[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23355-23358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0874; Product Identifier 2015-SW-082-AD; Amendment
39-19282; AD 2018-10-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76C helicopters. This
AD requires inspecting the engine collective position transducer (CPT).
This AD was prompted by reports of wear of the CPT that has resulted in
several One Engine Inoperative (OEI) incidents. The actions of this AD
are intended to detect and prevent an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering,
124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-
416-4299; email [email protected]. You may review a
copy of 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-
0874.

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-
0874; or in person at Docket Operations 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 Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On September 14, 2017, at 82 FR 43195, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model
S-76C helicopters with a Turbomeca, S.A., Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2
engine with an engine CPT part number (P/N) 76900-01821-104 installed.
The NPRM was prompted by 20 reports of OEI incidents resulting from
wear of a CPT. One of these incidents resulted in a rejected takeoff to
an unprepared site.
    The NPRM proposed to require initial and recurring inspections of
each CPT by measuring resistance, linearity resistance movement, and
differential voltage, and depending on the outcome of the inspections,
replacing the CPT. The proposed requirements were intended to detect
wear of a CPT prior to it causing an OEI condition and possible
emergency landing.

Comments

    After our NPRM was published, we received comments from Sikorsky.

Request To Include an Additional Part to the AD

    Sikorsky requested the AD also apply to engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-
105. In support of this request, Sikorsky stated that engine CPT P/N
76900-01821-105 is a new replacement for engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-
104, which does not differ substantially from engine CPT P/N 76900-
01821-104 and therefore should be subject to the periodic inspections.
    We partially agree. While engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-105 may be
subject to the same unsafe condition because of design similarity,
adding this part would increase the scope of the AD. Therefore, we plan
to publish another NPRM for P/N 76900-01821-105 to give the public an
opportunity to comment on those requirements.

Request To Remove a Test Box From the AD

    Sikorsky requested we remove Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 and only
allow the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 to comply with the AD. In
support of this request, Sikorsky stated it considers Test Box P/N
76700-40009-042 obsolete because Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 is easier
to use and provides less subjective results.
    We disagree. The proposed AD provided procedures for both test
boxes for the repetitive inspections. While Test Box P/N 76700-40009-
043 may be more efficient, the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 also
addresses the unsafe condition. We do not find justification for
requiring operators who have Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 to upgrade or
replace their test box. However, we have revised the initial inspection
requirements of the AD to allow the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043
as an option. We have also revised the repetitive inspection procedures
to allow the use of updated testing procedures for Test Box P/N 76700-
40009-043, which had not been

issued at the time we published the proposed AD, as an option.
    Lastly, Sikorsky requested we revise the unsafe condition to more
accurately describe that it would be a momentary OEI condition. In
support, Sikorsky stated that the unsafe condition statement in the
proposed AD could be misinterpreted as an in-flight shutdown or engine
failure. For this particular CPT failure, Sikorsky stated normal engine
operation is restored within approximately two seconds without the need
for any specific action by the pilot.
    We agree and have made the requested change accordingly.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments
received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements
as proposed with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals
in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator
nor increase the scope of the AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is 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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), which
specifies a one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity
resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the
CPTs using CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042.
    We reviewed Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary
Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), which specifies
procedures for removing, installing, and adjusting the CPTs, and
inspections of total resistance, linearity resistant movement,
excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs. TR 73-07 also
divides the procedures by CPT Test Box P/N by providing separate
procedures for test boxes modified by Sikorsky Special Service
Instructions (SSI) No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    We also reviewed Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2,
Temporary Revision No. 73-08, dated September 20, 2017 (TR 73-08),
which updates the procedures in TR 73-07. TR 73-08 does not divide the
procedures by CPT Test Box P/N as it eliminates the procedures for CPT
Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042. TR 73-08 omits obsolete figures and it
provides inspection results as pass or fail.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue,
dated August 21, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8). ASB 76-73-8 contains the same
procedures as ASB 76-73-8A; however, ASB 76-73-8A updates Sikorsky's
contact information for submitting a purchase order.
    We also reviewed Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1, Temporary Revision No.
5-181, dated August 21, 2015 (TR 5-181); Task 5-20-00 of Sikorsky
Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements, Publication No.
SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15, 2015 (Task 5-20-00);
and Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of Sikorsky
Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated December 15, 2015
(Section 73-22-04). TR 5-181 specifies adding CPT inspections
referenced in Section 73-22-04 to the 300-hour inspection checklist
contained in Task 5-20-00.
    We reviewed Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002, dated May
17, 2011. This service information provides precautionary instructions
to minimize hazardous situations that might result from an unreliable
CPT.
    We also reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016,
which specifies procedures to modify CPT Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042
and re-identify it as P/N 76700-40009-043. This one-time modification
reduces the instructions to inspect the CPT and improves the inspection
accuracy.
    We reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015, and SSI
No. 76-87A, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015. These SSIs specify a
one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity resistant movement,
excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs using CPT Text
Box P/N 76700-40009-042.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Sikorsky ASB 76-73-8A, TR 73-07, and TR 73-08 specify using and
returning Sikorsky's CPT data sheet and any failed CPT to Sikorsky.
This AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 90 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    The inspections will take about 3.75 work-hours for an estimated
cost of $319 per helicopter and $28,710 for the U.S. fleet per
inspection cycle. Replacing a CPT will take about 6 work-hours and
parts will cost $3,072 for an estimated replacement cost of $3,582.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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):

