[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83113-83115]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28066]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90682; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Listing Rules Applicable to Special
Purpose Acquisition Companies Whose Business Plan Is To Complete One or
More Business Combinations

December 16, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On September 3, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its listing rules to permit companies
whose business plan is to complete one or more business combinations
(``SPACs'' or ``Acquisition Companies'') 15 calendar days following the
closing of a business combination to demonstrate that the SPAC has
satisfied the applicable round lot shareholder requirement. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 22, 2020.\3\ On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to December 21, 2020.\5\ The
Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89897 (September 16,
2020), 85 FR 59574.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90340, 85 FR 71704
(November 10, 2020).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    A SPAC is a company whose business plan is to complete an initial
public offering and engage in a merger or acquisition with one or more
unidentified companies within a specific period of time.\7\ Nasdaq
listing rules, among other things, require a SPAC to keep at least 90%
of the proceeds from its initial public offering in an escrow
account,\8\ and to complete one or more business combinations having an
aggregate fair market value of at least 80% of the value of the escrow
account within a specified period of time.\9\ Following each business
combination, the combined company must meet the requirements for
initial listing on Nasdaq.\10\ If the combined company does not meet
the initial listing requirements following a business combination,
Nasdaq staff will issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Nasdaq
Rule 5810.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58228 (July 25,
2008), 73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (adopting the predecessor to IM-
5101-2).
    \8\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(a).
    \9\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(b).
    \10\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(d). If a shareholder vote on the
business combination is held, public shareholders voting against a
business combination must have the right to convert their shares of
common stock into a pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in
the escrow account (net of taxes payable and amounts distributed to
management for working capital purposes) if the business combination
is approved and consummated. Id. If a shareholder vote on the
business combination is not held, the company must provide all
shareholders with the opportunity to redeem their shares for cash
equal to their pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in the
deposit account (net of taxes payable and amounts distributed to
management for working capital purposes). See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(e).
    \11\ See Nasdaq IM-5101-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, Nasdaq acknowledges that its existing rules
require that, ``following each business combination'' with a SPAC, the
resulting company must satisfy all initial listing requirements. Nasdaq
asserts, however, that the rule does not provide a timetable for the
company to demonstrate that it satisfies those requirements.
Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to modify the rule to specify if the SPAC
demonstrates that it will satisfy all requirements except the
applicable round lot shareholder requirement, then the SPAC will
receive 15 calendar days following the closing to demonstrate that it
satisfied the applicable round lot shareholder requirement immediately
following the transaction's closing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nasdaq has three listing tiers, each of which require,
among other things, a company to have a minimum number of
shareholders in order to initially list on the Exchange. See Nasdaq
Rule 5315(f)(1) (on Global Select, an issuer must have at least 550
Total Holders with a minimum average monthly trading volume over the
prior 12 months, 2,200 Total Holders, or 450 Round Lot Holders with
50% of holders holding Unrestricted Securities); Nasdaq Rule
5405(a)(3) (on Global, an issuer must have at least 400 Round Lot
Holders with 50% of holders holding Unrestricted Securities); and
Nasdaq Rule 5505(a)(3) (on Capital, an issuer must have at least 300
Round Lot Holders with at least 50% of holders holding Unrestricted
Securities.

