[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44916-44917]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0679]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge, across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8,
at Wilmington, NC. The deviation restricts the operation of the draw
span to facilitate the cleaning and painting of the structure.

DATES: This temporary deviation is effective with actual notice
beginning 8 a.m. on July 13, 2010, and with constructive notice
beginning 12:01 a.m. July 30, 2010 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of the docket USCG-2010-0679 and are available
online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0679
in the ``Keywords'' box, and then clicking ``Search''. They are also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renne V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, who owns and operates this vertical-lift bridge, has
requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to
facilitate painting of the structure. Under the regular operating
schedule the bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5, except
that under 33 CFR 117.823, the draw need not open for the passage of
vessels from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the second Saturday

of July and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the second Sunday of November
every year.
    The Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge across the Cape Fear River,
mile 26.8, at Wilmington, NC has vertical clearances in the open and
closed positions of 135 feet and 65 feet above mean high water
respectively.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will operate as
follows: (1) From 8 a.m. on July 13, 2010 until and including 11:59
p.m. on August 15, 2010 vessel openings will be provided if at least
three hours advance notice is given to the bridge tender at (910) 251-
5773 or via marine radio on channel 18 VHF; the vertical clearance of
the bridge will not be changed in this period; (2) From 12 a.m.
(midnight) on August 16, 2010 until and including 11:59 p.m. on
December 31, 2010, vessel openings will be provided if at least three
hours advance notice is given to the bridge operator at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via marine radio on channel 18 VHF; in this period, the available
vertical clearances of portions of the drawbridge (up to half of the
drawbridge at one time) will be reduced by approximately four feet to
131 feet and 61 feet above mean high water, respectively, to
accommodate scaffolding. There are no alternate routes for vessels
transiting this section of the Cape Fear River.
    The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with
commercial and recreational waterway users. The Coast Guard will use
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to inform all users of the
waterway of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can
arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the draw must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 12, 2010.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-18718 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15675-15677]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0034; Notice 2]

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

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that
certain BFGoodrich gForce Rival S summer performance tires do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA filed a noncompliance
report dated April 17, 2017. MNA also petitioned NHTSA on May 5, 2017,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA is granting the petition for the
reasons stated in this decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: MNA has determined that certain BFGoodrich gForce
Rival S summer performance tires do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles
(49 CFR 571.139). MNA filed a noncompliance report dated April 17,
2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. MNA also petitioned NHTSA on May 5, 2017,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 11, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
32049). No

comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting
documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0034.''
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 370 BFGoodrich gForce Rival S
summer performance tires, size P335/30ZR18 95W LL, manufactured between
March 2, 2017, and March 30, 2017, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: MNA explains that the noncompliance is that the
tire size designation markings on the sidewalls of the subject tires do
not contain the tire type code designator symbol from the United States
Tire and Rim Association (USTRA) yearbook, as required by paragraph
S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the subject tire size reads
``335/30ZR18 95W LL'' but should read ``P335/30ZR18 95W LL.''
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 139 titled
``Performance Requirements'' includes the requirements relevant to this
petition:
    Each tire shall conform to each of the following:
     Its load rating shall be that specified either in a
submission made by an individual manufacturer, pursuant to paragraph
S4, or in one of the publications described in paragraph S4 for its
size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure.
     If the maximum load rating for a particular tire size is
shown in more than one of the publications described in paragraph S4,
each tire of that size designation shall have a maximum load rating
that is not less than the published maximum load rating, or if there
are differing maximum load ratings for the same tire size designation,
not less than the lowest published maximum load rating.
    V. Summary of MNA's Petition: MNA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following reasoning:
    (a) Application--The subject tires are marked with the correct
maximum load \1\, pressure, and load index, to ensure proper
application. Additionally, the tires have the correct tread sticker
label showing the correct size designation, part number, etc. to ensure
proper application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner referred to ``Light Load'' meaning the
maximum load and pressure specified by USTRA publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Usage--These tires are marketed as performance tires and
normally used for competition events on tracks or autocross courses.
Thus, the tires are normally operated at the lightest loads possible
for performance optimization.
    (c) Other Markings--All other markings conform to the applicable
regulations.
    (d) Performance--The subject tires meet all performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139. In the event, because of the missing
``P'' prefix, the tires are used to replace a 335/30ZR18 size tire,
which has a higher load carrying capacity than a P335/30ZR18 tire,
there should be no performance concerns.\2\ The tires have been tested
to FMVSS No. 139 using the higher standard load as a basis and they
fulfill all performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The standard load index for size 335/30ZR18 tire is 102
according to the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization
(ETRTO) yearbook, which corresponds to a maximum load capacity of
850 kg. The P335/30ZR18 tire size according to the USTRA yearbook
has a load index of 95, which corresponds to a maximum load capacity
of 690 kg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempt from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    VI. NHTSA'S Analysis: NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the
inconsequential noncompliance petition submitted by MNA and has
determined that this particular noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Specifically, NHTSA considered the following
factors when analyzing the risk to safety for these noncompliant tires:
    (a) Application--Because the subject tires are marked with the load
in accordance with the USTRA publications, and certified to the higher
load indicated by ETRTO and corresponding to the missing ``P'', the
omission of the letter ``P'' would not have an impact on safety with
respect to the application of the subject tires. With respect to the
tires having a sticker showing the correct size designation, part
number, and tire information at the point of sale, the agency does not
find this information compelling in terms of granting this petition
since once a tire is mounted on a vehicle, a motorist will rely on what
is marked on the tire sidewall and not on the sticker at the point of
sale.
    (b) Usage--The petitioner contends that the subject tires are
marketed and normally used for competition events on tracks or
autocross courses. The petitioner further states that when used for
competition events, the tires are normally used in a lightly loaded
condition to optimize performance during the event. NHTSA does not find
this argument compelling because the tires are available for purchase
by the public and use of the tires in other circumstances, such as
driving to and from such competition events with multiple passengers
onboard, is foreseeable.
    (c) Other Markings--MNA states they properly marked the subject
tires with the correct tire size, maximum pressure, intended load (1521
lbs/690 kgs), and load index. NHTSA finds these additional markings
will mitigate the potential risk that consumers will load the tires to
the higher load that applies to the ETRTO designation for tires having
the same size, without the ``P'' designation.
    (d) Performance--MNA provided evidence that they certified these
tires to FMVSS No. 139 using the ETRTO specifications required for
tires without the ``P'' designation. NHTSA finds this a compelling
argument to support that, in the event the tires are used with the
ETRTO specification, due to the missing ``P,'' there is a basis to
believe they would be safe. This basis data was provided to the Agency
and indicates that the tires have been tested to the loads specified by
ETRTO specifications and thus are able to perform safely using the
USTRA specifications.
    Together, these factors have led NHTSA to conclude that it would be
unlikely that an end user would disregard the tire load marked on the
sidewall of the tire and instead rely on the load specified in the
ETRTO yearbook. Furthermore, if a consumer were to load the tire to the
load specified in the ETRTO books, the tires are designed and
manufactured to comply with FMVSS No. 139 under those conditions, so
there would be no increased risk to safety.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Michelin North America has met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance for the replacement tires
identified in MNA's Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA's petition is hereby granted
and MNA is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of and free remedy for, that