2018-10-07 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-19282; Docket
No. FAA-2017-0874; Product Identifier 2015-SW-082-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C
helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Turbomeca, S.A.,
Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2 engine with an engine collective position
transducer (CPT) part number 76900-01821-104 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a CPT. This
condition could result in a reduction in power to one engine
resulting in an annunciated momentary One Engine Inoperative (OEI)
condition and subsequent emergency landing.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 25, 2018.

(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

    (1) Within 130 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if
the measured resistance is not within tolerance by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(8)(b),
of Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8,
Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), if using Test Box
P/N 76700-40009-042 or by following paragraph 3.B.(11) of Sikorsky
Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-08,
dated September 20, 2017 (TR 73-08), if using Test Box P/N 76700-
40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or
submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.
    (ii) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine
CPT and replace the CPT if there is a linear abnormality or change
in resistance that is not within tolerance by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.D.(1) through 3.D.(14)(b),
of ASB 76-73-8A, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 or by
following paragraph 3.B.(12) of TR 73-08, if using Test Box P/N
76700-40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data
sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.
    (iii) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and
replace the CPT if the measured voltage is not within tolerance by
following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.E. through
3.G.(1) of ASB 76-73-8A, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 or by
following paragraph 3.B.(13) of TR 73-08, if using Test Box P/N
76700-40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data
sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.
    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS:
    (i) If using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042:
    (A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if
the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph
4.B.(11) of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary
Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), except you are
not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT
to Sikorsky.
    (B) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine CPT
and replace the CPT if the movement exceeds tolerance by following
paragraphs 4.B.(12)(a) through 4.B.(13)(f) of TR 73-07, except you
are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed
CPT to Sikorsky.
    (C) Measure the differential voltage of each CPT by following
paragraphs 4.B.(14) through 4.B.(15)(h) of TR 73-07, except you are
not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet. If the maximum
voltage is greater than 100 millivolts or the minimum voltage is
less than -100 millivolts, replace the CPT.
    (ii) For helicopters using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043:
    (A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if
the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph
5.B.(11) of TR 73-07 or paragraph 3.B.(11) of TR 73-08, except you
are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed
CPT to Sikorsky.
    (B) Measure the resistance linearity of each engine CPT and
replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by
following paragraph 5.B.(12) of TR 73-07 or paragraph 3.B.(12) of TR
73-08, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet
or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
    (C) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and
replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by
following paragraphs 5.B.(13)(a) through 5.B.(13)(k) of TR 73-07 or
paragraph 3.B.(13) of TR 73-08, except you are not required to use
Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the procedures specified in Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter
Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21,
2015; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87, dated July
24, 2015; or Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87,
Revision A, dated August 21, 2015, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph
(e)(1) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Send your proposal to: Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7159; email [email protected].
    (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.

(h) Additional Information

    Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8,
Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015; Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1,
Temporary Revision No. 5-181, dated August 21, 2015; Task 5-20-00 of
Sikorsky Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements,
Publication No. SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15,
2015; Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of
Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated
December 15, 2015; Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002,
dated May 17, 2011; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction (SSI) No.
76-96, dated August 19, 2016; Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24,
2015; and Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015,
which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,
Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611;
telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. You may review a copy of this
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7600, Engine
Controls.

