[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11434-11437]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0101]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors,
Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner
Harbor during the movement of the historic sloop-of-war USS
CONSTELLATION on May 25, 2012. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waters during the tow of the vessel
from its berth at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland, to a point
on the Patapsco River near the Fort McHenry National Monument and
Historic Shrine in Baltimore, Maryland, and its return. This action
will restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Patapsco River,
Northwest Harbor, and Inner Harbor during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0101 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Baltimore Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0101), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0101'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0101'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    Historic Ships in Baltimore is planning to conduct a ``turn-
around'' ceremony involving the sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION in
Baltimore, Maryland on May 25, 2012. Planned events include a three-
hour, round-trip tow of the USS CONSTELLATION in the Port of Baltimore,
consisting of an onboard salute with navy pattern

cannon while the historic vessel is positioned off the Fort McHenry
National Monument and Historic Site. Beginning at 3 p.m., the historic
Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION will be towed ``dead ship,'' which means
that the vessel will be underway without the benefit of mechanical or
sail propulsion. The return dead ship tow of the USS CONSTELLATION to
its berth in the Inner Harbor is expected to occur immediately upon
execution of a tug-assisted turn-around of the USS CONSTELLATION on the
Patapsco River near Fort McHenry. The Coast Guard anticipates a large
recreational boating fleet during this event, scheduled on a late
Friday afternoon during the Memorial Day Holiday weekend in Baltimore,
Maryland. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along
the planned route. In the event of inclement weather, the ``turn-
around'' will be rescheduled for May 31, 2012.
    To address safety concerns during the event, the Captain of the
Port Baltimore proposes to establish a safety zone upon certain waters
of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor. The proposed
safety zone will help the Coast Guard provide a clear transit route for
the participating vessels, and provide a safety buffer around the
participating vessels while they are in transit. Due to the need to
promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public
in the Port of Baltimore immediately prior to, during, and after the
scheduled event, a safety zone is prudent.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    A permanent safety zone for this proposed rule, with an enforcement
period from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. local time annually on the Friday
following Labor Day, has already been published and is detailed at
Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 165.512. Due however to a
change in scheduling for this calendar year, this event is planned for
Friday, May 25, 2012. The historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION is
scheduled to be towed ``dead ship'' from its berth at Pier 1 in
Baltimore's Inner Harbor along a one-way, planned route of
approximately four nautical miles, that includes specified waters of
the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor to a point on the
Patapsco River near Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine,
Baltimore, Maryland. After being turned-around, the USS CONSTELLATION
will be returned to its original berth at Pier 1, Inner Harbor,
Baltimore, Maryland. Due to the need to safeguard dead ship tow
participants and prevent vessels or persons from approaching the USS
CONSTELLATION along the intended route immediately prior to, during,
and following the scheduled towing evolution, vessel traffic will be
restricted on certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor
and Inner Harbor.
    The Captain of the Port Baltimore is proposing to establish a
temporary moving safety zone around the USS CONSTELLATION dead ship tow
participants from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on May 25, 2012, and, if
necessary due to inclement weather, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on May
31, 2012. The proposed regulated area includes all waters within 200
yards ahead of and 100 yards outboard or aft of the historic Sloop-of-
War USS CONSTELLATION while operating in the Inner Harbor, the
Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco River. Vessels underway at the time
this safety zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the
zone. With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION ``turn-around''
participants, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. U.S. Coast
Guard patrol vessels will be provided to prevent the movement of
persons and vessels in the regulated area. The Captain of the Port
Baltimore will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to publicize the
safety zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone.
Such notices will continue until the event is complete.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the
affected area, the effect of this regulation will not be significant
due to the limited size and duration that the regulated area will be in
effect. In addition, notifications will be made to the maritime
community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust
their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within
the safety zone during the enforcement period. The safety zone will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. The safety zone is of limited size
and duration. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are
more likely to be small entities, may transit around the safety zone.
Maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community
before the effective period.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number
410-576-2674 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain

