[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 42163-42165]
[DOCID:fr01au07-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56130; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Institute a Pricing Incentive Program for Market Makers in Exchange-
Traded Funds and Index-Linked Securities

Date: July 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory
organization pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq proposes to institute a pricing incentive program for market
makers in exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') and index-linked securities
(``ILSs'') listed on Nasdaq.\5\ Nasdaq plans to implement the proposed
rule change on August 1, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nasdaq.com/about/LegalCompliance.stm.

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

    \5\ The Exchange's proposed rule text is contained in the Nasdaq
7000 Series (Charges for Membership, Services, and Equipment) at
paragraph (g) of Rule 7018 (Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution and
Routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to introduce a pricing incentive program for market
makers in ETFs and ILSs listed on Nasdaq. In April 2007, Nasdaq
executed 34.8% of all transactions in ETFs listed on U.S. exchanges,
making it the largest market for ETF transactions. Nasdaq also executes
a large percentage of transactions in ILSs. However, Nasdaq currently
lists fewer ETFs and ILSs than the New York Stock Exchange LLC and the
American Stock Exchange LLC. The proposal is designed both to enhance
Nasdaq's competitiveness as a listing venue for ETFs and ILSs and
further strengthen its market quality as a transaction venue for ETFs
and ILSs.
    Nasdaq proposes to adopt rules that are similar to those regarding
NYSE Arca, Inc.'s (``NYSE Arca's'') program for Designated Market
Makers.\6\ Under NYSE Arca's program, a Designated Market Maker for a
security listed on NYSE Arca is required to maintain minimum
performance standards with regard to (1) Percent of time at the
national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO''), (2) percent of executions
better than the NBBO, (3) average displayed size, (4) average quoted
spread, and (5) in the case of derivative securities, the ability of
the Designated Market Maker to transact in underlying markets. In
return, the Designated Market Maker pays $0.0025 per share when
accessing liquidity in stocks for which it is the Lead Market Maker,
and receives a $0.004 per share credit when providing liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.24 (Designated Market Maker
Performance Standards) and NYSE Arca Schedule of Fees and Charges
for Exchange Services (http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSEArca_Equities_Fees.pdf
).

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

    Under Nasdaq's proposed program, a market maker in an ETF or ILS
may become a ``Designated Liquidity Provider'' in a ``Qualified
Security'' and receive similarly favorable incentive pricing. A
Qualified Security must be an ETF or ILS listed on Nasdaq, have at
least one Designated Liquidity Provider, and have a Nasdaq-designated
maximum trading volume. Specifically, a security is no longer eligible
to be a

Qualified Security once there have been two calendar months in any
three calendar-month period during which its average daily volume on
Nasdaq exceeded 250,000 shares. Thus, the program is designed to
encourage support of ETFs and ILSs during their period of initial
listing, when the security must develop an active trading market in
order to succeed. Once the volume threshold is reached, the pricing for
the ETF or ILS would be consistent with pricing for other securities
traded on Nasdaq.
    A ``Designated Liquidity Provider'' is a registered Nasdaq market
maker in a Qualified Security that has committed to maintain minimum
performance standards. Designated Liquidity Providers would be selected
by Nasdaq based on factors including, but not limited to, experience
with making markets in ETFs and ILSs, adequacy of capital, willingness
to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace, issuer preference, operational
capacity, support personnel, and history of adherence to Nasdaq rules
and securities laws. Nasdaq may limit the number of Designated
Liquidity Providers in a Qualified Security, or modify a previously
established limit, upon prior written notice to members. Specifically,
Nasdaq may modify such limit either to increase or decrease the number
of Designated Liquidity Providers for a Qualified Security upon
providing such prior written notice.
    As is true under the equivalent rules of NYSE Arca, the minimum
performance standards applicable to a Designated Liquidity Provider may
be determined from time to time by Nasdaq and may vary depending on the
price, liquidity, and volatility of a particular Qualified Security.
The performance measurements would include: (1) Percent of time at the
NBBO; (2) percent of executions better than the NBBO; (3) average
displayed size; and (4) average quoted spread. Nasdaq may remove
Designated Liquidity Providers that do not meet the performance
standards or that decide to change their status at any time.
    When accessing liquidity in a Qualified Security or routing to
another market, the Designated Liquidity Provider would pay $0.003 per
share executed; when providing liquidity, the Designated Liquidity
Provider would receive a credit of $0.004 per share executed.
Consistent with the requirements of Rule 610 of Regulation NMS,\7\
however, in the unlikely event that the security trades at less than $1
per share, the normal execution fee and credit schedule in Nasdaq Rule
7018(a) regarding securities trading less than $1 would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility
or system which Nasdaq operates or controls, and is designed 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,
respectively. Nasdaq believes that by allocating pricing benefits to
certain market makers that make tangible commitments to enhancing
market quality for ETFs and ILSs listed on Nasdaq, the proposal will
encourage the development of new financial products, provide a better
trading environment for investors in ETFs and ILSs, and encourage
greater competition between listing venues for ETFs and ILSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will encourage
greater competition among venues that list ETFs and ILSs and further
strengthen the quality of the Nasdaq market as a venue for transactions
in ETFs and ILSs. Accordingly, Nasdaq does not believe that the
proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor
received with respect to the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\
thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2007-061 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-061. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F. Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2007-061 and should be submitted on or before
August 22, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14841 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Safety Labs, BASF Wyandotte (Brunswick, NJ).   Study ID T-2295, June 22,
1982.  Unpublished study.

00117064 (MRID) Shapiro, Ralph, Ph.D. and Catherine Wo, Ph.D. (1982)  No
title (Modified eye irritation in rabbit, 1.5% glutaraldehyde), Product
Safety Labs, BASF Wyandotte (Brunswick, NJ).  Study ID T-2287, June 24,
1982.  Unpublished study.