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

    Nasdaq states that it ordinarily determines compliance with the
round lot shareholder requirement at the time of a business combination
by reviewing a company's public disclosures and information provided by
the company about the transaction.\13\ According to Nasdaq, if it
cannot determine compliance using public information, it will typically
request the company to provide additional information such as
registered shareholder lists from the company's transfer agent, data
from Cede & Co. about shares held in street name, or data from broker-
dealers and third parties that distribute information such as proxy
materials for the broker-dealers. If the company can provide
information demonstrating compliance before the business combination
closes, Nasdaq states that no further information would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Nasdaq states, for example, that the merger agreement may
result in the Acquisition Company issuing a round lot of shares to
more than 300 holders of the target of the business combination at
closing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Nasdaq asserts that it has observed that in some cases it
can be difficult for a company to obtain evidence demonstrating the
number of shareholders that it has or will have following a business
combination. Nasdaq notes that shareholders in a SPAC may redeem or
tender their shares until just before the time of the business
combination, and the SPAC may not know how many shareholders will
choose to redeem until very close to the consummation of the business
combination.\14\ Nasdaq states that this could impact its ability to
determine compliance before the business combination closes, in cases
where the number of round lot shareholders is close to the applicable
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that SPACs are unlike other newly
listing companies which do not face redemptions and are not already
listed and trading at the time they must demonstrate compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for a SPAC that has demonstrated that it will satisfy
all of the initial listing requirements except for the round lot
shareholder requirement before consummating the business combination,
Nasdaq proposes to allow the SPAC 15 calendar days after the closing of
the business combination, if necessary, to demonstrate that it also
complied with the round lot requirement at the time of the business
combination. Nasdaq stresses that the SPAC must still demonstrate that
it satisfied the round lot shareholder requirement immediately
following the business combination, and that the proposal merely would
give the SPAC 15 calendar days to provide evidence that it did. Nasdaq
believes that the proposal ``balances the burden placed on the
Acquisition Company to obtain accurate shareholder information for the
new entity and the need to ensure that a company that does not satisfy
the initial listing requirements following a business combination
enters the delisting process promptly.'' \15\ Nasdaq notes that if the
company does not evidence compliance within the proposed time period,
Nasdaq staff would issue a delisting determination, which the company
could then appeal to an independent hearings panel.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange also takes the position that shareholders of
the SPAC would be harmed if Nasdaq issued a delisting determination
at a time when the company did, in fact, satisfy all initial listing
requirements but could not yet provide proof.
    \16\ The Exchange has also proposed to eliminate a duplicative
paragraph and add a new subsection enumeration to its existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NASDAQ-2020-062 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \17\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\18\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act, and in
particular, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of the
minimum number of holders and other similar requirements in exchange
listing standards. Among other things, such listing standards help
ensure that exchange listed securities have sufficient public float,
investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity
necessary to promote fair and orderly markets.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57785 (May
6, 2008), 73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-17) (stating that
the distribution standards, which includes exchange holder
requirements ``. . . should help to ensure that the [SPAC's]
securities have sufficient public float, investor base, and
liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets''); 58228 (July 25,
2008), 73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (SR-Nasdaq-2008-013) (approving a
proposal to adopt listing standards for SPACs); and 86117 (June 14,
2018), 84 FR 28879 (June 20, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-46) (disapproving a
proposal to reduce the minimum number of public holders continued
listing requirement applicable to SPACs from 300 to 100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange is proposing to provide a SPAC 15
calendar days following the closing of a business combination to
demonstrate that it satisfied the applicable round lot holder
requirement immediately following the closing. The Exchange asserts
that it can be difficult for a SPAC to obtain evidence demonstrating
the number of holders it will have following the business combination
because SPAC shareholders have the right to redeem or tender their
shares until just before the time of such business combination. The
Exchange, however, has provided no data or other evidence to support
its position that SPACs have particular difficulties demonstrating
compliance with the minimum number of holders requirements. For
example, the Exchange has not provided any data showing the extent to
which SPACs have been unable to meet the applicable minimum number of
holders requirement immediately following the business combination, or
the extent to which this was due to last minute redemptions by SPAC
shareholders. The Exchange also has provided no data or other evidence
showing how long it has taken SPACs that have been unable to meet the
applicable minimum number of holders requirement, whether or not due to
last minute shareholder redemptions, to come into compliance with such
requirements.
    Further, the Exchange has not explained how providing a SPAC an
additional 15 days following the closing of the business combination
simply to demonstrate that it complied with the applicable minimum
number of holders requirement immediately following the closing, would
address the substantive compliance concerns associated with

