted by Nasdaq in
respect to such person may be sent to an address designated by the
member.]
    [(c) In the event of the termination of the employment of a Foreign
Associate, the member must notify Nasdaq immediately by filing a notice
of termination.]

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 had 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.
    Nasdaq proposes to eliminate the ``foreign associate'' registration
category under Nasdaq Rule 1100 and add an exemption to Nasdaq Rule
1060 for persons formerly covered by this registration category.
Nasdaq's rule is based on NASD Rule 1100, which provides that an
associated person of a member may be designated as a ``foreign
associate'' if the person (i) is not a citizen, national, or resident
of the United States, and (ii) will conduct all of his or her
securities activities outside the jurisdiction of the United States and
will not engage in any securities activities with or for any citizen,
national or resident of the United States. The NASD rule provides that
a foreign associate is not required to pass any qualification
examinations but must register with NASD.
    In its current form, Nasdaq Rule 1100 duplicates the NASD
requirement. Nasdaq believes, however, that it does not have a
compelling policy reason for duplicating the NASD's registration
requirement or extending it to non-NASD members. Nasdaq members that
are NASD members will already be required to register their foreign
associates with the NASD. The NASD's role as the primary regulator with
respect to firms with public customers may be indicative of a need to
pursue broad registration of broker-dealer employees even if such
employees have no nexus with U.S. securities markets, but a duplicative
requirement by Nasdaq would serve no regulatory purpose. With respect
to the small number of non-NASD members that become Nasdaq members,
Nasdaq has no reason to expect that any would have associated persons
categorized as foreign associates and believes that there would be no
regulatory benefit

associated with the registration of those that might fit within this
category. Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to amend its rule to exempt
foreign associates from registration with Nasdaq.
2. Statutory Basis.
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it 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. Nasdaq believes that the
proposed rule change will mitigate unnecessary burdens on its members
and their associated persons without diminishing the regulatory
protections associated with its membership rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which Nasdaq consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-016. 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. Copies of such
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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-016 and should be submitted on or before
September 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 20.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13317 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56432-56433]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0086]

Notice of Request for Applications for Appointment to the
National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council

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

ACTION: Notice of Request for Applicants for Appointment/Reappointment
to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA and its partners at the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Homeland Security (DHS) are soliciting applications
for appointment or reappointment to DOT's NEMSAC. The purpose of
NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services
representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and
the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) on matters relating
to emergency medical services (EMS). More information on NEMSAC,
including its previous recommendations, its charter, and its current
membership is available at www.EMS.gov/NEMSAC.htm.

DATES: Application packages as described below must be received by
NHTSA on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to apply for membership, your application
package should be submitted by:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
     Mail: Use only overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx to:
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: Noah Smith,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Any person needing accessibility accommodations should contact Noah
Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer, Drew
Dawson, Director, Office of Emergency Medical Services at (202) 366-
9966; or Noah Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this call for applications is
given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108
of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is hereby
soliciting nominations for members of the NEMSAC. The Secretary of
Transportation, in coordination with HHS and DHS, will appoint 25
Council members on or around April 22, 2015. Members will be selected
with a view toward achieving a varied and balanced perspective on
emergency medical services. The Council will be composed of non-Federal
experts representing various sectors of the EMS community. To the
extent reasonable, one member will be appointed to represent the
perspectives of each of the following 24 particular sectors of EMS:

 EMS Practitioners
 Volunteer EMS
 Fire-based (career) EMS
 Private (career non-fire) EMS
 Hospital-based EMS
 Tribal EMS
 Air Medical EMS
 Local EMS service director/administrators
 EMS Medical Directors
 Emergency Physicians
 Trauma Surgeons
 Pediatric Emergency Physicians
 State EMS Directors
 State Highway Safety Directors
 EMS Educators
 Public Safety Call-taker/Dispatcher (911)
 EMS Data Managers
 EMS Researchers
 Emergency Nurses
 Hospital Administration
 Public Health
 Emergency Management
 Consumers (not directly affiliated with an EMS or healthcare
organization)
 State or local legislative bodies (e.g. city/county councils;
State legislatures)

    The Council's broad-based membership will assure that it has
sufficient EMS system expertise and geographic and demographic
diversity to accurately reflect the EMS community as a whole.
Applications for members within the EMS community will be solicited
from a wide array of national organizations and the public. These
members will be selected for their individual expertise and to assure
balanced representation from across the EMS community, but no member
will represent a specific organization or association. Membership
balance is not static and may change, depending on the work of the
Council.
    Council members serve for a term of 2 years and may be reappointed
for one additional successive term. The Chair and Vice Chair of the
Council are elected annually from among the selected members, and the
Council is expected to meet approximately three times per year or as
necessary in Washington, DC. Members serve in a ``representative''
capacity on NEMSAC and not as Special Government Employees. Members are
unpaid; however, the NHTSA Office of EMS sponsors the associated costs
for members to travel to Washington, DC.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting New Applications: Individuals
must self-nominate and must apply to represent specific sectors of EMS
as outlined above. Applicants may apply to represent more than one
sector. There is no standard application. Instead, to be considered for
the NEMSAC, applicants must submit the following information in a
single package:
    (1) A cover letter addressed to the Designated Federal Officer,
Drew Dawson, that includes:
    a. The applicant's full name, title, home address, phone number,
and email address;
    b. Under the heading ``SECTOR(S) OF EMS'' a listing of which
sectors of EMS the applicant is applying to represent from the list of
24 above; and
    c. An explanation of why the applicant is applying to be a NEMSAC
member and how their experience and/or education qualifies them to
represent each sector for which they are applying to represent;
    (2) A resume or curriculum vitae;
    (3) A short biography of the applicant including professional and
academic credentials not to exceed 150 words;
    (4) Up to four (4) letters of support or recommendation from a
company, union, trade association, non-profit organization or
individual on letterhead containing a brief description why the
applicant should be considered for appointment; and
    (5) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally
registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if
appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a
Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered
lobbyist;
    Please do not send company, trade association, or organization
brochures or any other information. Should more information be needed,
DOT staff will contact the applicant, obtain information from their
past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available
sources, such as the Internet.
    It is preferred that application packages be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>but they may also be faxed to the attention of Noah
Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the U.S.

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: Noah Smith,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC, 20590. If mailing,
please use only overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx. Applications must
be received on or before December 1, 2014. Applications selected for
appointment to the NEMSAC will be notified by email and by a letter of
appointment.
    Process and Deadline for Current NEMSAC Members to Apply for
Reappointment: The NEMSAC charter stipulates a two-term limit for
appointees, thus currently appointed members of NEMSAC in their first
terms are eligible to apply for reappointment. Current NEMSAC members
in their first term may apply for reappointment by submitting a cover
letter addressed to the Designated Federal Officer, Drew Dawson with an
explanation of why the member is seeking reappointment and an updated
resume or curriculum vitae. The deadline and methods for submission are
the same as above for new applicants.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-22360 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P