00117065 (MRID) Shapiro, Ralph R., Ph.D. and Catherine Wo (1982)  No
title (Eye Irritation, 0.25% glutaraldehyde).  Product Safety Labs, BASF
Wyandotte (New Brunswick, NJ).  Study ID T-2203, April 29, 1982.
Unpublished study.

00117066 (MRID) Shapiro, Ralph, Ph.D. and Catherine Wo, Ph.D. (1982)  No
title (Eye Irritation, 0.5% Glutaraldehyde).  Product Safety Labs, BASF
Wyandotte (New Brunswick, NJ).  Study ID T-2198, April 26, 1982.
Unpublished study.

00117067 (MRID) Shapiro, Ralph, Ph.D. and Catherine Wo, Ph.D. (1982)  No
title (Eye Irritation).  Product Safety Labs, BASF Wyandotte (Brunswick,
NJ).  Study ID T-2248, May 24, 1982.  Unpublished study.

00117068 (MRID) Shapiro, Ralph, Ph.D. and Catherine Wo, Ph.D. (1982)  No
title (Eye irritation in rabbit, 1.5% glutaraldehyde).  Product Safety
Labs, BASF Wyandotte (Brunswick, NJ).  Study ID T-2249, April 29, 1982.
Unpublished study.

00164144 (MRID) (1981) Evaluation of the Subacute Dermal Toxicity of
Glutaraldehyde in Mice.  Bushy Run Research Center (Export, PA), Project
ID 44-107, Union Carbide Corp.  Unpublished study.

00164178 (MRID), TRID 470309009 Union Carbide Corp. (1983)
Glutaraldehyde Vapor Subchronic Inhalation Study on Rats. Proj. Rpt. #:
46-101 Bushy Run Res. Center Ref. 82, Greenspan.

00164365 (MRID), TRID 470312012 Union Carbide Corp. (1983)
Glutaraldehyde Vapor Nine Day Inhalation Study on Rats. Proj. Rpt. #:
46-63 Bushy Run Res. Center Ref. 79.

40908101 (MRID):  M.W. (1988) Glutaraldehyde:  Fourteen-day drinking
water toxicity study in mice.  Bushy Run Research Center, Union Carbide,
Specialty Chemicals Division (Export, PA).  Study ID 51-27, November 3,
1988.  Unpublished study.

41480501 (MRID) Van Miller, John P. (1990)  Glutaraldehyde:  13-Week
Toxicity Study in Dogs with Administration Via the Drinking Water, Bushy
Run Research Center, Union Carbide, Specialty Chemicals Division
(Export, PA).  Study ID 52-93, January 29, 1990.  Unpublished study.

41773601, reformat of 41089601 (MRID) Gill, Michael W. and John P. Van
Miller (1989)  Glutaraldehyde:  Ninety-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study
in Mice, Bushy Run Research Center, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics
Company (Export, PA).  Study ID 52-1, March 20, 1989. Unpublished study.

42035301 (MRID) Vergnes, J.S. and E.R. Morabit (1991)  Ucaride
Antimicrobial 250 (glutaraldehyde, 50% aqueous solution) In Vitro
Chromosomal Aberrations Assay in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells, Bushy Run
Research Center, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company (Export,
PA).  Study ID 54-101, September 12, 1991.  Unpublished study.

42707301 (MRID) Vergnes, J.S. and E.R. Morabit (1993)  Ucaride
Antimicrobial 250 (Glutaraldehyde, 50% Aqueous Solution):  In Vivo
Peripheral Blood Micronucleus Test with Swiss-Webster Mice.  Bushy Run
Research Center, Union Carbide Corporation (Export, PA).  Study ID
91U0101, February 26, 1993.  Unpublished study.

42154001 (MRID) Hellwig, J. and B. Hilldebrand (1991)  Study of the
Prenatal Toxicity of Glutaraldehyde in Rabbits After Oral Administration
(Gavage).  Study IDs 40R0599/89026, (23R0599/89036 and 20R0599/89038).
BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Department of Toxicology (Union Carbide)
February 11, 1991.  Unpublished study.

42154101 (MRID) Hellwig, J. and B. Hildebrand (1991)  Study of the
Prenatal Toxicity of Glutaraldehyde in Rats after Oral Administration
(Drinking Water).  BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Department of Toxicology,
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company (Ludwigshafen, Germany).
Study IDs 33R0599/89025 (13R0599/89035 and 10R0599/8904U, preliminary
studies), February 11, 1991.  Unpublished study.

42851701 (MRID) Bushy Run Research Center, Union Carbide Company
(Export, PA).  Study ID 91U0139, May 27, 1993.

43010201 (MRID) Vergnes, J.S. and E.R. Morabit (1993)  Ucaride
Antimicrobial 250 (Glutaraldehyde, 50% Aqueous Solutions):  Mutagenic
Potential in the Salmonella/ Microsome (Ames) Assay, Bushy Run Research
Center, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (Export, PA).
 Study ID 92U1178, September 15, 1993.  Unpublished study.

43189701 (MRID) Chun, J.S. and T.L. Neeper-Bradley (1994)
Glutaraldehyde:  Two-Generation Reproduction Study in the Drinking Water
of CD Rats.  Bushy Run Research Center, Union Carbide Chemicals and
Plastics Co. Study ID 9201059.  Unpublished study.

43191101 (MRID) Hermansky, S.J. and K.A. Loughran (1994) Glutaraldehyde:
 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Oncogenicity Study in the Drinking Water of
Rats.  Bushy Run Research Center (Export, PA), Union Carbide Chemicals
and Plastics Company, Study ID 91U0012, March 18, 1994.  Unpublished.