last minute shareholder redemptions by SPACs that are close to the
minimum requirement. The Exchange also has not addressed the risk that,
by waiting for SPACs to demonstrate compliance with the minimum number
of holders requirements until after the closing of the business
combination, non-compliant companies could be listed on the Exchange
despite not meeting initial listing standards, and have their
securities continue to trade until the delisting process has been
completed. As a result, a SPAC could complete a business combination
and very soon thereafter be subject to delisting proceedings, and
during such time its securities may trade with a number of holders that
is substantially less than the required minimum. The Exchange has not
addressed the impact this could have on SPAC shareholders and other
market participants, or explained why subjecting them to these risks is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
and the other requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.''
\21\ The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding, and any failure of an SRO
to provide this information may result in the Commission not having a
sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to
determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by January 11, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
January 25, 2021. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    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-NASDAQ-2020-062 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-NASDAQ-2020-062. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-062 and should be submitted
by January 11, 2021. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January
25, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28066 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21729-21731]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07502]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97255; File No. SR-MSRB-2023-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change
Consisting of Amendments to MSRB Rule G-40, on Advertising by Municipal
Advisors, and MSRB Rule G-8, on Books and Records

April 5, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On January 31, 2023, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule (the ``original proposed rule change'')
consisting of amendments to MSRB Rule G-40 on advertising by municipal
advisors (``Rule G-40''), and MSRB Rule G-8 on books and records
(``Rule G-8'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See MSRB filing of original proposed rule change, available
at https://msrb.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/MSRB-2023-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 14, 2023.\4\ The Commission received two
comment letters on the original proposed rule change.\5\ On March 21,
2023, the MSRB granted an extension of time for the Commission to act
on the filing until May 15, 2023.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Release No. 34-96840 (Feb. 8, 2023), 88 FR 9580 (Feb. 14,
2023) (``Notice''). The comment period closed on March 7, 2023.
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Leslie M. Norwood,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, dated March 7, 2023 (``SIFMA
Letter''); Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Susan Gaffney,
Executive Director, National Association of Municipal Advisors,
dated March 7, 2023 (``NAMA Letter'').
    \6\ See ``Extension of Time on File No. SR-MSRB-2023-01 to May
15, 2023,'' available at https://msrb.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/MSRB-2023-01%20eot.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 2023, the MSRB responded to the comments \7\ and filed
Amendment No. 1 to the original proposed rule change (``Amendment No.
1''). The text of Amendment No. 1 is available on the MSRB's
website.\8\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from Saliha Olgun, Interim Chief Regulatory
Officer, MSRB, to Secretary, Commission, dated April 4, 2023,
available at https://msrb.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/MSRB-2023-01%20Comment%20Letter.pdf.
    \8\ Amendment No. 1 is available at https://msrb.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/MSRB-2023-01%20A-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As described further below, the MSRB filed Amendment No. 1 to
respond to comments on the original proposed rule change, relating to:
(1) the definition of ``testimonial;'' (2) non-client testimonials; (3)
solicitor municipal advisors; (4) social media guidance; and (5) other
clarifications to rule text and design.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The MSRB stated that Amendment No. 1 does not alter or
impact the analysis in the original proposed rule change's burden on
competition or the statutory basis sections. See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Definition of Testimonial