(j) 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) Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8,
Revision A, dated December 4, 2015.
    (ii) Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary
Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016.
    (iii) Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary
Revision No. 73-08, dated September 20, 2017.
    (3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD,
contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering,
124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or
203-416-4299; email [email protected].
    (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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 9, 2018.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10581 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42467-42470]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0503]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Fajardo Offshore Festival II, Fajardo,
PR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations on

the waters of Rada Fajardo in Fajardo, Puerto Rico during the Fajardo
Offshore Festival II, a series of high-speed boat races. The event is
scheduled to take place on Sunday, September 16, 2012. Approximately 30
high-speed power boats will be participating in the races. It is
anticipated that approximately 20 spectator vessels will be present
during the races. These special local regulations are necessary for the
safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the
general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the
event. The special local regulations establish the following three
areas: a race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons
and vessels participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within; a
buffer zone around the race area, where all persons and vessels, except
those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within;
and a spectator area, where all vessels are prohibited from anchoring
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 20, 2012.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Robert Cerrato, Sector San Juan Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    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. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0503 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0503 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

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

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before August 9, 2012, using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United
States during the Fajardo Offshore Festival II.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On September 16, 2012, Puerto Rico Offshore Series, Inc. is
sponsoring the Fajardo Offshore Festival II, a series of high-speed
boat races. The races will be held on the waters of Rada Fajardo in
Fajardo, Puerto Rico. Approximately 30 high-speed power boats will be
participating in the races. It is anticipated that approximately 20
spectator vessels will be present during the races.
    The special local regulations encompass certain waters of Rada
Fajardo in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. The special local regulations will be
enforced from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. on September 16, 2012. The special
local regulations consist of the following three areas: (1) A race
area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
participating in the

high-speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within; (2) a buffer zone around
the race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and
vessels enforcing the buffer zone, are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within; and (3) a
spectator area, where all vessels are prohibited from anchoring unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated
representative.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area, buffer zone, or
spectator area by contacting the Captain of the Port San Juan by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the race area, buffer zone, or spectator area is
granted by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port San Juan
or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of
the special local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced
for only two hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area
and buffer zone, or anchor in the spectator area, without authorization
from the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative,
they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period;
(3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the race area and buffer zone, or anchor in the spectator
area, during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the
Port San Juan or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard
will provide advance notification of the special local regulations to
the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of
Rada Fajardo encompassed within the special local regulations from 1
p.m. until 3 p.m. on September 16, 2012. For the reasons discussed in
the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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 proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an
economically significant rule and would not create an environmental
risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect
children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta
or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0503 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0503 Special Local Regulations; Fajardo Offshore
Festival II, Rada Fajardo, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are established
as special local regulations. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race Area. All waters of Rada Fajardo encompassed within an
imaginary line connecting the following points: starting at Point 1 in
position 18[deg]21.357 N, 65[deg]37.203 W; thence southeast to Point 2
in position 18[deg]21.334 N, 65[deg]37.112 W; thence northeast to Point
3 in position 18[deg]22.365 N, 65[deg]36.585 W; thence northwest to
point 4 in position 18[deg]22.365 N, 65[deg]36.585 W; thence southwest
to point 5 in position 18[deg]21.733 N, 65[deg]37.112 W; thence south
back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and
vessels participating in the high-speed boat race, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
race area.
    (2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Rada Fajardo encompassed within an
imaginary line connecting the following points: starting at Point 1 in
position 18[deg]22.492 N, 65[deg]36.515 W; thence northeast to Point 2
in position 18[deg]22.423 N, 65[deg]36.355 W; thence southeast to Point
3 in position 18[deg]21.297 N, 65[deg]37.110 W; thence southwest to
point 4 in position 18[deg]21.369 N, 65[deg]37.264 W; thence northwest
to point 5 in position 18[deg]21.728 N, 65[deg]37.220 W; thence north
back to origin. All persons and vessels except those persons and
vessels enforcing the buffer zone are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone.
    (3) Spectator Area. All waters of Rada Fajardo excluding the race
areas and buffer zone, encompassed within an imaginary line connecting
the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 18[deg]22.540 N,
65[deg]36.421 W; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 18[deg]22.331
N, 65[deg]36.205 W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position
18[deg]21.199 N, 65[deg]36.995 W; thence west to Point 4 in position
18[deg]21.205 N, 65[deg]37.243 W. All vessels are prohibited from
anchoring in the spectator area. On-scene designated representatives
will direct spectator vessels to the spectator area.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port San Juan in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Persons and vessels may request authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
areas by contacting the Captain of the Port San Juan by telephone at
(787) 289-2041, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel
16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port San Juan or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port San Juan or a designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
D.W. Pearson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard. Captain of the Port San Juan.
[FR Doc. 2012-17581 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73327-73328]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2032]