about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves
establishing a temporary safety zone. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0101 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0101  Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner
Harbors, Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a safety zone: (1)
all waters within 200 yards ahead of and 100 yards outboard or aft of
the historic Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION while operating in the
Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco River.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section: (1) ``Captain of the Port
Baltimore'' means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
Maryland.
    (2) ``Designated representative'' means any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) ``USS CONSTELLATION ``turn-around'' participants'' means the
USS CONSTELLATION, its support craft and the accompanying towing
vessels.
    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05.0101. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION ``turn-around''
participants, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain

of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor at
the time the safety zone is implemented do not have to depart the
safety zone. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time
it is implemented are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first request authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 2 p.m.
through 7 p.m. on May 25, 2012, and, if necessary due to inclement
weather, from 2 p.m. through 7 p.m. on May 31, 2012.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2012-4397 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32531-32532]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0060; Notice 2]

Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Ford Motor Company (Ford), has determined that certain
model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger cars and certain model year 2010
Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Ford filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, dated November 12, 2009.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Ford has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of Ford's petition was published, with a 30 day
public comment period, on June 4, 2010, in the Federal Register (75 FR
31839). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0060.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision,
contact Mr. Luis Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5298, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 15,663 model year
2010 Ford Taurus passenger car models, manufactured from June 1, 2009,
through October 5, 2009, at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, and
approximately 3,565 model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle
models, manufactured from June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, at
Ford's Oakville Assembly Plant, a total of approximately 19,228
vehicles are not in compliance with paragraph 6.2 of FMVSS No. 205
relating to windshield marking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming windshields
installed in the subject vehicles were manufactured by Zeledyne,
Inc. (Zeledyne), at their facility located at 7200 W. Centennial
Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Ford's Petition: Ford describes the noncompliance as the
improper location of the ``AS1'' glazing marking. The standard requires
that the ``AS1'' glazing marking be located in close proximity to the
official designated trademark area (lower portion) of the windshield.
However, Ford said that the ``AS1'' symbol is marked in the upper
portion of the windshield; on both sides of the affected windshields
and that the windshields conform to all other FMVSS No. 205
requirements.
    Ford states the basis for why they believe this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as:
    (1) This condition does not present a risk to motor vehicle safety
because the windshield fully meets the performance and physical
requirements of FMVSS [No.] 205.
    (2) Repair service will be unaffected because the selection of
replacement windshields is typically done utilizing a distributor, a
catalog, or NAGS [National Auto Glass Specification] number.
    (3) Furthermore, repairers will be able to determine the
appropriate glazing because the upper portions of the windshield are
properly labeled with the ``AS1,'' designation, the glazing is clearly
marked as ``Laminated,'' and all other markings required by FMVSS [No.]
205 are properly labeled.
    (4) No other Ford vehicles are affected by this condition and Ford
is not aware of any field or owner complaints related to this
condition.
    Additionally, Ford stated that Zeledyne discovered the
noncompliance during its trademark content project study in which its
laboratory personnel noticed that the ``AS1'' symbol was missing from
the designated trademark location on the lower corner of the
windshields for the affected vehicles.
    Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production.
    Supported by the above stated reasons, Ford believes that the
described FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt it from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120,
should be granted.

    Background Requirement: Section Sec.  6.2 of FMVSS No. 205
specifically states:

    Sec.  6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. . .
.

    NHTSA Decision: FMVSS No. 205 specifies labeling and performance
requirements for automotive glazing. Section Sec.  6 of FMVSS No. 205
requires glazing material manufacturers to certify, in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to which this standard
applies. A prime glazing material manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding the marks required in Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996), the symbol
``DOT'' and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by the NHTSA's Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance. One of the labeling requirements in
Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996) is to mark automotive glazing with the
item of glazing number, e.g., ``AS-1''. In addition, Section 7 of ANSI
Z26.1 (1996) states that the item of glazing number is to be placed in
close proximity to other required markings.
    According to the petition, the nature of the noncompliance is the
improper placement of the glazing number on the windshield. NHTSA
believes that the placement of the glazing number, separated from the
other required labeling, is inconsequential to vehicle safety. The
glazing number has been placed at a different location from the rest of
the required markings, but all information required in FMVSS No. 205
appears on the windshield. The windshields meet all performance
requirements and Ford has taken the steps to correct the problem.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that Ford
has met its burden of persuasion and that the subject FMVSS No. 205
glazing noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Ford's petition is hereby granted, and Ford is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.