    The MSRB noted that a commenter suggested that the term
``testimonial'' be defined within the rule language itself.\10\ The
MSRB responded, stating it would provide a definition of a
``testimonial'' in Rule G-40 to avoid confusion with the term
``testimonial'' as used in Rule 206-4(1) \11\ under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'').\12\ Specifically, the MSRB
defined ``testimonial'' in amended Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(1) as ``a
statement of a person's or entity's experience concerning the municipal
advisor or concerning the municipal advisory services rendered by the
municipal advisor.'' \13\ Furthermore, the MSRB also removed language
from the original proposed rule change referring to the ``advice,
analysis, report, or other services rendered by the municipal
advisor.'' \14\ The MSRB concluded that replacing this language with
``municipal advisory services'' in the definition of ``testimonial''
(and elsewhere in the original proposed rule change's rule text)
provided greater clarity.\15\ The MSRB also made conforming numbering
changes to the original proposed rule change's Rule G-40 revisions to
accommodate the addition of the definition of ``testimonial'' to
amended Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(1).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NAMA Letter at 1-2; see also Amendment No. 1.
    \11\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(1).
    \12\ See Amendment No. 1; 15 U.S.C. 80b-1-80b-2.
    \13\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ The MSRB also added a cross-reference to the new definition
of ``testimonial'' in the original proposed rule change's Rule G-8.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the revised rule text in amended Rule G-
40(a)(iv)(G)(2) provides that, if a municipal advisor's advertisement
meets certain conditions, then a municipal advisor may, directly or
indirectly, publish, circulate or distribute an advertisement which
refers, directly or indirectly, to a testimonial.\17\ The MSRB posited
that this definition addresses a comment requesting that Rule G-40
include a definition of the term ``testimonial,'' but also a comment's
suggestion that the rule ``include affirmative language that
testimonials may be used if certain requirements are met.'' \18\ The
MSRB also deleted a redundant phrase later in this subsection;
specifically, amended Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(b)(iv)(``the paid
testimonial must include'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
    \18\ NAMA Letter at 4; see also id.
    \19\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Non-Client Testimonials

    The MSRB noted that both commenters suggested that it would promote
further harmonization with MSRB Rule G-21 (``Rule G-21''), on
advertising by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers, if
municipal advisors were able to use testimonials by third parties.\20\
The MSRB stated that it will amend the original proposed rule change to
permit municipal advisors to use testimonials from a third party,
whether a person or entity, subject to the conditions set forth in
proposed Amendment No. 1.\21\ The MSRB reasoned that, for example,
analogous to Rule 206-4(1) \22\ under the Advisers Act,\23\ an
advertisement of a municipal advisor that includes a testimonial would
need to include a disclosure indicating whether the testimonial is from
a current client or from someone who is not a current client.\24\ The
MSRB wrote that it agreed with the Commission's belief that this type
of disclosure would provide important context for weighing the
relevance of the testimonial.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.; NAMA Letter and SIFMA Letter.
    \21\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \22\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1(b)(1).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-1-80b-2.
    \24\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \25\ See id.; see also Release No. IA-5653 (Dec. 22, 2020) (File
No. S7-21-19), 86 FR 13024 (Mar. 5, 2021) (``IA Marketing Rule
Adopting Release'') at 13048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Solicitor Municipal Advisors

    The MSRB stated that both commenters found the proposal to

establish a different standard for the use of testimonials by solicitor
municipal advisors confusing.\26\ In response, the MSRB revised the
original proposed rule change to create uniformity in the criteria for
the use of testimonials by all municipal advisors.\27\ Specifically,
the MSRB removed proposed language that would have permitted, subject
to certain conditions, a solicitor municipal advisor to pay more than
$1000 in total value in cash or non-cash compensation during the
preceding 12 months for a testimonial.\28\ Additionally, the MSRB
eliminated the proposed language in the original proposed rule change
in Rules G-40 and G-8 concerning additional records to be maintained by
a solicitor municipal advisor related to such payments.\29\ The MSRB
concluded that these revisions in Amendment No.1 would prohibit any
municipal advisor from providing any compensation to a person or
entity, directly or indirectly, of more than $1000 in total value in
cash or non-cash compensation during the preceding 12 months.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See NAMA Letter and SIFMA Letter; see also Amendment No.1.
    \27\ See Amendment No.1.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ Correspondingly, the MSRB added the phrase ``directly or
indirectly'' to the original proposed rule change's Rule G-8. See
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Social Media Guidance