Request for Nominations for Voting Members on the Food Advisory
Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the Food Advisory Committee,
Office of Regulations, Policy, and Social Sciences, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA seeks to include the views of women
and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with
and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore,
encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these
groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before January 30, 2015, will be
given first consideration for membership on the Food Advisory
Committee. Nominations received after January 30, 2015, will be
considered for nomination to the committee as later vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be submitted
electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership
Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm, by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or by FAX to
301-847-8640.
    Information about becoming a member on an FDA advisory committee
can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Regarding all nominations questions for
membership, the primary contact is: Karen Strambler, Office of
Regulations, Policy, and Social Sciences, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., Rm. 1C-016, College Park,
MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
members on the Food Advisory Committee.

I. General Description of the Committee Duties

    The Food Advisory Committee provides advice to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs and other appropriate officials on emerging food safety,
food science, nutrition, and other food-related health issues that FDA
considers of primary importance for its food and cosmetics programs.
The Committee may be charged with reviewing and evaluating available
data and making recommendations on matters such as those relating to:
(1) Broad scientific and technical food- or cosmetic-related

issues; (2) the safety of food ingredients and new foods; (3) labeling
of foods and cosmetics; (4) nutrient needs and nutritional adequacy;
and (5) safe exposure limits for food contaminants. The Committee may
also be asked to provide advice and make recommendations on ways of
communicating to the public the potential risks associated with these
issues and on approaches that might be considered for addressing the
issues.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The Committee consists of a core of 15 voting members including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among individuals knowledgeable in the fields of food
science, microbiology, epidemiology, pediatric immunology, nutrition,
food technology, biochemistry, and environmental health. Members are
invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years.
    Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special
Government Employees. Of the 15 members who vote, 2 are technically
qualified members identified with consumer interests. In addition to
the voting members, the Committee has two nonvoting members who are
identified with industry interests.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the Committee. Self-nominations are also
accepted. Nominations must include a current r[eacute]sum[eacute] or
curriculum vitae for each nominee, including a current business address
and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available.
Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which the
nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the
nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask
potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such
matters as financial holdings, employment, research grants, and/or
contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of
interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: December 5, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-28889 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56244-56247]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22395]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67792; File No. SR-MSRB-2012-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Amendments to the Real-Time
Transaction Reporting System Information System and Subscription
Service

September 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``the Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on August 24, 2012, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System
(``RTRS'') information system and subscription service (collectively,
``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change will enhance the
transaction data publicly disseminated from RTRS in real-time by
including the exact par value on all transactions with a par value of
$5 million or less and including an indicator of ``MM+'' in place of
the exact par value on transactions where the par value is greater than
$5 million. The exact par value of transactions where the par value is
greater than $5 million would be disseminated from RTRS five business
days later.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2012-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    RTRS is a facility for the collection and dissemination of
information about transactions occurring in the municipal securities
market. Currently, transaction information disseminated from RTRS
includes the exact par value on all transactions with a par value of $1
million or less but includes an indicator of ``1MM+'' in place of the
exact par value on transactions where the par value is greater than $1
million. The exact par value of such transactions is disseminated from
RTRS five business days later. The proposed rule change would enhance
the transaction data publicly disseminated from RTRS in real-time by
including the exact par value on all transactions with a par value of
$5 million or less and including an indicator of ``MM+'' in place of
the exact par value on transactions where the par value is greater than
$5 million. The exact par value of transactions where the par value is
greater than $5 million would be disseminated from RTRS five business
days later.
Background
    MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, requires brokers, dealers
and municipal securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to report
all transactions in municipal securities to RTRS within fifteen minutes
of the time of trade, with limited exceptions. Since the implementation
of RTRS in 2005, the MSRB has made transaction data available to the
public through subscription services designed to achieve the widest
possible dissemination of transaction information with the goal of
ensuring the fairest and most accurate pricing of municipal securities
transactions.
    In addition to subscription services, MSRB makes publicly available
for free transaction data on the Electronic Municipal Market Access
(EMMA[supreg]) Web site. Since the launch of EMMA as a pilot in 2008,
MSRB has incorporated into the display of market-wide and security
specific information all transaction data disseminated from RTRS so
that transaction information