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 AND 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject tires that MNA no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after MNA notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-07520 Filed 4-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16112-16114]
[DOCID:fr09ap09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0301; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-69-AD;
Amendment 39-15876; AD 2009-08-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230,
407, 427, and 430 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a superseding airworthiness directive (AD) for
the specified Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 206A,
206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, and
430 helicopters. That AD currently requires replacing each affected
tail rotor blade (blade) with an airworthy blade that has a serial
number not listed in the Rotor Blades, Inc. (RBI) document that is
attached to each of the Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletins
(ASBs) listed in the applicability section of the AD. That AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by
the aviation authority of Canada. The MCAI states that there have been
three reports of blade tip weights departing from the blade during
flight. Since issuing that AD, BHTC has issued revised service
information to correct part numbers and serial numbers listed in the
RBI document that is attached to each BHTC ASB and to add additional
part-numbered and serial-numbered blades to the list. The actions of
this AD are intended to prevent loss of a blade tip weight, loss of a
blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 24, 2009.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 24, 2009.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec
J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is stated in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 31, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-19-52, Amendment 39-
15264 (72 FR 65221, November 20, 2007), to publish Emergency AD 2007-
19-52, which made the AD effective to all persons except those to whom
it was made immediately effective on September 14, 2007. That AD
requires, before further flight, removing and replacing each affected
blade with an airworthy blade. That action was prompted by three
reports of blade tip weights being slung from the blades during
flights, causing significant vibration.
    Since issuing that AD, BHTC has revised the ASBs based on revisions
to the RBI documents that are attached to the ASBs to add blade serial
numbers to the applicability. Also, the ASBs have been revised to add
clarification to the applicability by adding specific part number dash
numbers.
    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD No. CF-2007-21, dated September 13, 2007, to
correct an unsafe condition for the BHTC Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-
1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, and 430 helicopters.
The MCAI states that there have been three reports of blade tip weights
departing from the blade during flight. The actions are intended to
prevent loss of a blade tip weight, loss of a blade, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter. Although the BHTC ASBs have been
revised since they were referenced in our AD 2007-19-52, the Transport
Canada AD has not been revised.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and any
related service information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    BHTC has issued the following:
     ASB No. 206-07-116, Revision A, dated September 19, 2007,
for BHTC Model 206 A/B series helicopters;
     ASB No. 206L-07-148, Revision A, dated September 19, 2007,
for BHTC Model 206L series helicopters;
     ASB No. 222-07-106, Revision C, dated September 20, 2007,
for BHTC Model 222 and 222B helicopters;
     ASB No. 222U-07-77, Revision C, dated September 20, 2007,
for BHTC Model 222U helicopters;
     ASB No. 230-07-38, Revision C, dated September 20, 2007,
for BHTC Model 230 helicopters;
     ASB No. 407-07-81, Revision A, dated September 19, 2007,
for BHTC Model 407 helicopters;
     ASB No. 427-07-18, Revision A, dated September 19, 2007,
for BHTC Model 427 helicopters; and
     ASB No. 430-07-41, Revision C, dated September 20, 2007,
for BHTC Model 430 helicopters.
    All of the ASBs contain a letter from RBI indicating that certain
blades processed by RBI may be missing the adhesive applied to the tip
weight screw during the weight and balance process. Since the issuance
of AD 2007-19-52, some ASBs have been revised to include additional
blade part numbers and serial numbers that require inspection, as well
as to clarify the part number applicability by adding specific part
number ``dash numbers.'' Additionally, the ASBs' revisions specify
marking the blade with an ``L'' once inspection determines that the
blade is airworthy. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to
correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service
information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because
we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The actions required by this AD only apply to those blades listed
in the RBI document that is attached to the ASBs listed in paragraph
(c). The MCAI allows use of those ASBs, or ``later revisions approved
by Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada.''

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 3,741 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours
per helicopter to determine if an affected blade is installed. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. The ASB contains a warranty
statement that owners or operators of BHTC helicopters who comply with
the instructions in the ASB will be eligible to return defective blades
identified by serial number in the compliance section to their nearest
RBI facility for inspection and repair at no cost. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators
to be $598,560, assuming all shipping, inspection, and repair costs are
paid by RBI or BHTC.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. We find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because loss of a
blade tip weight during flight can adversely affect the controllability
and structural integrity of the helicopter. Also, determining if an
affected blade is installed and replacing any affected blade before
further flight is required. Therefore, we have determined that notice
and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send us any written data, views, or
arguments concerning this AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this AD. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-
0301; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-69-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    Therefore, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15264 (72 FR
65221, November 20, 2007), and adding the following new AD:

2009-08-03 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-
15876. Docket No. FAA-2009-0301; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-69-
AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on April
24, 2009.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) Supersedes AD 2007-19-52, Amendment 39-15264, Docket No.
FAA-2007-0179, Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-36-AD (72 FR 65221,
November 20, 2007).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3,
206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, and 430 helicopters, with a
tail rotor blade (blade) installed that has a part number and serial
number which is listed in the Rotor Blades, Inc. (RBI) document
attached to the following Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service
Bulletins (ASBs), certificated in any category:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ASB No.                Revision              Date                       Helicopter model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
206-07-116....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  206A and 206B.
206L-07-148...................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  206L, L-1, L-3, and L-4.

222-07-106....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  222 and 222B.
222U-07-77....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  222U.
230-07-38.....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  230.
407-07-81.....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  407.
427-07-18.....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  427.
430-07-41.....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  430.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states that there have been three reports of blade tip weights
departing from the blade during flight. This AD corrects part
numbers and serial numbers of blades, and adds additional blades to
the previous AD listing, based on revised ASBs issued by Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited. The actions required by this AD
are intended to prevent loss of a blade tip weight, loss of a blade,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Before further flight, unless already accomplished, replace
any affected blade with an airworthy blade. An airworthy blade is
one that has a part number and a serial number that is not listed in
the RBI document that is attached to each ASB listed in the
Applicability section of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) The actions required by this AD only apply to those blades
listed in the RBI document that is attached to the ASBs listed in
paragraph (c). The MCAI allows use of those ASBs, or ``later
revisions approved by Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport
Canada.''