MRID 431916902

Reference information not reported on PDMS or 1-liners

43213401 (MRID) Vergnes, J.S. and E.R. Morabit (1994)  Ucaride
Antimicrobial 250 (Glutaraldehyde, 50% Aqueous Solution):  Sister
Chromatid Exchange Assay in Cultured CHO Cells.  Bushy Run Research
Center, Union Carbide Corporation (Export, PA).  Study ID 92U1180, April
7, 1994.  Unpublished study.

43211601 (MRID) Vergnes, J.S. (1994) Ucaride Antimicrobial 250
(Glutaraldehyde, 50% Aqueous Solution):  Mutagenic Potential in the
CHO/HGPRT Forward Mutation Assay.  Bushy Run Research Center, Union
Carbide Corporation (Export, PA).  Study ID 92U1179, April 8, 1994.
Unpublished study.

43259101 (MRID) Werley, M.S. and C.L. Benson (1994) Glutaraldehyde:
Twenty-Eight Day Repeated Cutaneous Dose Toxicity Study in Fischer 344
Rats.  Bushy Run Research Center (Export, PA), Union Carbide
Corporation, Study ID 93U1252, May 26, 1994.  Unpublished study.

43304701 (MRID) Stankowski, Leon F. (1994) Ames/Salmonella Plate
Incorporation Assay on Sepacid GA 50.  Pharmakon Research International,
Inc., BASF Corporation (Waverly, PA).   Study ID PH-301-BS-001-93, May
18, 1994.  Unpublished study.

43304702 (MRID) Stankowski, Leon F., Ph.D. (1994)  AS52/XPRT Mammalian
Cell Forward Mutation Assay on Sepacid GA 50.  Pharmakon Research
International, Inc., BASF Corporation (Waverly, PA).  Study ID PH
314-BS-001-93, May 24, 1994.  Unpublished study.

43304703 (MRID) San Sebastian, Juan R., Ph.D. (1994)  In Vivo
Micronucleus Test with Speacid GA 50 in Mouse Bone Marrow Erythropoietic
Cells, Pharmakon Research International, Inc., BASF Corporation
(Waverly, PA).  Study ID PH 309-BS-001-93, May 25, 1994.  Unpublished
study.

43342901 (MRID) McKelvey, J.A., et al. (1992)  Percutaneous
Pharmacokinetics and Material Balance Studies with Glutaraldehyde.  J.
Toxicol.-Cut. & Ocular Toxicol.  11:341-367

44691606 (MRID) Kiplinger, G.R. (1995)  Acute dermal toxicity study of
glutaraldehyde in albino rabbits.  WIL Research Laboratories, Inc.,
sponsor BASF Corporation, Study ID WIL-234--2, June 14, 1995.
Unpublished.

44842202 (MRID) Effects of Glutaraldehyde in a 2-Year Inhalation Study
in Rats and Mice.  Public Health Service, National Institute of Health
(1998)  NTP technical report on toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of
glutaraldehyde.  Study ID BM 99018, October 30, 1998.

46046802 (MRID) Mellert, W., at al. (2001)  Protectol GDA (50%
Glutaraldehyde):  Subchronic Oral Toxicity and Neurotoxicity Study in
Wistar Rats - Administration in Drinking Water for 3 Months.
Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, BASF Aktiengesellschaft (Germany)
Study ID 52S0447/97150, May 10, 2001.  Unpublished.

46046803 (MRID) Kaufmann, W., Deckardt, K., Gembardt, C., Hellwig, J.,
and van Ravenzwaay, B. (2001)  Protectol GDA (50% Glutaraldehyde) -
Two-generation reproduction toxicity study in Wistar rats - Continuous
administration in the drinking water. BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Germany.
Laboratory Project No.: 71R0447/97170, Unpublished.

46046804 (MRID Wiemann, C., K. Deckardt, W. Kaufmann, and B. van
Ravenzwaay. (2001) Protectol GDA (50% Glutaraldehyde)-Chronic oral
toxicity study in Beagle dogs Administration in drinking water for 12
months.  BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Germany.  Laboratory Project No.:
83D0447/97156. Unpublished.

46212501 (MRID) Kaspers, U. et al. (2002)  Protectol GDA  - Chronic
Toxicity Study in Wister rats.  Administration in the drinking water for
12 months.  Experimental Toxicology and Ecology.  BASF
Aktiengesellschaft, Study ID 72S0447/97160, November 26, 2002.
Unpublished.

46212701 (MRID) Kaspers, U., et al. (2003)  PROTECTOL GDA -
Carcinogenicity Study in Wistar rats:  Administration in the drinking
water for 24 months.  BASF (Department of Experimental Toxicology and
Ecology D-67056), Study ID 84S0447/97159, January 7, 2003.  Unpublished.

46344801 (MRID) Beimborn, D. and Leibold, E. (2004). Report
14C-GDA--Study of Biokinetics in Rats. Experimental Toxicology and
Ecology, BASF Aktiengesellschaft (D-67056 Ludwigshafen/Rhein, Germany).
Report number 036005/Bb0069, Unpublished.

470310001 (TRID) Union Carbide Corp. (1983) Glutaraldehyde Vapor Nine
Day Inhalation Study on Rats. Proj. Rpt. #: 46-95 Bushy Run Res. Center

Kari, Frank, – NTP (1993). NTP Technical Report on Toxicology Studies
of Glutaraldehyde Admininstered by Inhalation to F344/N Rats and B6C3F1
NTP – NIH Publication 93-3348

Human Exposure REFERENCES

Dang. 1997.  The Use of Models for Estimating Exposure and Risk of
Antimicrobials in Metalworking Fluids.  AAMA MWF Symposium, September
15-19, 1998.

Jacobson, Larry. 2005.  Professor and Extension Engineer at University
of Minnesota.  [What is the reference?]