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

    Issued on: May 21, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12823 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


STATE OF OREGON 8 HOUR OZONE DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the 2000 2002 design value Portland Vancouver AQMA 530110011 Clark ( WA) Mt. View High School 0.06 Yes Attainment/ Unclassifiable ( part of Portland Vancouver MSA1) 410050004 Clackamas Carus 0.07 Yes 410052002 Clackamas Milwaukie 0.06 Yes 410090004 Columbia Sauvie Island 0.06 Yes Salem Keizer 410470004 Marion Turner 0.06 Yes Attainment/ Unclassifiable Eugene Springfield AQMA 410390060 Lane Amazon Park 0.06 Yes Attainment/ Unclassifiable 410391007 Saginaw 0.07 Medford Ashland AQMA 410290201 Jackson Talent 0.07 Yes Attainment/ Unclassifiable Rest of State ( no monitoring data available) Attainment/ Unclassifiable NOTES: 1.

2. The design value is compared to the standard of 0.08 ppm.

3. EPA does not make a distiction between attainment designations and unclassifiable designation since the Clean Air Act treats attainment and unclassifiable areas in the same way.

Site Name Airshed Site ID County ( State) Recommended Designation3 2000 2002 Design Value2 Attainment?

Metropolitan area boundaries are defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget. MSA means Metropotian Statistical Area; CMSA, Consolidated Metropoitan Statistical Area.

dwcgi 3678 1062514909 796444000. xls Page 1 STATE OF OREGON 8 HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES Based on the 3 year average of 4th highest daily maximum values for 2000 2002 2000 2001 2002 Portland Vancouver AQMA 530110011 Clark ( WA) Mt. View High School 98 0.058 0.063 0.058 0.060 0.06 ( part of Portland Vancouver MSA1) 410050004 Clackamas Carus 96 0.065 0.069 0.063 0.066 0.07 410052002 Clackamas Milwaukie 92 0.056 0.059 0.063 0.059 0.06 410090004 Columbia Sauvie Island 95 0.054 0.056 0.061 0.057 0.06 Salem Keizer 410470004 Marion Turner 98 0.059 0.057 0.063 0.060 0.06 Eugene Springfield AQMA 410390060 Lane Amazon Park 98 0.047 0.061 0.067 0.058 0.06 410391007 Saginaw 90 0.064 0.066 0.065 0.065 0.07 Medford Ashland AQMA 410290201 Jackson Talent 95 0.067 0.064 0.078 0.070 0.07 NOTES: 1.

2. 3. 2000 2002 Design Value Metropolitan area boundaries are defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget. MSA means Metropotian Statistical Area; CMSA, Consolidated Metropoitan Statistical Area.

Percent Valid Days. The design value is based on 3 consectutive calendar years of data where daily maximum 8 hour concentrations are available for an average of 90% of the days in each ozone monitoring season ( May 1 through September 30).

The 3 year average of the 4th higest daily maximum is compared to the standard of 0.08 ppm after rounding the average to two decimal places by rounding the third decimal place of 4 and below down and 5 and above up. 3 Year Average ( ppm) 4 Designated Area Site ID County ( State) 4th Highest Daily Maximum ( ppm)

Site Name Percent Valid Days2 2000 2002 design values dwcgi 3678 1062514909 796444000. xls 9/ 5/ 03