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817)
222-5122, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Tracking Code

    (h) ATA Code 6410: Tail Rotor Blades.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the following Bell Helicopter Textron Alert
Service Bulletin for your model helicopter to determine which blades
are subject to these AD actions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ASB No.                Revision              Date                       Helicopter model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
206-07-116....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  206A and 206B.
206L-07-148...................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  206L, L-1, L-3, and L-4.
222-07-106....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  222 and 222B.
222U-07-77....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  222U.
230-07-38.....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  230.
407-07-81.....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  407.
427-07-18.....................  A.............  September 19, 2007...  427.
430-07-41.....................  C.............  September 20, 2007...  430.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec
J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (450) 433-
0272, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 76193-0111, or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or e-mail to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on March 26, 2009.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-7783 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12492-12493]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57412; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-21]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the
SizeQuote Mechanism Pilot Program for a Period of One Year

March 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 15, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared substantially by NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca has designated
the proposed rule change as one constituting a non-controversial rule
change under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca is proposing to amend its rules in order to extend its
SizeQuote Mechanism pilot program (``Pilot Program''),\5\ for a one-
year period ending February 15, 2009. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at http://www.nyse.com, NYSE Arca, and the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.47(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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. NYSE Arca 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
    The purpose of this proposal is to extend, for a one year period,
the Exchange's SizeQuote Pilot Program. The Pilot Program was initially
established when the Exchange filed SR-PCX-2005-35.\6\ The Pilot
Program was subsequently extended,\7\ and was set to expire on February
15, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51576 (April 19,
2005), 70 FR 21488 (April 26, 2005).
    \7\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53315 (February 15,
2006), 71 FR 9406 (February 23, 2006) (SR-PCX-2006-09); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55312 (February 16, 2007), 72 FR 8827
(February 27, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that at the completion of the Pilot
Program, NYSE Arca would provide to the Commission a report summarizing
the effectiveness of the SizeQuote program. While the Exchange believes
that the SizeQuote Mechanism can be an effective tool for Floor Brokers
to use while executing large size orders in open outcry, the mechanism
has not been used frequently enough to supply sufficient evidence to
evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot Program. In order to allow for
additional time to compile sufficient evidence as to the effectiveness
of the Pilot Program, NYSE Arca proposes to extend the Pilot Program
for an additional one-year period ending February 15, 2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5), \9\ in particular, in that it is
designed to facilitate transactions in securities, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the
self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 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 date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has determined to grant the Exchange's request to waive
the five day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    NYSE Arca has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay to allow NYSE Arca to continue the existing Pilot
Program without interruption. The Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the Pilot
Program to continue uninterrupted for an additional year and allow the
Exchange more time to assess the effectiveness of the Pilot Program.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal as operative upon
filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2008-21 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-NYSEArca-2008-21. 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 NYSE Arca. 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-NYSEArca-2008-21 and should
be submitted on or before March 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4512 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24491-24492]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0022]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated March 7, 2014, Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad (MIDH)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR 215.303, Stenciling of restricted cars,
and 49 CFR part 224, Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock.
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0022.
    The petition relates to operations involving Caboose CNJ 91531 on
tracks solely owned by MIDH and on private industrial tracks connected
to the main line and/or sidings of MIDH. Although owned by MIDH, the
caboose bears its original marks, number, road name (defunct Central
Railroad Company of New Jersey), and paint scheme. The caboose, built
in May 1942, is used as an operating piece of historic or antiquated
equipment. The caboose is in good condition and is undergoing
restoration to its original condition. The maximum operating speed for
the caboose is 10 mph.
    This caboose will be used in two types of services:
    MDIH states that, regardless of the type of service performed, the
caboose will not be offered for interchange or operated over tracks
owned by any other railroad.
    In addition, MIDH requested a Special Approval for this caboose to
continue in service in accordance with 49 CFR 215.203(c), Restricted
cars.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 16, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments

received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-09793 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51645-51646]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75737; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change
Consisting of Proposed New Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor
Municipal Advisors, and Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8, on Books and
Records To Be Made by Brokers, Dealers, Municipal Securities Dealers,
and Municipal Advisors