McCready, 2002.  Potential Glutaraldehyde Air Emissions from a Cooling
Tower and Exposure, David McCready, PhD, 2002, Sponsored by Dow
Chemical, (MRID 466822-08)

McCready. 2004.  Volatilization of Indoor Generated Aerosols, David
McCready, PhD, 2004, Sponsored by Dow Chemical, (MRID 466822-07).

Trawick. 2003.  Assessment of Glutaraldehyde Air Concentrations during a
Trial Fogging Application in Taiwan,  Earl Trawick 2003, Sponsored by
Dow Chemical (MRID 466822-02)

SIDS. 1996.  Initial Assessment Report on the HPV Phase 4 Chemical,
1996.

Teta. 1995.  “Absences of Sensitizations and Cancer Increases Among
Glutaraldehyde Workers”, Teta, MJ, Avashia E, Cawley T and Yamin A.,
Toxic Substances Mechanisms; 14: 293-305. 1995.

UCC. 1998. Union Carbide Report on Vapor Concentrations of Piror 850 in
Paper Mills, 1998 (No MRID)

UCC. 1994.  Union Carbide Report on Glutaraldehyde in Aluminum Hot
Rolling Mills (MRID 441812-01)

USEPA.  1997.  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential
Exposure Assessments.  EPA Office of Pesticide Programs(Human Health
Effects Division (HED). Dated December 18, 1997.

USEPA.  1997a.  Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I-II.  Office of
Research and Development.  Washington, D.C.  EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

USEPA. 1998. PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide. Estimates of Worker Exposure
from the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database Version 1.1.   Washington,
DC:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA.  1999.  Evaluation of Chemical Manufacturers Association
Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study.  Memorandum from Siroos
Mostaghimi, Ph.D., USEPA, to Julie Fairfax,

USEPA.  2001.  HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure. Policy Update,
November 12. Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessment, February 22, 2001.

Incident Report References

Avery, J.K.  1985.  The good doctor – the bad result.  Journal of the
Tennessee Medical Association 78(7): 440.

Bardazzi, F., M. Melino, G. Alagna and S. Veronesi.  1986.
Glutaraldehyde dermatitis in nurses.  Contact Dermatitis 14(5): 319-320.

Benson, W.G.  1984.  Exposure to glutaraldehyde.  Journal Soc.
Occupational Medicine 34: 63-64.

Calder, I.M., L.P. Wright, D. Grimstone.  1992.  Glutaraldehyde allergy
in endoscopy units.  The Lancet 339: 433.

Connaughton, P.  1993.  Occupational exposure to glutaraldehyde
associated with tachycardia and palpitations.  The Medical Journal of
Australia 159.

Cusano, F. and S. Luciano.  1993.  Contact allergy to benzalkonium
chloride and glutaraldehyde in a dental nurse.  Contact Dermatitis 28:
127.

Dailey, J.R., R.E. Parnes, A. Aminlari.  1993.  Glutaraldehyde
keratopathy.  American Journal of Ophthalmology 115(2): 256-258.

Di Prima, T., R. De Pasquale, M. Nigro.  1988.  Contact dermatitis from
glutaraldehyde.  Contact Dermatitis 19(3): 219-220.

Di Stefano, F., S. Siriruttanapruk, J. McCoach, P. Sherwood Burge.
1999.  Glutaraldehyde: an occupational hazard in the hospital setting.
Allergy 54: 1105-1109.

Fisher, A.A.  1981.  Reactions to glutaraldehyde with particular
reference to radiologists and x-ray technicians.  Cutis 28: 113-122.

Fisher, A.A.  1990.  Allergic contact dermatitis of the hands from
Sporicidin® (glutaraldehyde-phenate) used to disinfect endoscopes.
Cutis 45: 227-228.

Gannon, P.F.G., P. Bright, M. Campbell, S.P. O’Hickey, P. Sherwood
Burge.  1995.  Occupational asthma due to glutaraldehyde and
formaldehyde in endoscopy and x-ray departments.  Thorax 50: 156-159.

Goncalo, S., F.M. Brandao, M. Pecegueiro, A. Moreno, I. Sousa.  1984.
Occupational contact dermatitis to glutaraldehyde.  Contact Dermatitis
10(3): 183-184.

Grigsby, E.J., R.L. Lennon, E.P. Didier, T.L. Liu.  1990.  Massive
tongue swelling after uncomplicated general anaesthesia.  Canadian
Journal of Anaesthesia 37(7): 825-826.

Hansen, K.S.  1983.  Glutaraldehyde occupational dermatitis.  Contact
Dermatitis 9(1): 81-82.

Holderman, R.D., H.L. Parlette III, G.T. Terezhalmy, G.B. Pelleu, G.M.
Taybos.  1986.  An evaluation of the efficacy and irritability of
Sporicidin as a hand dip.  Oral Surgery 62: 142-144.

Issues in Occupational Health and Safety.  1995.  Glutaraldehyde causes
nurse’s asthma.  The Queensland Nurse: 20-21.

Jaworsky, C., J.S.Taylor, P. Evey, D. Handel.  1987.  Allergic contact
dermatitis to glutaraldehyde in a hair conditioner.  Cleveland Clinic
Journal of Medicine 54(5): 443-444.

Loats, G.  1995.  Tighter controls on glutaraldehyde proposed.
Australian Nursing Journal 3(1): 25.

Mehler, L. 2005.  Personal Communication.  California Department of
Pesticide Regulation

Menzies, D.  1995.  Glutaraldehyde – controlling the risk to health.
British Journal of Theatre Nursing 4(11): 13-15.

Moore, R.N., and K.A. Igel.  1988.  Lip burn from band seater.  American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 93(3): 183-185.