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41090-41093]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1027; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-121-AD;
Amendment 39-17886; AD 2014-13-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of installation of
incorrect wire support clamps within the bay area of the left and right
environmental control systems (ECS) during production; the ECS bay area
is a flammable fluid leakage zone. Use of incorrect wire support clamps
that are not fully cushioned could allow electrical power wiring to
come in contact with the exposed metal of the improper clamp, causing a
short circuit

and subsequent electrical arcing. This AD requires inspecting to
identify the part number of the wire support clamp, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this
AD to prevent electrical arcing and a potential ignition source, which,
in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 19, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 19,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
1027; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2013 (78 FR
75512). The NPRM was prompted by a report of installation of incorrect
wire support clamps within the bay area of the left and right ECS
during production; the ECS bay area is a flammable leakage zone. Use of
incorrect wire support clamps that are not fully cushioned could allow
electrical power wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of
the improper clamp, causing a short circuit and subsequent electrical
arcing. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting to identify the part
number of the wire support clamp, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent
electrical arcing and a potential ignition source, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Requests To Remove Certain Language in ``Relevant Service Information''
Section

    Boeing, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and American Airlines (AA) asked
that the third sentence in the ``Relevant Service Information'' section
of the NPRM (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013) be removed. That sentence
specified ``The related investigative actions include an eddy current
inspection of the wing front spar for cracking and a detailed
inspection of the bolt forward of the wing front spar upper chord for
cracking or missing bolts.'' Boeing stated that those actions seem
unrelated to the intent of the AD. ANA stated that the eddy current
inspection is not specified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-28-1312, dated April 19, 2013. AA stated that those
actions are not included in the referenced service information, and
asked that those actions be clarified or that the ``Relevant Service
Information'' section be corrected by removing those actions.
    We agree that the ``Relevant Service Information'' section in the
NPRM (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013) should not have stated that the
related investigative actions include an eddy current inspection of the
wing front spar for cracking; that inspection is not related to the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However, the ``Relevant Service
Information'' section of the NPRM is not carried over into this final
rule; therefore, no change to this final rule is necessary in this
regard.

Request To Include Equivalent Parts

    AA asked that we add ``equivalent fully cushioned wire clamps'' to
the approved part numbers (P/Ns) identified in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013) (redesignated as paragraph
(i) of this AD). AA stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD
prohibits the installation of a wire support clamp within the ECS bay
area, unless the clamp has P/N TA0930034-10, TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-
11, or TA0930034-12P. AA noted that adding ``equivalent fully cushioned
wire clamps'' would account for future part number changes and future
availability issues of the included part numbers. AA also asserted that
including the equivalent clamps also would reduce the potential for
airplanes becoming noncompliant during future maintenance.
    We do not agree to add ``equivalent fully cushioned wire clamps''
to the approved part numbers identified in paragraph (i) of this AD
(designated as paragraph (h) of the proposed AD). AA did not submit any
data to show how equivalency of the wire support clamp is to be
established, maintained, and controlled. However, under the provisions
of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may consider requests to use alternate
clamps if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that these
clamps meet the standards for the environmental (temperature,
vibration, fluid resistance) and performance requirements necessary to
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final
rule in this regard.

Request To Change Costs of Compliance Section

    AA asked that we change the inspection estimate in the ``Costs of
Compliance'' section in the NPRM (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013) from
6 to 24 work-hours, as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-28-1312, dated April 19, 2013.
    We agree to change the work-hour estimate for the inspection
specified in the ``Costs of Compliance'' section. After further review
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1312, dated April
19, 2013, we have determined that the work-hour estimate of 24 hours is
based on correct installation of the wire clamps and does not include
repairs to the wiring. Therefore, we have increased the work hour
estimate for the inspection

specified in the ``Costs of Compliance'' section of this final rule.