I. Introduction

    On April 24, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed new Rule
G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors, and proposed
amendments to Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers,
dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 8, 2015.\3\ The Commission received fifteen comment letters on
the proposal.\4\ On June 16, 2015, the MSRB granted an extension of
time for the Commission to act on the filing until August 6, 2015. On
August 6, 2015, the Commission issued an order instituting proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On August 12, 2015,
the MSRB responded to the comments \7\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\8\ The text of Amendment No. 1 and the MSRB's
letter are available on the MSRB's Web site. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 74860 (May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26752
(``Notice''). The comment period closed on May 29, 2015.
    \4\ Comment letters are available at www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503.shtml.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75628 (August 6,
2015), 80 FR 48355 (August 12, 2015). The comment period closes on
September 11, 2015.
    \7\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, MSRB, to Secretary, SEC,
dated August 12, 2015 (``MSRB Response Letter''), available at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503-19.pdf.
    \8\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, MSRB, to Secretary, SEC,
dated August 12, 2015 (``MSRB Amendment Letter''), available at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2015-03/msrb201503-20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Amendment

    The MSRB is proposing to delete, in Proposed Rule G-42(a)(ii), the
phrase ``, without limitation,'' to address any ambiguity regarding the
relationship between additional fiduciary duties and the specified
duties of care and loyalty. The MSRB, however, emphasizes the proposed
amendment in no respect narrows or otherwise substantively modifies the
scope of the fiduciary duty to which a municipal advisor would be
subject under Proposed Rule G-42. Under Proposed Rule G-42(a)(ii), a
municipal advisor is subject to a fiduciary duty that includes a duty
of loyalty and a duty of care. It has been the MSRB's intent from the
inception of this rulemaking initiative not to purport to
comprehensively set forth every aspect of the fiduciary duty that may
be owed under the broad principle that Congress determined should apply
to municipal advisors to municipal entity clients. Instead, Proposed
Rule G-42 is designed primarily to set forth the core principles of the
fiduciary duty that a municipal advisor would owe to its municipal
entity client, and address and provide guidance on certain conduct that
is likely to occur and issues that are likely to arise in the provision
of municipal advisory services. Although it is not possible for the
MSRB to set forth every aspect of a fiduciary duty in Proposed Rule G-
42 and the MSRB has not sought to do so, the MSRB nevertheless believes
that the proposed rule change will provide municipal advisors with
significant helpful guidance in understanding many aspects of their
fiduciary duty and the conduct that is required of them.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, 80 FR 26752, at 26762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB is also proposing amendments to streamline the steps
needed to comply with proposed sections (b) and (c) generally, which
are also responsive to comments received regarding the combined
requirements of the proposed paragraphs.\10\ In proposed Rule G-42(b),
the MSRB proposes to combine the substantially similar disclosures of
conflicts of interest in proposed paragraphs (b)(i)(A) and (b)(i)(G) as
new proposed paragraph (b)(i)(F) and delete proposed paragraphs
(b)(i)(A) and (b)(i)(G). The MSRB also would renumber proposed
paragraphs (b)(i)(B) through (b)(i)(F), respectively, as proposed
paragraphs (b)(i)(A) through (B)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, 80 FR 26752, at 26762-26763.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB proposes amendments regarding proposed section (c), which
requires the documentation of the municipal advisory relationship in
writing, and, in proposed subsection (c)(ii), which provides that a
municipal advisor must include in the documentation the disclosures of
conflicts of interest and other information (i.e., information
regarding certain legal or disciplinary events as specified in proposed
subsection (b)(ii)). Under the proposed amendment, a municipal advisor
would not be required to provide the disclosure of conflicts of
interest and other information required under proposed subsection
(c)(ii) if the municipal advisor previously fully complied with the
requirements of proposed section (b) to disclose such information and
proposed subsection (c)(ii) would not require the disclosure of any
materially different information than that previously disclosed to the
client. The MSRB believes that the proposed amendment, to be
incorporated in Proposed Rule G-42 as the third sentence of new
proposed paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material, entitled
``Relationship Documentation,'' would permit a municipal advisor to
avoid making duplicative disclosures regarding its conflicts of
interest and other matters. The proposed amendment also would include,
as the first two sentences of new proposed paragraph .06, the un-
numbered paragraph previously located after proposed subsection
(c)(vii). The MSRB believes that the material set forth in the un-
numbered paragraph, which relates to updating and supplementing the
relationship documentation, is more appropriately organized with the
proposed amendment relating to proposed subsection (c)(ii) discussed
above, and, therefore, proposes to organize such un-numbered paragraph
in new proposed paragraph .06. Finally, with the incorporation of new
proposed paragraph .06, proposed paragraphs .06 through .12 of the
Supplementary Material would be renumbered, respectively, as proposed
paragraphs .07 through .13 of the Supplementary Material.
    The MSRB also proposes to amend, in response to comments, proposed
subsection (c)(iv) of Rule G-42 of the original proposed rule change to
require a municipal advisor, at the time of making the disclosures
required under proposed subsections (c)(iii) and (c)(iv), to provide
its clients with a brief explanation of the basis for the