Murray, W.J. and M.P. Ruddy.  1985.  Toxic eye injury during induction
of anesthesia.  Southern Medical Journal 78(8): 1012-1013.

Mwaniki, D.L. and S.W. Guthua.  1992.  Occupational exposure to
glutaraldehyde in tropical climates.  The Lancet 340: 1476-1477.

Pisaniello, D.L., R.T. Gun, M.N. Tkaczuk, M. Nitshcke, J. Crea.  1997.
Glutaraldehyde exposure and symptoms among endoscopy nurses in South
Australia.  Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(3): 171-177.

Shaffer, M.P. and D.V. Belsito.  2000.  Allergic contact dermatitis from
glutaraldehyde in health-care workers.  Contact Dermatitis 43: 151-156.

Stenton, S.C., J.R. Beach, J.H. Dennis, N.P. Keaney, D.J. Hendrick.
1994.  Glutaraldehyde, asthma and work – a cautionary tale.
Occupational Medicine 44: 95-98.

Turner, T.W.  1983.  An adverse reaction to glutaraldehyde.  The Medical
Journal of Australia: 14.

Vyas, A., C.A.C. Pickering, L.A. Oldham, H.C. Francis, A.M. Fletcher, T.
Merrett.  2000.  Survey of symptoms, respiratory function, and
immunology and their relation to glutaraldehyde and other occupational
exposures among endoscopy nursing staff.  Occup. Environ. Med. 57:
752-759.

Waldron, H.A.  1992.  Glutaraldehyde allergy in hospital workers.  The
Lancet 339: 880.

REDLINE VERSION WITH BASF COMMENTS

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1145-1148]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0988]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Port Arthur Canal, Sabine, Pass, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary interim rule and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
waters of Port Arthur Canal adjacent to Golden Pass Liquiefied Natural
Gas (LNG) Facility in Sabine Pass, TX. This safety zone would be
temporarily activated when high pressure testing of piping systems is
occurring. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels
from potential blast and fragmentation hazards associated with high
pressure piping testing.

DATES: This temporary interim rule is effective from January 20, 2023,
until December 31, 2024. Comments and related material must be received
by the Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0988 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 rule,
call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

    On December 8, 2022, the Coast Guard was provided information
regarding high pressure testing of piping systems at Golden Pass LNG in
Sabine Pass, TX, that will occur between January 2023 and December
2024. A minimum of 15 test events will occur over the course of 2
years. Engineers have calculated the size of the exclusion zones
necessary to ensure the safety of personnel. These exclusion zones
reach navigable waters of the U.S. The Coast Guard has determined that
these exclusion zones are areas where a safety zone is appropriate to
prevent persons and vessels from entering during potentially hazardous
high pressure testing. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary
interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant
to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a
rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency,
for good

cause, finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this temporary interim rule because
doing so would be impracticable. These safety zones must be in place by
January 20, 2023, in order to protect persons and vessels from the
potentional blast and fragmentation hazards associated with high
pressure testing of piping systems at Golden Pass LNG. We lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then to
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    The Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary interim rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this temporary interim rule would be contrary to the public
interest because we must ensure the protection of persons and vessels
from the potential hazards associated with high pressure testing of
piping systems at Golden Pass LNG.
    We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard
determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we
will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain
of the Port (COTP) has determined that potential hazards from high
pressure testing of LNG piping systems is a safety concern for persons
and vessels in the area of the testing. This rule is needed to protect
persons and vessels from the hazards present during high pressure test
of these piping systems.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This temporary interim rule establishes three temporary safety
zones from January 20, 2023, through December 31, 2024. Due to the
varying degrees of hazard introduced by different test locations and
pressures, the safety zones will have three separate exclusion areas:
(1) Port Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass LNG, shoreline to
shoreline, between a western boundary of 093[deg]55'44'' N and an
eastern boundary of 093[deg]54'36'' W; (2) Port Arthur Canal in the
vicinity of Golden Pass LNG between a western boundary of
093[deg]55'44'' N and an eastern boundary of 093[deg]54'36'' W and
extending from the south/west shoreline to the near channel limits as
charted; and (3) Golden Pass LNG ship mooring basin within the
following boundaries: starting on the shoreline west of the mooring
basin at position 29[deg]45'57.9'' N 093[deg]55'39.6'' W, thence
northeast to 29[deg]45'59.25'' N 093[deg]55'37.5'' W, thence to
position W, thence o the shoreline on the east side of the basin at
position 29[deg]45'50.7'' N 093[deg]55'17.0'' W. Based on the test
being performed, the least restrictive exclusion zone will be enforced.
    The duration of safety zone enforcement will be limited to the
duration of the test, generally 2 hours or less. During enforcement, no
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    The Coast Guard will inform the public of the activation and
subsequent deactivation of the temporary safety zone through Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Advisory.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this temporary interim rule after considering numerous
statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders,
and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This temporary interim rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this temporary interim rule has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration and entities impacted by the safety zone. This
temporary interim safety zone affects approximately 750-yards of Port
Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass LNG. Most tests will permit
vessel movements within the adjacent navigable channel. One or two
tests may restrict vessel traffic for a period of not more than 2
hours. Mariners will be advised of the time of testing in advance via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and VTS Advisories.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to enter or
transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have
analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone of short duration intended to protect persons and vessels
from potential hazards associated with high pressure testing of piping
system at the Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine Pass, TX. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0988 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in
the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related
Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be
placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions
on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of the rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0988 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0988   Safety Zone; Port Arthur Canal, Sabine, Pass, TX.