    The MSRB wrote that both commenters suggested that the MSRB's
``FAQs regarding the Use of Social Media under MSRB Rule G-21, on
Advertising by Brokers, Dealers or Municipal Securities Dealers, and
MSRB Rule G-40, on Advertising by Municipal Advisors'' (``social media
guidance'') \31\ be updated to reflect the proposed amendments to Rule
G-40.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ These frequently asked questions (``FAQs'') were filed with
the Commission for immediate effectiveness. See Release No. 34-85222
(Feb. 28, 2019), 84 FR 8132 (Mar. 6, 2019) (File No. SR-MSRB-2019-
04). These FAQs can be found on the MSRB's website at https://www.msrb.org/FAQs-regarding-Use-Social-Media-under-MSRB-Rule-G-21-Advertising-Brokers-Dealers-or-Municipal-0 (Aug. 23, 2019).
    \32\ See NAMA Letter and SIFMA Letter; see also Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by proposing to amend its social media guidance
to reflect the proposed amendments to Rule G-40 (inter alia, allowing
the use of testimonials in municipal advisor advertisements, subject to
certain conditions).\33\ The MSRB explained that the current social
media guidance notes that, by paying for or soliciting positive
comments from a third party, (i) a municipal advisor would be deemed to
be entangled with those comments, and (ii) the posting of those third-
party comments on the municipal advisor's social media page would be
deemed to be an advertisement by the municipal advisor that contains a
testimonial.\34\ The MSRB stated that Amendment No.1's revisions to the
social media guidance would make clear that the advertisement
containing a testimonial would be permissible so long as the
advertisement meets the requirements of Rule G-40 (including having the
requisite disclosures).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB noted that the revised social media guidance
would make clear that if a municipal advisor did not pay, directly or
indirectly, for a testimonial, but liked, shared, or commented on a
post from a third-party, the municipal advisor would be deemed to have
adopted those comments and the posting of those third party comments on
the municipal advisor's social media page would be deemed an
advertisement that contains a testimonial.\36\ The MSRB concluded that
the advertisement containing a testimonial would be permissible so long
as the advertisement meets the requirements of Rule G-40 (including
having the requisite disclosures).\37\ The MSRB also revised the social
media guidance's footnotes with updated citations and conforming
numbering changes.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Other Modifications to Rule Text

    As discussed further below, the MSRB also proposed other textual
changes in Amendment No. 1 to provide additional clarity and facilitate
compliance.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See NAMA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Language in Rule G-40 Regarding Use of a Testimonial
    The MSRB stated that it revised the original proposed rule change
to clarify that a municipal advisor may only use a testimonial if the
person or entity providing the testimonial has the knowledge and
experience to make a statement concerning their experience with the
municipal advisor or with the municipal advisory services rendered by
the municipal advisor.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Supplementary Material .03 to Rule G-40
    The MSRB added Supplementary Material .03 to Rule G-40 to the
original proposed rule change, stating that this revision would clarify
that, in order for a requisite disclosure in an advertisement to be
clear and prominent (including that a testimonial is a paid
testimonial), the disclosure must be at least as prominent in the
advertisement as the testimonial.\41\ The MSRB also explained that this
revision indicates that disclosures should appear close to the
associated testimonial statement with the same prominence so that the
statement and disclosures are read at the same time, rather than
referring the reader to somewhere else in the advertisement to view the
disclosures.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1

    As stated in the original proposed rule change, the MSRB will
publish a regulatory notice no later than one month following the
Commission's approval date, which will include an implementation date
that shall be no later than three months following the Commission
approval date.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the filing as
amended by Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2023-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2023-01. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
MSRB-2023-01 and should be submitted on or before April 26, 2023.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07502 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86330-86331]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP24-21-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on November 30, 2023, Algonquin Gas Transmission,
LLC (Algonquin), 915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas
77079, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Algonquin's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP87-317-000, for authorization to
modify its existing E System Lateral Tap Site (Tap Site) located in the
Town of Coventry, Tolland County, Connecticut (E-1 System Regulator
Installation Project or Project). Algonquin states that the Project
will have no impact on the certificated capacity of its system, and
there will be no abandonment or reduction in service to any customer of
Algonquin as a result of the Project. The estimated cost for the
project is $15,700,000, all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. Public access
to records formerly available in the Commission's physical Public
Reference Room, which was located at the Commission's headquarters, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, are now available via the
Commission's website. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Arthur
Diestel, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 5, 2024. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is February 5, 2024. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is February 5, 2024. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the

appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before
February 5, 2024. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make
the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must
intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP24-21-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP24-21-000.