Changes to This Final Rule

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013), Boeing
has issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1312, Revision 1,
dated April 21, 2014. No additional work is necessary on airplanes that
were changed using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-
1312, dated April 19, 2013. We have added Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-28-1312, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2014, to
paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD, and added a new credit paragraph (h)
to this AD giving credit for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-28-1312, dated April 19, 2013.
    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 75512, December 12, 2013), we have
determined that the language used in the ``Parts Installation
Limitations'' paragraph of the AD needs clarification. As written, the
language could be interpreted as applying to ``all'' clamps located in
the ECS bay area; however, the limitation only applies to certain
clamps. We have changed paragraph (h) of the the proposed AD
(redesignated as paragraph (i) of this AD) to provide that
clarification.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 519 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  24 work-hours x $85 per                $0           $2,040       $1,058,760
                                     hour = $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related
investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on
the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these actions.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related investigative and corrective        1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..              $3              $88
 actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repair of chafed or damaged wiring
specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-13-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17886; Docket No. FAA-
2013-1027; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-121-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 19, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, having a variable number identified in paragraph 1.A.1.,
Effectivity, of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-
1312, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of installation of incorrect
wire support clamps within the bay area of the left and right
environmental control systems (ECS) during production; the ECS bay
area is a flammable fluid leakage zone. Use of incorrect wire
support clamps that are not fully cushioned could allow electrical
power wiring to come in contact with the exposed metal of the
improper clamp, causing a short circuit and subsequent electrical
arcing. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing and a
potential ignition source, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion, and consequent loss
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection to determine if a wire support clamp having part
number (P/N) TA0930034-10, TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-11, or
TA0930034-12P is installed, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1312, Revision 1, dated April 21,
2014.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
28-1312, dated April 19, 2013.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
wire support clamp on any airplane at the locations identified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-28-1312, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2014, unless the
wire support clamp has P/N TA0930034-10, TA0930034-10P, TA0930034-
11, or TA0930034-12P.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1312,
Revision 1, dated April 21, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15506 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20796-20797]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0156]
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Pittsburgh
Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.4 to 0.6; Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Pittsburgh
Pirates Fireworks on the Allegheny River, from mile 0.4 to 0.6,
extending the entire width of the river. This zone will be in effect on
April 5, April 19, May 10, June 26, July 19, August 9, and September
20, 2014 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. This zone is needed to protect
vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards
associated with the Pittsburgh Pirates Barge-based Fireworks. During
the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or

anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not
registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels,
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 will be enforced with actual
notice on April 5, April 19, May 10, June 26, July 19, August 9, and
September 20, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Ronald Lipscomb, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801
Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 11 on August 22, 2012.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 11 is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a); 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to
this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information
Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative
determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: March 18, 2014.
L.N. Weaver,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2014-08382 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21819]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 17g-2, SEC File No. 270-564, OMB Control No. 3235-
0628.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-
2 (17 CFR 240.17g-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17g-2, ``Records to be made and retained by nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations,'' implements the
Commission's recordkeeping rulemaking authority under Section 17(a) of
the Exchange Act.\1\ The rule requires a Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organization (``NRSRO'') to make and retain certain
records relating to its business and to retain certain other business
records, if such records are made. The rule also prescribes the time
periods and manner in which all these records must be retained. The
Commission estimates that the burden associated with Rule 17g-2 is
2,987, which includes one-time reporting burdens for processing
reports, and a cost of $5,933, which includes a one-time cost for
recordkeeping software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments
should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8715 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5822]
[DOCID:fr03fe06-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-94-002]

Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 26, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 23, 2006, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline,
LLC (Garden Banks) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised substitute tariff sheets
to become effective February 23, 2006:

Second Revised Sheet No. 140
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 297

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. E6-1453 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 1, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17758

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

Application of MN AIRLINES, LLC d/b/a SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES filed 5/7/04
for:

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

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, and the
terminal point Acapulco, Mexico.  Sun Country proposes to serve the
market on a seasonal basis, beginning December 2004.

Applicant rep:   Jobn S. Fredericksen<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Linda L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:  June 1, 2004,   through
June 1, 2006 .

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

  		        Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

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

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
____________________Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico
exemption authority granted is subject to the dormancy notice
requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.
Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice period for the
Minneapolis/St. Paul-Acapulco service will begin December 1, 2004, Sun
Country’s proposed startup date for this service.