    (a) Location. (1) The following areas are safety zones:
    (i) Port Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass Liquiefied
Natural Gas (LNG), shoreline to shoreline, between a western boundary
of 093[deg]55'44'' N and an eastern boundary of 093[deg]54'36'' W;
    (ii) Port Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass LNG between a
western boundary of 093[deg]55'44'' N and an eastern boundary of
093[deg]54'36'' W and extending from the south/west shoreline to the
near channel limits as charted; and
    (iii) Golden Pass LNG ship mooring basin within the following
boundaries: starting on the shoreline west of the mooring basin at
position 29[deg]45'57.9'' N 093[deg]55'39.6'' W, thence northeast to
29[deg]45'59.25'' N 093[deg]55'37.5'' W, thence to position W, thence
to the shoreline on the east side of the basin at position
29[deg]45'50.7'' N 093[deg]55'17.0'' W. All coordinates based on North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
    (2) Based on the test being performed, the least restrictive
exclusion zone will be enforced.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol officer, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, TX
(COTP), in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS) Port

Arthur on VHF channel 01A, or the COTP's on scene representative on VHF
channel 13 or 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. The safety zone in paragraph (a) of this
section is in effect from January 20, 2023, through December 31, 2024.
This section will be subject to enforcement when high pressure tests
are being conducted. Mariners will be informed of enforcement zone and
enforcement periods by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, VTS Advisory, and
the presence of enforcement vessels displaying flashing blue law
enforcement lights.

    Dated: January 3, 2023.
Molly A. Wike,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2023-00102 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18110]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07229]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Hendrx Corp., Plastinum Polymer Technologies
Corp., Vertical Branding, Inc., WHY USA Financial Group, Inc., and XNE,
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 27, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Hendrx Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Plastinum Polymer Technologies Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Vertical Branding, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
WHY USA Financial Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
XNE, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on March 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 9, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07229 Filed 3-27-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17103-17107]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0189; Directorate Identifier 2017-SW-008-AD;
Amendment 39-18847; AD 2017-05-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. This AD
requires inspecting the condenser blower motor (motor) and condenser
blower (blower) to determine if the motor is securely attached to the
blower support (shroud). This AD is prompted by a report that the motor
detached from the blower. The actions of this AD are intended to
prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 25, 2017 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2017-05-51, issued on March 3, 2017, which contains the requirements of
this AD.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of April 25, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2017-
0189; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, any incorporated by reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Air
Comm Corporation, 1575 West 124th Avenue, Westminster, CO 80234;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (during business hours) or<PHONE_NUMBER>
(after hours); email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.aircommcorp.com/contact. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is
also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0189.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Bryant, Aerospace Engineer,
Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Technical Operations Center,
26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver CO 80249; phone (303) 342-
1092; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we

receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    On March 3, 2017, we issued Emergency AD 2017-05-51 to correct an
unsafe condition on Bell Model 429 helicopters with an Air Comm
Corporation (Air Comm) air conditioning system part number (P/N) 429EC-
200 or 429EC-202 installed. Emergency AD 2017-05-51 was sent previously
to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. Emergency
AD 2017-05-51 requires inspecting the motor and blower to determine if
the motor is securely attached to the shroud.
    Emergency AD 2017-05-51 was prompted by a report that the motor
detached from the blower. The motor is secured to the shroud by three
screw fasteners with thread locker applied. The report states that the
detached motor was resting on the flight controls.
    An initial investigation indicates that the motor mount fasteners
may not have had the thread locker adhesive applied during production.
However, the root cause is under investigation. The motor fell on the
collective control tube, causing wear damage to the control tube. The
motor's power wiring also was on the collective control tube near
hydraulic and fuel lines. The actions in Emergency AD 2017-05-51 are
intended to prevent the motor from detaching, causing failure of the
primary flight controls and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Air Comm Service Bulletin 429-201-1, Revision NC, dated
February 17, 2017 (SB 429-201-1), which advises inspecting the motor to
determine whether it is attached to the blower assembly within 20
flight hours. If the motor is not attached to the blower assembly, SB
429-201-1 advises reporting the detachment to Air Comm and inspecting
the surrounding area for damage. If any surrounding parts are damaged,
SB 429-201-1 specifies replacing or repairing the damaged parts. SB
429-201-1 then specifies replacing the blower assembly if parts are
available and deactivating the air conditioning system if parts are not
available. SB 429-201-1 also provides instructions if any P/N MS27039-
1-15 fasteners are missing or loose or if the motor is not secured
firmly to the blower assembly. These instructions include rotating the
fan blades by hand and verifying the clearance between the blades and
the shroud. If the fan blades are scraping or rubbing against the
shroud or if the blades cause visible damage to the shroud, SB 429-201-
1 advises replacing the blower assembly if parts are available. If
parts are not available, SB 429-201-1 advises deactivating the air
conditioning system. If the motor is secure, SB 429-201-1 provides
instructions for replacing any missing fasteners and removing and
reinstalling any existing fasteners with thread locker.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight and at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the air conditioner
condenser blower for motor attachment and for missing or loose
fasteners. If the motor is not attached or if a fastener is missing or
loose, this AD requires deactivating the air conditioning system. If
the motor is not attached, this AD also requires inspecting the
collective flight control tube, the area under the forward transmission
cowling, and each wiring harness, and depending on the findings,
repairing or replacing the affected parts. Additionally, if the motor
is not attached or if the motor is attached but any fasteners are
missing, this AD requires inspecting for and removing any found
detached hardware. Deactivating the air conditioning system constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
This AD also requires reporting certain information to the FAA within
10 days.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    SB 429-201-1 advises performing the initial inspection within 20
hours TIS. This AD requires the initial inspection before further
flight. SB 429-201-1 advises reporting certain incidents to Air Comm,
whereas this AD requires reporting certain information to the FAA. SB
429-201-1 does not specify inspecting for and removing missing
hardware, whereas this AD does. If replacement parts are available, SB
429-201-1 advises replacing the blower, while this AD makes no
allowance for replacing the blower except by alternate means of
compliance. If fasteners are missing or loose but the motor is secure,
SB 429-201-1 advises replacing missing fasteners and removing and
reinstalling existing fasteners with thread locker and a torque stripe.
This AD requires removing the blower assembly if fasteners are missing
or loose but the motor is still secure. SB 429-201-1 does not require
repetitive inspections, while this AD requires the inspection every 25
hours time-in-service until the air conditioning system is deactivated.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The inspection report
that is required by this AD will enable us to obtain better insight
into the cause of the motor's detachment, and help us develop final
action to address this unsafe condition. The design approval holder is
also currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 78 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Inspecting the motor attachment requires 1 work-hour and
no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter, and $6,630 for the
U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
     Removing the motor and deactivating the air conditioning
requires 2 work-hours and no parts for a total cost of $170 per
helicopter.
     Removing the blower assembly and deactivating the air
conditioning requires 13 work-hours and no parts for a total cost of
$1,105 per helicopter.
     Reporting the findings to the FAA requires 1 work-hour and
no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The

paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs
of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing
instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Therefore, all reporting required by this AD is mandatory.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for
reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and
continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the
required initial inspection must be accomplished before further flight
and the recurring inspection must be accomplished at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS. These helicopters, typically used for police and
medical transport, are expected to reach 25 hours TIS within a few
weeks.
    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comments before issuing this AD
were impracticable and contrary to public interest and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by Emergency AD 2017-05-
51, issued on March 3, 2017, to all known U.S. owners and operators of
these helicopters. These conditions still exists and the AD is hereby
published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to
all persons.

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 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    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):

2017-05-51 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-18847;
Docket No. FAA-2017-0189; Directorate Identifier 2017-SW-008-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Model 429
helicopters with an Air Comm Corporation air conditioning system part
number (P/N) 429EC-200 or 429EC-202 installed, certificated in any
category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD: Air conditioning system P/N
429EC-200 and 429EC-202 are identifiable by a three-screw installation
as depicted in Figure 1 of Air Comm Corporation Service Bulletin 429-
201-1, Revision NC, dated February 17, 2017 (SB 429-201-1).

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a condenser blower motor
(motor) detaching from the condenser blower support (shroud). This
condition could lead to failure of the primary flight controls and
subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 25, 2017 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2017-05-51, issued on March 3, 2017, which contains the requirements of
this AD.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD
within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25
hours time-in-service:
    (1) Inspect the motor and condenser blower to determine whether the
motor is attached to the shroud.
    (i) If the motor is not attached, before further flight:
    (A) Inspect the collective flight control tube for loss of
protective primer, a scratch, any gouging, and a dent. If there is any
loss of protective primer, a scratch, any gouging, or a dent, repair or
replace the control tube.
    (B) Inspect the area under the forward transmission cowling for
loss of protective primer, a scratch, any gouging, and a dent. Inspect
each wiring harness for any cuts, chafing, and exposed wires. If there
is any loss of protective primer, a scratch, any gouging, a dent, or if
any wiring harness has a cut, chafing, or an exposed wire, repair or
replace the affected parts.
    (C) Inspect the area under the forward transmission cowling for the
three fasteners as depicted in Figure 1 of SB 429-201-1. Also inspect
for the crimp-on external fan retaining ring (crimp ring) and the
slotted fan drive spring (commonly known as a roll pin), which may have
fallen loose with the motor.

Remove any fasteners, the crimp ring, and the roll pin if found
detached.
    (D) Deactivate the air conditioning system by following the
instructions in Procedure, paragraphs B.2.d.i. through B.2.d.v., of SB
429-201-1.
    (ii) If the motor is attached to the shroud but a fastener is
missing or loose, before further flight:
    (A) Remove any detached fasteners found in the area under the
forward transmission cowling.
    (B) Deactivate the air conditioning system as follows:
    (1) Pull and red collar the air conditioning COND circuit breaker.
    (2) Pull and red collar the air-conditioning COMP circuit breaker.
    (3) Remove the compressor drive belt.
    (4) Remove the condenser blower assembly.
    (2) Deactivating the air conditioning system as required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If the air conditioning system is deactivated as required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, within 10 days after completing the
inspection, report the information requested in Appendix 1 to this AD
by mail to the Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Technical Operations Center, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,
CO 80249, ATTN: Matthew Bryant; by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matthew Bryant,
Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Technical Operations Center, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,
CO 80249; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2150, Cabin Cooling
System.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation
by reference 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) Air Comm Corporation Service Bulletin 429-201-1, Revision NC,
dated February 17, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Air Comm Corporation service information identified in this
AD, contact Air Comm Corporation, 1575 West 124th Avenue, Westminster,
CO 80234; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (during business hours) or (720)
233-8330 (after hours); email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
http://www.aircommcorp.com/contact.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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
(202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 29, 2017.

Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

Appendix 1 to AD 2017-05-51

    Provide the following information by mail to the Manager, Denver
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Technical Operations Center, 26805
East 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver, CO 80249, ATTN: Matthew Bryant; by
fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For inspection being accomplished (Initial or Repetitive), record
inspection findings below and provide photos if possible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             AD 2017-05-51                     Inspection findings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft S/N or N-Number...............  Aircraft hours time-in-service
                                          (TIS).
Air Conditioner Installation S/N (Laser  Aircraft TIS when air
 etched on compressor mount).             conditioning system was
                                          installed.
                                         Estimated percent air
                                          conditioner operating time.
Aircraft Location......................  Operator and maintenance
                                          facility contact information.
Condition..............................  Findings.
Is this a single evaporator              ...............................
 installation or a dual evaporator
 installation?.
Was the motor still attached?..........  ...............................
Were there any missing or loose          ...............................
 fasteners?.
Were any of the loose fasteners found    ...............................
 in the surrounding area?.
Did the found fasteners show evidence    ...............................
 of thread locker being applied?.
Has the condenser blower (blower) been   ...............................
 replaced following the initial
 installation of the air conditioning
 system?
What was the reason for the blower       ...............................
 replacement?.
Aircraft TIS when blower was replaced..  ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-06710 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68503-68504]
[DOCID:fr10no05-165]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52719; File No. SR-PCX-2005-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to
the Establishment of a Portfolio Crossing Service on the Archipelago
Exchange