To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
To file via any other method: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Arthur
Diestel, Director Regulatory, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642
or by email [email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by
an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to
the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from
the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 7, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27330 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53145-53146]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power, Project No. 13404-002; Devola Lock
and Dam Water Power Project, Project No. 13405-002; Malta/
McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Project No. 13406-002;
Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Project No. 13407-002; Philo
Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Project No. 13408-002; Rokeby Lock
and Dam Water Power Project, Project No. 13411-002]

Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380, the Office of
Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for original licenses for
the Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project (FERC Project No. 13404-
002), Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project (FERC Project No. 13405-
002), Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project (FERC
Project No. 13406-002), Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project (FERC
Project No. 13407-002), Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project (FERC
Project No. 13408-002), and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project
(FERC Project No. 13411-002). The proposed projects would be located on
the Muskingum River in Ohio. The Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project
would be located north of Philo, Ohio, in Muskingum County at river
mile (RM) 68.3. The Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located in Rokeby, Ohio, in Morgan and Muskingum Counties at RM 57.4.
The Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located in McConnelsville, Ohio, in Morgan County at RM 49.4. The
Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located upstream of
Beverly, Ohio, in Washington and Morgan Counties at RM 25.1. The Lowell
Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located west of Lowell, Ohio,
in Washington County at RM 14.2. The Devola Lock and Dam Water Power
Project would be located near Devola, Ohio, in Washington County at RM
5.8. The projects would be located at existing dams owned by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources. The projects would not occupy federal
land.
    Staff prepared a multi-project environmental assessment (EA) in
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of licensing the six projects, and
concludes that licensing the projects, with appropriate environmental
protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. In lieu of electronic filing,
please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page
of any filing should include: ``Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power
Project No. 13404-002, Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project No.
13405-002, Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project No.
13406-002, Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13407-002, Philo
Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13408-002, and/or Rokeby Lock and
Dam Water Power Project No. 13411-002'' as appropriate, to the first
page of any comments.
    For further information, contact Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 27, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21714 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34738-34739]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface
Issues for Avionics Plenary

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

ACTION: Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface
Issues for Avionics Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot
Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 25-28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human
Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary. The agenda will
include the following:

Monday, September 25, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

(1) Introduction, Upcoming PMC Dates and Deliverable
(2) Review of TOR
(3) Review Previous Meeting Summaries
(4) Roadmap for Remaining Items To Be Completed; Notional Schedule of
Activities Remaining

(5) Address Comments Received From the Final Review and Comment Period

Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

(1) Address Comments Received From the Final Review and Comment Period

Wednesday, September 26, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

(1) Address Comments Received From the Final Review and Comment Period

Thursday, September 27, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

(1) Address Comments Received From the Final Review and Comment Period
(2) Entertain the Motion To Submit the Document to the Program
Management Committee for Approval
(3) Other Business
(4) Action Items
(5) Review of Key Dates
(6) Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-15606 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 178)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52932-52934]
[DOCID:fr12se08-18]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0842; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-24-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 914 F Series
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Occurrence of cracks in the exhaust muffler in the area of the
exhaust bottom and exhaust flange were reported, which could lead to
toxic contamination inside the cabin.

We are proposing this AD to prevent carbon monoxide contamination in
the cockpit, which can adversely affect the pilot, and possibly result
in loss of control of the aircraft.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 14,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Woldan, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7136; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0842;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-24-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2006-0127, dated May 18, 2006 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Occurrence of cracks in the exhaust muffler in the area of the
exhaust bottom and exhaust flange were reported, which could lead to
toxic contamination inside the cabin.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier-Rotax GmbH has issued Service Bulletin SB-914-028 R1,
dated November 8, 2004. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 75 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $1,674 per product. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $137,550.
Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier-Rotax GmbH: (Formerly Rotax GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2008-
0842; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-24-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 14, 2008.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 914 F series
reciprocating engines with engine exhaust muffler, part number (P/N)
979402 or 979404, with serial numbers (SNs) listed in Table 1 of
this AD, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited
to, Aeromot-Industria Mecanico Metalurgica, AMT-300 (Turbo Ximango
Shark), Diamond Aircraft Industries, HK 36 TTS, HK 36 TTC, HK 36
TTC-ECO, and Stemme GmbH & Co. KG, S10-VT series powered sailplanes.