would be available on the EMMA Web site simultaneously with the
availability of information to subscribers to the RTRS subscription
service.
Large Trade Size Masking
    In connection with the MSRB's predecessor end-of-day trade
reporting system and the subsequent development of RTRS, MSRB received
comments that, given the prevalence of thinly traded securities in the
municipal securities market, it sometimes is possible to identify
institutional investors and dealers by the exact par value included on
trade reports. It was noted that, where the market for a specific
security is thin and only one or two dealers are active, revealing the
exact par amount also may convey information about a dealer's inventory
(i.e., size of position and acquisition cost) and allow other dealers
to use this information to trade against the dealer's position, thus
reducing the incentive for a dealer to take large positions in these
circumstances.
    To address these concerns, transaction information disseminated
through RTRS subscription services and displayed on EMMA includes an
indicator of ``1MM+'' for any trade with a par value greater than $1
million. This indicator is replaced with the exact par value of the
trade five business days later. The MSRB implemented this approach to
help to preserve the anonymity of trading parties while not detracting
in a substantial way from the benefits of price transparency.\3\ The
MSRB noted that it would review this masking policy as it gains
experience with real-time transparency.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MSRB Notice 2003-12 (April 7, 2003).
    \4\ See MSRB Notice 2004-13 (June 1, 2004). See also Exchange
Act Release No. 49902 (June 22, 2004), 69 FR 38925 (June 29, 2004),
approved Exchange Act Release No. 50294 (August 31, 2004), 69 FR
54170 (September 7, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2012, the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'')
published a report on municipal securities market structure, pricing,
and regulation, as required by Section 977 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.\5\ In this report the GAO,
among other conclusions, concluded that individual investors generally
have less information about transaction prices than institutional
investors. The GAO, which had interviewed a broad range of market
participants, including institutional investors, observed that: ``Some
of these [institutional] investors said that even though MSRB's RTRS
system did not disclose total transaction amounts for trades over $1
million--which the system reports as trade amounts of `$1+ million'--
they typically were aware of the amount and the price of these large
transactions through their relationships with broker-dealers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U. S. Government Accountability Office, Municipal
Securities: Overview of Market Structure, Pricing, and Regulation,
GAO-12-265, January 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A foundational principal of RTRS is that all market participants
would have equal access to transaction information. The GAO observation
that certain market participants are able to determine, through their
relationships with dealers, the par amount of large transactions for
which the par value is masked in RTRS subscription services and on EMMA
undermines the purpose of masking the exact par value. Further, if
certain market participants are able to determine exact par values yet
the information disseminated by RTRS masks exact par values, then the
foundational principal of RTRS has been compromised since the equality
of access to transaction information is lost for the five business day
period that certain institutional customers have access to the exact
par value while the rest of the marketplace must await the unmasking of
such information by RTRS five business days after the trade was
reported.
    To ensure that as many market participants as possible have access
to the same amount of information about each transaction disseminated
from RTRS and to further promote price transparency consistent with the
MSRB's intent to review its masking policy as it gained experience with
real-time transparency, the proposed rule change would enhance the
transaction data publicly disseminated from RTRS in real-time by
including the exact par value on all transactions with a par value of
$5 million or less. While the MSRB considered discontinuing masking of
the exact par value on transactions where the par value is greater than
$1 million, with the result that RTRS subscription services and EMMA
would include the exact par value on all transactions when initially
disseminated to the public, as more fully discussed in the MSRB's
statement on comments received on the proposed rule change, dealers and
institutional investors oppose eliminating the practice of masking
large trade sizes and cited concerns related to adverse impacts on
liquidity. However, these commenters stated that raising the par value
threshold for masking large trade sizes would provide additional
transparency to the municipal market without adversely impacting
liquidity. Based upon 2011 trade data, the number of trades that were
subject to the over $1 million trade size mask was 342,906 and, if the
trade size mask was raised to par values over $5 million, this number
would have been 97,124 trades.
    The MSRB believes that raising the par value threshold to par
values over $5 million would be an appropriate first step to take in
the short term as it would greatly reduce the number of trades subject
to the par value mask. The MSRB plans to continue to evaluate whether
this threshold can be raised further or completely eliminated with a
view towards bringing full transparency of exact par values to the
municipal market in real-time.\6\ As part of the MSRB's Long-Range Plan
for Market Transparency Products,\7\ the MSRB plans to undertake an
initiative to reengineer RTRS. Through the RTRS reengineering
initiative, additional industry comment will be solicited on long-term
measures for increasing transparency of large trade sizes or
alternative methods of disseminating such information. MSRB also plans
to evaluate any impacts on liquidity from the near-term increase of the
trade size mask threshold to $5 million to assist it in determining
whether any future changes to this threshold are merited or could
result in unanticipated consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As part of the proposed rule change, the MSRB plans to use a
different indicator for disseminating those par values that are
greater than $5 million. Currently, the MSRB disseminates an
indicator of ``1MM+'' to indicate par values greater than $1
million. Instead of changing this to ``5MM+'', the MSRB plans to
include an indicator of ``MM+'' so that the par value threshold
could be changed in the future without requiring subscribers to make
system changes to accommodate a new indicator.
    \7\ See MSRB Notice 2012-06 (February 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date of Proposed Rule Change
    The MSRB proposes that the proposed rule change be made effective
on November 5, 2012 to coincide with other planned changes to RTRS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MSRB Notice 2012-42 (August 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the
MSRB's rules shall:

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities by increasing the number of transactions disseminated from
RTRS in real-time that include the exact par value, which would ensure
more market participants have equal access to information about
transactions disseminated from RTRS. This change would contribute to
the MSRB's continuing efforts to improve market transparency and to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public
interest.

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

    The MSRB does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act. Information disseminated by RTRS is
available to all persons on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The
information disseminated from RTRS real-time, including the exact par
value on all transactions with a par value of $5 million or less, will
be available to all subscribers simultaneously with the availability of
the information through the EMMA web portal. In addition to making the
information available for free on the EMMA web portal to all members of
the public, the MSRB makes the information collected by RTRS available
by subscription on an equal and non-discriminatory basis without
imposing restrictions on subscribers from, or imposing additional
charges on subscribers for, re-disseminating such information or
otherwise adding value-added services and products based on such
information on terms determined by each subscriber.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The MSRB notes that subscribers may be subject to
proprietary rights of third parties in information provided by such
third parties that is made available through the subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would not impose any burden
on dealers or any other market participant in connection with the
reporting of data to the MSRB since dealers already are, and would
continue to be, required to report the full principal amount of
transactions to the MSRB, regardless of trade size. Thus, no change in
submitter inputs to RTRS would be required. The large trade size
indicator is applied automatically by the MSRB's systems and will
require minimal programming efforts on the part of the MSRB. The MSRB
estimates that implementing the proposed rule change will require one
to two weeks of work for the equivalent of one full time employee. Some
subscribers to the RTRS subscription service may bear minimal one-time
programming and/or database costs to be able to accept and process a
value of ``MM+'' rather than ``1MM+,'' likely of equal or lesser
magnitude than the costs the MSRB would bear in making its own
programming changes. The MSRB believes that an effective date of
November 5, 2012 will provide subscribers with sufficient time to make
any required changes in due course without causing material disruptions
to their information technology plans or budgets.

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

    On June 1, 2012, the MSRB published a notice requesting comment on
enhancing the transaction data publicly disseminated in real-time from
RTRS by including the exact par value on all transactions disseminated
(``June 2012 Notice'').\10\ The June 2012 Notice solicited input on
whether the masking of trade size has been effective at achieving its
initial purpose. In addition, the June 2012 Notice sought comment on
whether the benefits, if any, of retaining such masking outweigh the
potential negative effects of withholding such information known to
certain institutional investors from the broader marketplace. Further,
the MSRB sought comment on whether other methods exist for market
participants to determine the exact or relative size of large trades
and to infer the identity of parties to the transaction from the RTRS
trade data history, such as through public filings by certain
institutional investors through the SEC's EDGAR system or other
sources, that otherwise undermine the effectiveness of trade size
masking in achieving its initial purpose. Finally, the June 2012 Notice
requested that market participants believing that such masking should
be continued should provide justification for doing so in light of the
GAO findings and the foundational principles for RTRS, as well as
suggestions for alternatives to discontinuing par value masking that
would further the initial purpose of such practice while reducing or
eliminating the selective dissemination of such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See MSRB Notice 2012-29 (June 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the June 2012 Notice, comment letters were received
from: Benchmark Solutions, Bond Dealers of America (``BDA''),
Government Finance Officers Association (``GFOA''), Investment Company
Institute (``ICI''), Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), and Stifel Nicolaus. Summaries of those
comments and the MSRB's responses follow.
    All commenters were supportive of providing additional transparency
of exact par values of large trades; however, commenters differed on
whether the practice of masking large trade sizes should be eliminated
altogether.
    Benchmark Solutions and GFOA stated support for eliminating the
practice of masking large trade sizes. Benchmark Solutions stated that
disseminating exact par values in real-time would provide investors
with equal access to information and facilitate pricing bonds in the
traded security as well as in other comparable securities.\11\ While
GFOA acknowledged the reasons why the practice of masking large trade
sizes was originally implemented, it stated that MSRB should ``look to
developing appropriate guidance to address those concerns rather than
using the masking of pricing information as a means to this end.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Benchmark Solutions also provided comments related to
shortening the fifteen minute timeframe for dealers to report
transactions to RTRS. In the future, the MSRB plans to request
comment on shortening the fifteen minute reporting deadline and this
comment will be considered with any other comments received at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BDA, ICI, SIFMA and Stifel Nicolaus stated opposition to
eliminating the practice of masking large trade sizes. BDA stated that
institutional investors ``may materially alter their trading
practices'' if exact par values are disseminated in real-time, which
``may prove disruptive to the municipal markets.'' Stifel Nicolaus
noted that disseminating exact par values in real-time could
``eliminate the anonymity of the buyer and seller * * * [which] is
valued in the market and assists in the maintenance of liquidity.''
SIFMA noted that ``a significant portion of trading activity in the
municipal market involves dealers taking bonds into inventory with no
identified buyers'' and without the anonymity provided by large trade
size masking, it stated that some dealers that regularly engage in
large block trades ``may become less willing to bid on investors'
positions.'' However, SIFMA acknowledged that other dealers ``stated
that eliminating the mask would not have an effect on their market
activity.'' ICI stated that ``increased transparency could diminish
market liquidity'' and noted that ``secondary market liquidity for
investors is provided by dealers that are willing to risk their capital
pending the