November 2, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On June 7, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' 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 establish an after-hours Portfolio Crossing
Service (``PCS''). The PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change on September 14, 2005.\3\ The proposed rule change, as amended,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 28,
2005.\4\ The Commission received no comments from the public in
response to the proposed rule change. This order

approves the proposed rule, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52472 (September 20,
2005), 70 FR 56762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The PCX, through its wholly-owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc.
(``PCXE''), proposed to establish the PCS, a new transaction and trade
reporting mechanism for Equity Trading Permit Holders (``ETP Holders'')
\5\ to allow the execution and reporting of portfolio trades in equity
securities on the Archipelago Exchange (``ArcaEx''). In order to use
PCS, ETP Holders would input a basket of individual cross orders, each
with a basket number identifier tying it to the other orders in the
basket. These baskets of individual cross orders would not interact
with other orders residing in the Arca Book.\6\ Each side of an
individual coupled order in a basket entered into PCS would execute
without regard to the priority of other orders entered into PCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See PCXE Rule 1.1(n).
    \6\ See PCXE Rule 1.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible for PCS, orders must be part of a basket of
individual cross orders comprised of at least 15 securities and with a
total market value of at least $1,000,000.\7\ All symbols eligible for
trading on ArcaEx would be eligible for trading on PCS. If a basket of
orders meets the standards as set forth in proposed Rule 7.65, the
basket would be referred to as a ``PCS Order.'' Each individual
component of a PCS Order must be appended with a basket number
identifier tying it to the other order components of the PCS Order.
This identifier would be used to distinguish the individual components
of any PCS Order from an ordinary Cross Order \8\ destined for ArcaEx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed PCXE Rule 7.65(a)(4)(a) for definition of ``PCS
Order.''
    \8\ See PCXE Rule 7.31(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ETP Holders would be able to enter PCS Orders at any time during
the Exchange's trading day.\9\ When the Exchange receives a PCS Order,
it would hold such order until the end of trading, currently 5 p.m.
Pacific Time. All PCS Orders received during any particular trading day
would be executed simultaneously in PCS at least one minute after the
close of trading on the Exchange, but in no event later than 8:59 p.m.
Pacific Time. Each individual order component of a PCS Order would not
interact with other PCS Orders or other orders residing in the Arca
Book in any way. Furthermore, trading halts occurring during the normal
market hours in one or more individual stocks would not affect the
execution of PCS Orders. However, if there is a market-wide halt in a
symbol that remains in effect at 1 p.m. Pacific Time, the Exchange
would halt trading in such symbol through its PCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The New York Stock Exchange's Crossing Session II (``NYSE CS
II'') is another after hours session which allows member firms the
ability to cross a portfolio of orders. The NYSE CS II, however,
does not accept orders until after the close of regular trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would handle trade reporting for PCS executions in one
of two different ways, depending on whether a particular PCS component
execution involved exchange-listed or Nasdaq-listed securities. With
respect to exchange-listed securities, the system would calculate the
total shares and total dollar amounts \10\ of all exchange-listed
symbols executed in PCS on any particular trading day. The Exchange
would then transmit this total as an administrative message over the
high speed line to The Securities Industry Automation Corporation
(``SIAC'').\11\ The Exchange would not consolidate the exchange-listed
volume attributable to PCS with the volume in those securities
occurring in the non-PCS trading session occurring on ArcaEx. With
respect to Nasdaq-listed securities, the Exchange would report symbols
individually to Nasdaq as regular transactions as of the following
morning.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Since shares and dollar amounts will be calculated on a
aggregate basis, volume and price information will not be available
at an individual security level.
    \11\ ArcaEx represented that it would coordinate with SIAC to
ensure it would be able to receive messages from ArcaEx reflecting
aggregate PCS executions. See infra note 14.
    \12\ Nasdaq is the securities information processor for Nasdaq-
listed securities. Section 11 of the Nasdaq Unlisted Trading
Privileges Plan deals with trade reporting for Nasdaq securities
after 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All PCS executions, whether exchange-listed or Nasdaq securities,
will be ``covered sales'' occurring on the Exchange for the purposes of
Section 31 of the Act.\13\ The Exchange will report PCS activity to the
Commission in Part II of Form R31 under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has requested exemptive relief from the
requirement in Rule 11Aa3-1 under the Act \14\ that the Exchange
disseminate on a consolidated basis trading volume for each of the
component securities executed on the Exchange's PCS. In addition, the
Exchange has requested clarification from the Commission with respect
to the application of Rule 10a-1 under the Exchange Act and Regulation
SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission notes that Rule 11Aa3-1 has been
redesignated as Rule 601 of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among other things, that a
national securities exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraud and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the establishment of PCS appears to be
reasonably designed to promote a free and open market and the national
market system by offering ETP Holders the opportunity to enter crossing
portfolio orders to be executed against each other following the
conclusion of the ArcaEx Late Trading Session.\17\ The establishment of
the PCS also appears to be reasonably designed to enhance order
execution opportunities on ArcaEx by providing investors and ETP
Holders with greater opportunities for executing large portfolio
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See PCXE Rule 7.34(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-73), as amended,
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 05-22415 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P