________________________________________________________________________
___________________

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

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

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

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

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

					APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

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

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

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10192-10194]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03820]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74312; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Rule 6.25

February 19, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 19, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend a pilot program related to Rule
6.25 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions). The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the
Exchange's current rule applicable to obvious errors. Interpretation
and Policy .06 to Rule 6.25, explained in further detail below, is
currently operating on a pilot program set to expire on February 20,
2015. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program to October 23,
2015.
    On April 5, 2013, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
amendments to Exchange Rule 6.25 that stated that options executions
will not be adjusted or nullified if the execution occurs while the
underlying security is in a limit or straddle state as defined by the
Plan. Under the terms of this current pilot program, though options
executions will generally not be adjusted or nullified while the
underlying security is in a limit or straddle state, such executions
may be reviewed by the Exchange should the Exchange decide to do so
under its own motion.
    Pursuant to a comment letter filed in connection with the order
approving the establishment of the pilot, the Exchange committed to
submit monthly data regarding the program. In addition, the Exchange
agreed to submit an overall analysis of the pilot in conjunction with
the data submitted under the Plan and any other data as requested by
the Commission. Pursuant to a rule filing, approved on April 3, 2014,
each month, the Exchange committed to provide the Commission, and the
public, a dataset containing the data for each straddle and limit state
in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange. The
Exchange will continue to provide the Commission with this data on a
monthly basis from February 2015 through the end of the pilot. For each
trade on the Exchange, the Exchange will provide (a) the stock symbol,
option symbol, time at the start of the straddle or limit state, an
indicator for whether it is a straddle or limit state, and (b) for the
trades on the Exchange, the executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-
ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low
execution price, number of trades for which a request for review for
error was received during straddle and limit states, an indicator
variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change
exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's limit or straddle state
compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before
the start of the limit or straddle state (1 if observe 30% and 0
otherwise), and another indicator variable for whether the option price
within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the limit or
straddle state (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price
before the start of the limit or straddle state.
    In addition, the Exchange will provide to the Commission and the
public, no later than May 29, 2015, assessments relating to the impact
of the operation of the obvious error rules during limit and straddle
states including: (1) An evaluation of the statistical and economic
impact of limit and straddle states on liquidity and market quality in
the options markets, and (2) an assessment of whether the lack of
obvious error rules in effect during the straddle and limit states are
problematic.
    The Exchange is now proposing to extend the pilot period until
October 23, 2015. The Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from this provision should continue on a pilot basis. The
Exchange continues to believe that adding certainty to the execution of
orders in limit or straddle states will encourage market participants
to continue to provide liquidity to the Exchange, and, thus, promote a
fair and orderly market during these periods. Barring this provision,
the provisions of Rule 6.25 would likely apply in many instances during
limit and straddle states. The Exchange believes that continuing the
pilot will protect against any unanticipated consequences in the
options markets during a limit or straddle state. Thus, the Exchange
believes that the protections of current Rule should continue while the
industry gains further experience operating the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5)\5\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange further believes that it is necessary
and appropriate in the interest of promoting fair and orderly markets
to exclude transactions executed during a limit or straddle state from
certain aspects of the Exchange Rule 6.25. The Exchange believes the
application of the current rule will be impracticable given the lack of
a reliable NBBO in the options market during limit and straddle states,
and that the resulting actions (i.e., nullified trades or adjusted
prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions. Extension of
this pilot would ensure that limit orders that are filled during a
limit or straddle state would have certainty of execution in a manner
that promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
protections of the pilot should continue while the industry gains
further experience operating the Plan.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the pilot, the proposed
rule change will allow for further analysis of the pilot and a
determination of how the pilot shall be structured in the future. In
doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

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

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

    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 for 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 \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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 Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue
uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating
under the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility, and avoid
any investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption
in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has also 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-18. 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 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 Number SR-CBOE-2015-18, and should be
submitted on or before March 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03820 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 155-158]
[DOCID:fr02ja09-63]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59149; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-101]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Policy Relating to
Its Treatment of Trade Reports That It Determines To Be Inconsistent
With the Prevailing Market Retroactive to September 1, 2008

December 23, 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 December 19, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice
and order 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 that in conjunction with its previous filing to
adopt a policy relating to its treatment of trade reports that it
determines to be inconsistent with the prevailing market, to make such
policy retroactive to September 1, 2008. The Exchange does not expect
that the proposed rule change will have any direct effect, or
significant indirect effect, on any other Exchange rule in effect at
the time of this filing.