location of customers who are willing to purchase a block of bonds.''
    As an alternative to eliminating the practice of masking large
trade sizes altogether, ICI, SIFMA and Stifel Nicolaus suggested that
the trade size masking threshold in RTRS be raised from the current $1
million level to those trades in par values that exceed $5 million.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In response to the question in the June 2012 Notice of
whether other methods exist for market participants to determine the
exact or relative size of large trades and to infer the identity of
parties to the transaction from the RTRS trade data history, SIFMA
noted that the SEC's EDGAR system does not serve as a source of such
information and that while there are ``publicly available sources of
information [that] detail[ ] portfolio holdings of certain
institutional investors * * * it is sometimes not possible to
reliably determine actual trade sizes for 1MM+ trade reports from
publicly available information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion. Representatives of both dealers and institutional
investors stated consistent concerns about the potential adverse
effects on liquidity that could arise from eliminating the practice of
masking large trade sizes. The MSRB notes that these commenters did not
refute the GAO observation that certain market participants are able to
determine, through their relationships with dealers, the par amount of
large transactions for which the par value is masked, but acknowledges
the commenters' view that a certain level of anonymity continues to
exist in the reports of large trades for which the exact par value is
masked. The MSRB is sensitive to the views of those commenters that
argued for eliminating the practice of masking large trade sizes as it
would ensure that a foundational principal of RTRS to provide all
market participants with equal access to transaction information is
achieved. However, the comments received did not provide specific
evidence that the benefits to transparency from disseminating exact par
values in real-time outweigh potential adverse impacts on liquidity and
the MSRB does not currently have its own data to assess any such
impact. Thus, while the MSRB continues to believe that the municipal
securities market will benefit from full transparency on all
transactions, the MSRB has determined that it would be appropriate to
take an initial interim step toward that ultimate goal that will allow
the MSRB to assess the impact of such transparency on trades in sizes
ranging between $1 million and $5 million. Information derived from
such interim step would assist the MSRB in determining whether
increased trade size transparency results in adverse effects on market
liquidity.
    While dealers and institutional investors oppose eliminating the
practice of masking large trade sizes, these commenters stated that
raising the par value threshold for masking large trade sizes would
provide additional transparency to the municipal market without
adversely impacting liquidity. Based upon 2011 trade data, the number
of trades that were subject to the over $1 million trade size mask was
342,906 and if the trade size mask was raised to par values over $5
million, this number would have been 97,124 trades. MSRB believes that
raising the par value threshold to par values over $5 million would be
an appropriate first step to take in the short term as it would greatly
reduce the number of trades subject to the par value mask. However, as
noted above, the MSRB plans to continue to evaluate whether this
threshold can be raised with a view towards bringing full transparency
of exact par values to the municipal market in real-time.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2012-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2012-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the MSRB's offices. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2012-07, and should be submitted on
or before October 3, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22395 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15600-15602]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06454]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77392; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Include U.S. Non-Display Policies in the Nasdaq Rule Book