                            Table 1--Affected Exhaust Mufflers by Group, P/N, and SN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Group                                    P/N                                  SN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A.................................  979402................................  02.0001 through 02.0322,
                                                                                03.0002, 03.0005, 03.0011,
                                                                                03.0015, 03.0017, 03.0028,
                                                                                03.0029, 03.0037, 03.0038,
                                                                                03.0040, 03.0050, 03.0069,
                                                                                03.0072, 03.0073, 03.0078,
                                                                                03.0080 through 03.0086,
                                                                                03.0088 through 03.0090,
                                                                                03.0092 through 03.0101,
                                                                                03.0103, and 03.0108.
(2) B.................................  979402................................  03.0001, 03.0003, 03.0004,
                                                                                03.0006, 03.0007 through
                                                                                03.0010, 03.0012 through
                                                                                03.0014, 03.0016, 03.0018
                                                                                through 03.0027, 03.0030
                                                                                through 03.0036, 03.0039,
                                                                                03.0041 through 03.0049,
                                                                                03.0051 through 03.0068,
                                                                                03.0070, 03.0071, 03.0074
                                                                                through 03.0077, 03.0079,
                                                                                03.0087, 03.0091, 03.0102, and
                                                                                03.0104 through 03.0107.
                                        979404................................  03.0200 through 04.0799.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason

    (d) Occurrence of cracks in the exhaust muffler in the area of
the exhaust bottom and exhaust flange were reported, which could
lead to toxic contamination inside the cabin.
    We are proposing this AD to prevent carbon monoxide
contamination in the cockpit, which can adversely affect the pilot,
and possibly result in loss of control of the aircraft.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Initial Visual Inspection

Group A Exhaust Mufflers

    (f) For exhaust mufflers specified in Group A of Table 1 of this
AD, within 50 hours of operation after the effective date of this
AD, do the following:
    (1) Perform a visual inspection around the fillet weld of the
exhaust inlet flange and around the weld of the exhaust outlet for
evidence of leakage or cracks. Information on inspecting the exhaust
muffler can be found in Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 914 F Service Bulletin
SB-914-028 R1, dated November 8, 2004.
    (2) If you see evidence of an exhaust leak or cracks, replace
the exhaust muffler.

Group B Exhaust Mufflers

    (g) For exhaust mufflers specified in Group B of Table 1 of this
AD, within 50 hours of operation after the effective date of this
AD, do the following:
    (1) Perform a visual inspection around the weld of the exhaust
outlet for evidence of leakage or cracks. Information on inspecting
the exhaust muffler can be found in Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 914 F
Service Bulletin SB-914-028 R1, dated November 8, 2004.
    (2) If you see evidence of an exhaust leak or cracks, replace
the exhaust muffler.

Repetitive Visual Inspections

    (h) Within 50 hours of operation since the last inspection,
perform the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2)
and (g)(1) through (g)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    (i) None.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0127, dated
May 18, 2006, and Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 914 F Service Bulletin SB-
914-028 R1, dated November 8, 2004, for related information.
    (l) Contact Richard Woldan, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-
7136; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 5, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-21282 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 63147]
[DOCID:fr02de09-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. QF86-36-004; EL10-18-000]

PowerSmith Cogeneration Project Limited Partnership; Notice of
Filing

November 24, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 20, 2009, PowerSmith Cogeneration
Project Limited Partnership filed a petition for temporary waiver of 5
percent operating efficiency standards for its 110 MW topping-cycle
cogeneration facility, located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, pursuant to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations 292.205(c) and
385.207, 18 CFR 292.205(c) and 385.207.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 4, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28789 Filed 12-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P