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. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    Trades in listed securities occasionally occur at prices that
deviate from prevailing market prices and those trades sometimes
establish a high, low or last sale price for a security that does not
reflect the true market for the security. This filing, which is
substantially similar to the New York Stock Exchange's (``NYSE'')
recent filing, seeks to address such instances of ``aberrant''
trades.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58736 (October 6,
2008), 73 FR 60380 (October 10, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-91). The
Exchange notes that these proposed policies relating to the
Exchange's treatment of trade reports that it determines to be
inconsistent with the prevailing market are substantially similar to
the NYSE's proposed policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that its policy in this regard shall be to
contact the listing exchange (if Nasdaq is not the listing exchange)
and other markets (in the case of executions that take place across
multiple markets) to determine if any erroneous trade reports were
filed. If not, or in the case of non-unlisted trading privilege trades,
if Nasdaq determines the trade price of a trade through Nasdaq is
inconsistent with the prevailing market for the security after
considering the factors outlined herein, the Exchange may make the
determination to append an indicator (an ``Aberrant Report Indicator'')
to the trade.
    Nasdaq trades stocks listed on its own market and trades on an
unlisted trading privilege (``UTP'') basis securities listed on other
markets. Nasdaq operates the securities information processor
(``SIP''), which processes trade and quote information for the Nasdaq
UTP Plan (``Nasdaq SIP''). The Securities Industry Automation
Corporation (``SIAC'') serves as the securities information processor
for the CTA Plan and processes trade and quote information for trades
in non-Nasdaq listed securities. The Nasdaq SIP and the Consolidated
Tape Association (``CTA'') offer each participant in the Nasdaq UTP and
CTA Plan the discretion to append to the Aberrant Report Indicator to a
trade report to indicate that the market believes that the trade price
in a trade executed on that market does not accurately reflect the
prevailing market for the security.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The CTA recommends that data recipients should exclude the
price of any trade to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has been
appended from any calculation of the high, low and last sale prices
for the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of surveillance by the Exchange or as a result of
notification by another market, listed company or market participant,
the Exchange may become aware of trade prices that do not accurately
reflect the prevailing market for a security. In such a case, the
Exchange proposes to adopt as policies that it:
    i. May determine to append an Aberrant Report Indicator to any
trade report with respect to any trade executed on the Exchange that
the Exchange determines to be inconsistent with the prevailing market;
and
    ii. Shall discourage vendors and other data recipients from using
prices to which the Exchange has appended the Aberrant Report Indicator
in any calculation of the high, low or last sale price of a security.
    The Exchange notes that although this filing is substantially
similar to the NYSE's recent filing, the NYSE filing seeks retroactive
application of their proposal to January 1, 2007.\5\ Nasdaq seeks
retroactive application to September 1, 2008 for this proposal. This
proposal applies the same guidelines and considers the same factors
during the retroactive period as set forth in Nasdaq's companion
filing,\6\ which is substantially identical to this one except
applicable to trades following that filing's immediate effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 3.
    \6\ See SR-NASDAQ-2008-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retroactive application is warranted in this instance given the
unprecedented market volatility and accurate trade reporting issues
that all market centers experienced beginning in September 2008.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes it should be permitted to act
retroactively to append the Aberrant Report Indicator to trades that do
not accurately reflect the prevailing market for a security commencing
as of September 1, 2008.
    The Exchange will urge vendors to disclose the exclusion from high,
low or last sale price data of any trades with an Aberrant Report
Indicator and exclude them from high, low or last sale price
information they disseminate and to provide to data users an
explanation of the parameters used in the Exchange's aberrant trade
policy. Upon initial adoption of the Aberrant Report Indicator, the
Exchange will contact all of its listed companies via a Head Trader
Alert to explain the aberrant trade policy and that the underlying
trades remain valid and will clear. In the event the trade relates to a
Nasdaq-listed security, Nasdaq's Market Intelligence Desk will inform
the affected listed company that these are still valid trades in that
they were executed and not unwound as in the case of a clearly
erroneous trade.
    While SIAC, on behalf of the CTA Plan, and the Nasdaq SIP, on
behalf of the Nasdaq UTP Plan, disseminate their own calculations of
high, low and last sale prices, vendors and other data recipients--and
not the Exchange--frequently determine their own methodology by which
they wish to calculate high, low and last sale prices. Therefore, the
Exchange shall endeavor to explain to those vendors and other data
recipients the deleterious effects that can result from including in
the calculations a trade to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has
been appended.
    In making the determination to append the Aberrant Report
Indicator, the Exchange shall consider all factors related to a trade,
including, but not limited to, the following:
     Material news released for the security;
     Suspicious trading activity;
     System malfunctions or disruptions;
     Locked or crossed markets;
     A recent trading halt or resumption of trading in the
security;
     Whether the security is in its initial public offering;
     Volume and volatility for the security;
     Whether the trade price represents a 52-week high or low
for the security;
     Whether the trade price deviates significantly from recent
trading patterns in the security;