March 17, 2016.
    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 March 4, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to include U.S. non-display policies in the
Nasdaq rule book under Nasdaq Rule 7023.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7023 (NASDAQ Depth-of-
Book Data) by adding IM-7023-1. Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(2)(B) defines
``Non-Display Usage'' as any method of accessing depth-of-book \3\
``data that involves access or use by a machine or automated device
without access or use of a display by a natural person or persons.''
IM-7023-1 will incorporate guidance regarding U.S. non-display policies
into the Nasdaq rule book to provide additional detail with regard to
specific data usages and thereby ensure greater transparency. The
inclusion of these policies into the Nasdaq rule book will lessen
ambiguity in this area without necessitating any changes by market
participants. The Exchange has been working with both the industry and
customers to ensure that they understand these policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(1), which states that ``Depth-of-
Book'' refers to data feeds containing price quotations at more than
one price level. These Nasdaq data feeds include Nasdaq Level 2,
Nasdaq OpenView, and Nasdaq TotalView.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, IM-7023-1 will, in large part, include guidance
regarding: (i) Devices (or servers) used in the transportation,
dissemination or aggregation of data and ways to count such devices;
(ii) examples and details of what constitutes fee-liable Non-Display
Usage; (iii) examples and details of what Non-Display Usage does not
include; and (iv) examples of how to report Non-Display Usage.
    IM-7023-1 will apply most specifically to distributors \4\ who
access Nasdaq U.S information and use it in a non-display manner. IM-
7023-1 will also provide guidance in the form of examples of use cases
and details on how the Nasdaq U.S. non-display policies should be
applied and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it will be beneficial to both
distributors specifically and to market participants more generally to
incorporate these policies into the Nasdaq rule book through the
addition of IM-7023-1, as well as adding IM-7026-1, IM-7037-1, IM-7039-
1, IM-7047-1, and IM-7057-1 (collectively, the ``IMs'') that will be
added following each of their respective rules and each refers back to
IM-7023-1.
    The result will be to provide distributors additional clarity
through increased transparency into U.S. non-display policies,
including reporting requirements pertaining to non-display usage. The
presentation of this guidance in a more transparent manner will, in
turn, provide distributors with greater precision in making fee-liable
Non-Display Usage determinations.
    These policies are a result of the Exchange working with the
industry, as well as soliciting feedback from customers. Technology
changes that create any new use cases will result in a separate Nasdaq
filing. These U.S. non-display policies already are publicly available
and can be found at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=GDP_Ops, but their inclusion into the Exchange's rule
book provides an additional way for market participants to easily find
and review such policies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ 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 the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, and is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\ Likewise, in
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \9\
(``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\10\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499 (June 9,
2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \10\ See NetCoalition, at 534.
    \11\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker

dealers'. . . .'' \12\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing
the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply
with equal force to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to add IM-7023-1 and the other IMs to the
rule book will, in large part, include guidance regarding: (i) Devices
(or servers) used in the transportation, dissemination or aggregation
of data and ways to count such devices; (ii) examples and details of
what constitutes fee-liable Non-Display Usage; (iii) examples and
details of what Non-Display Usage does not include; and (iv) examples
of how to report Non-Display Usage.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
because it does not change any of the current practices or any dues,
fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls.
Rather, it adds transparency for market participants and provides for
the equitable treatment for distributors through making all such U.S.
non-display policies easily available and accessible to all
distributors on an equal basis.
    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
provide transparency, clarity, and eliminate potential confusion that
may exist for distributors and market participants regarding Non-
Display Usage and, thereby, will promote just and equitable principles
of trade.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will provide market participants guidance and
greater clarity in making fee-liable Non-Display Usage determinations
and, as a result, will serve to enhance competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-036, and should
be submitted on or before April 13, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06454 Filed 3-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41797-41798]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

July 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12677-000.
    c. Date filed: May 26, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Lake Shannon Hydroelectric Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Scoggins Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Scoggins Creek in Washington County, Oregon.
Dam is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Richard W. Rosenberg, P.E., 4141 State
Hwy. 508 Cinebar, WA 98533,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would use the
existing Bureau of Reclamation's Scoggins Dam and would consist of: (1)
A proposed powerhouse containing one to two turbine/generating units
having a total installed capacity of 1,000 kilowatts, (2) a proposed
1,000 foot-long transmission line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 6 gigawatt-
hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed
by providing

the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11658 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P