materiality of the change or addition to its Forms MA and MA-I. The
proposed amendment would supplement a proposed requirement that the
municipal advisor provide the date of the last material change or
addition to the legal or disciplinary event disclosures on any Form MA
or Form MA-I to the client. The proposed amendment to include the
explanation of materiality would allow a municipal advisor client to
assess the effect that such change or addition may have on the
municipal advisory relationship and evaluate whether it should seek or
review additional information.
    In response to a concern raised in the comments, the MSRB proposes
to clarify, in proposed section (d), a specific requirement applicable
to a recommendation made by a municipal advisor, and distinguish it
from the requirements a municipal advisor is subject to when reviewing
a recommendation made by another party. The proposed amendment to
proposed section (d) would add a statement providing that ``a municipal
advisor making a recommendation must have a reasonable basis to believe
that the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal
financial product is suitable for the client,'' which would clarify the
proposed requirement that the municipal advisor must determine, based
on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of such
municipal advisor, whether the municipal securities transaction or
municipal financial product is suitable for the client. The proposed
amendment would state more explicitly that a municipal advisor would be
prohibited from making recommendations to clients regarding municipal
securities transactions and municipal financial products that are
unsuitable for such clients. To further clarify proposed section (d),
the MSRB also proposes to modify proposed subsection (d)(ii) to provide
that the requirement to inform the client that a recommendation is
unsuitable potentially arises only in the context of the review of a
recommendation of another, by adding the parenthetical phrase ``(as may
be applicable in the case of a review of a recommendation).''
    The MSRB also proposes a minor amendment to clarify proposed Rule
G-42(e)(i)(B), which prohibits a municipal advisor from delivering an
invoice for fees or expenses for municipal advisory activities that do
not accurately reflect the activities actually performed or the
personnel that actually performed those activities. Specifically, as
revised, the provision would prohibit the delivery of such an invoice
if it ``is materially inaccurate in its reflection of the activities
actually performed or the personnel that actually performed those
activities.'' The proposed clarification, which is responsive to
comments that expressed concern regarding invoices containing minor or
immaterial errors, would incorporate in the proposed provision an
explicit, rather than implicit, limitation based on materiality, and is
consistent with the MSRB's explanation of the provision in the original
proposed rule change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the original proposed rule change, the MSRB noted that
the scope of inaccuracy targeted by the proposed provision was
``limited to the significant subjects of the services performed and
personnel who performed those services.'' See Notice, 80 FR 26752,
at 26777.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Amendment No. 1 would incorporate minor, non-substantive
amendments to proposed subsections (e)(ii), regarding prohibited
principal transactions. The proposed amendments to proposed subsection
(e)(ii) would clarify the provision, to provide:

    A municipal advisor to a municipal entity client, and any
affiliate of such municipal advisor, is prohibited from engaging
with the municipal entity client in a principal transaction that is
the same, or directly related to the, municipal securities
transaction or municipal financial product as to which the municipal
advisor is providing or has provided advice to the municipal entity
client.

    Similarly, technical and non-substantive changes would be
incorporated in proposed subsection (f)(i), defining the term,
``Engaging in a principal transaction.'' Finally, the proposed
amendments to proposed paragraph .11 of the Supplementary Material
would renumber the provision as proposed paragraph .12 of the
Supplementary Material, as previously noted, and change the reference
in the second line of the provision from ``engaging in a principal
transaction'' to ``principal transaction'' to conform proposed
renumbered paragraph .12 to proposed amended subsection (f)(i).
    The MSRB proposes to make the proposed rule change effective six
months after Commission approval of all changes.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding the foregoing, including whether the filing as
amended 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2015-03 and should be
submitted on or before September 11, 2015.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20936 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P