     Whether the trade price reflects a stock-split,
reorganization or other corporate action;
     The validity of consolidated tape trades and quotes in
comparison to national best bids and offers; and
     The general volatility of market conditions.
    In determining whether trade prices are inconsistent with the
prevailing market, the Exchange proposes that its policy shall be to
follow the following general guidelines: The Exchange will review
whether a trade price does not reflect the prevailing market for a
security if the trade occurs during regular trading hours (i.e., 9:30
a.m. to 4 p.m.) and occurs at a price that deviates from the
``Reference Price'' by an amount that meets or exceeds the following
thresholds:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Numerical
                       Trade price                           threshold
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between $0 and $15.00...................................               7
Between $15.01 and $50.00...............................               5
In excess of $50.00.....................................               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Reference Price'' refers to (a) if the primary market for the
security is open at the time of the trade, the national best bid or
offer for the security, or (b) if the primary market for the security
is not open at the time of the trade, the first executable quote or
print for the security on the primary market after execution of the
trade in question. However, if the circumstances suggest that a
different Reference Price would be more appropriate, the Exchange will
use the different Reference Price. For instance, if the national best
bid and offer for the security are so wide apart as to fail to reflect
the market for the security, the Exchange might use as the Reference
Price a trade price or best bid or offer that was available prior to
the trade in question.
    If Nasdaq determines that a trade price does not reflect the
prevailing market for a security and the trade represented the last
sale of the security on the Exchange during a trading session, the
Exchange may also determine to remove that trade's designation as the
last sale and the preceding last sale eligible trade would become the
new last sale. Nasdaq may do so either on the day of the trade or at a
later date, so as to provide reasonable time for the Exchange to
conduct due diligence regarding the trade, including the consideration
of input from markets and other market participants.
    The Exchange proposes to use the Aberrant Report Indicator in
accordance with the guidelines set forth above. Where appropriate, the
Exchange may apply the Aberrant Report Indicator to trades that were
reported prior to the adoption of this policy.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
of the Act,\7\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Aberrant Report Indicator is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest in that the Exchange
will seek to ensure a proper understanding of the Aberrant Report
Indicator among securities market participants by: (i) Urging vendors
to disclose the exclusion from high, low or last sale price data of any
aberrant trades excluded from high, low or last sale price information
they disseminate and to provide to data users an explanation of the
parameters used in the Exchange's aberrant trade policy; (ii) informing
the affected listed company each time the Exchange or another market
appends the Aberrant Report Indicator to a trade in a Nasdaq-listed
stock; and (iii) reminding the users of the information that these are
still valid trades in that they were executed and not unwound as in the
case of a clearly erroneous trade.

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

    Nasdaq 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

    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 the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the 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-2008-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-101. 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 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 offices of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only

information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-101 and
should be submitted on or before January 23, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-31150 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P