[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3242-3244]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82517; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Harmonize the Definition of Non-Professional User in Its Fee Schedule
With That of Its Affiliates

January 17, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 8, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has
designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule applicable to its equity options platform (``BZX
Options'') to harmonize the definition of ``Non-Professional User''
with that of its affiliates, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 parts 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 the Market Data section of its fee
schedule applicable to BZX Options to harmonize the definition of
``Non-Professional User'' with that of its affiliates, Cboe and C2. In
late 2016, the Exchange and its affiliates Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), and Cboe EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'')
of the Exchange's parent company, Bats Global Markets, Inc., the parent
of EDGA, EDGX, BYX, and BZX with CBOE Holding, Inc. (now known as Cboe
Global Markets, Inc.) the parent company of Cboe and C2.\5\ In order to
provide consistent rules and terminology amongst the Exchange, Cboe,
and C2, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``Non-
Professional User'' to harmonize it with that of its affiliates, Cboe
and C2. The BZX Option's fee schedule currently defines ``Non-
Professional User'' as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79585 (December 16,
2016), 82 FR 6961 (December 22, 2016) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-60; SR-
BatsEDGA-2016-24; SR-BatsBYX-2017-29; and SR-BatsBYX-2016-68).

a natural person who is not: (i) registered or qualified in any
capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (ii) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or
(iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform
functions that would require registration or qualification if such
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.

As amended, ``Non-Professional User'' would be defined as:

a natural person or qualifying trust that uses Data only for
personal purposes and not for any commercial purpose and, for a
natural person who works in the United States, is not: (i)
registered or qualified in any capacity with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or
any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii)
engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether
or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by
a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal
or state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt; or, for a natural person who works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
would disqualify such person as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.

    The revised definition is substantially identical to the definition
of ``Non-Professional User' included within the Cboe and C2 fee
schedules.\6\ The Exchange's current definition of ``Non-Professional
User'' does differ from that contained in the Cboe and C2 fee schedules
in following minor, non-substantive ways. First, the harmonized
definition will make clear that a Non-Professional User may be a
natural person or qualifying trust that uses Data only for personal
purposes and not for any commercial purpose. To date, the Exchange is
not aware of any entity that receives an Exchange market data product
would be deemed a qualifying trust and, therefore, has not had to
determine whether such entity is a Professional or Non-Professional
User under the prior definition. Second, the harmonized definition
would specify that a natural person who works outside of the United
States would not be deemed a Non-Professional User where that person
does not perform the same functions as would disqualify such person as
a Non-Professional User if he or she worked in the United States. The
definition with regard to natural persons who work in the United States
are substantively identical amongst the old and harmonized definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Cboe fee schedule available at https://www.cboe.org/general-info/pdfframed?content=/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf§ion=SEC_MDX_CSM&title=Cboe%20CDS%20Fees%20Schedule
and the C2 fee schedule available at https://www.cboe.org/general-info/pdfframed?content=/publish/mdxfees/c2-cds-fees-schedule.pdf§ion=SEC_MDX_CSM&title=C2%20CDS%20Fees%20Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of these differences impact the manner in which the Exchange
would characterize a User and a Professional or Non-Professional. The
harmonized definition would provide additional specificity while
harmonizing the definition with that of its affiliates. Doing so would
ensure consistent terms amongst the Exchange and its affiliates,
thereby reducing the potential for confusion amongst market data
subscribers regarding the type of User they may be considered by the
Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The harmonized definition of Non-Professional User is
equitable, reasonable, and removes impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system it
would provide additional specificity while harmonizing the definition
with that of its affiliates. Doing so would ensure consistent terms
amongst the Exchange and its affiliates, thereby reducing the potential
for confusion amongst market data subscribers regarding the type of
User they may be considered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
harmonized definition of Non-Professional User would have no impact on
competition because it does not materially alter the definition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\ In addition, Rule
19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange requested that the Commission waive the
30-day operative delay in order to enable the Exchange to immediately
ensure consistent use of terms amongst the Exchange and its affiliates,
thereby reducing the potential for confusion amongst market data
subscribers regarding the type of User they may be considered by the
Exchange. The Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing. For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number CboeBZX-2018-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number CboeBZX-2018-003 and should be submitted on
or before February 13, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01088 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Use the following protocols to verify consistent analyzer performance during each field sampling day.
13.1 Measurement Data Phase Performance Check. Calculate the mean of the readings from the "measurement data phase". The maximum allowable deviation from the mean for each of the individual readings is +- 2 percent, or +- 1 ppm, whichever is less restrictive. Record the mean value and maximum deviation for each gas monitored. Data must conform to Section 10.1.4. The EC cell flow rate must conform to the specification in Section 8.3.
Example: A measurement data phase is invalid if the maximum deviation of any single reading comprising that mean is greater than +- 2 percent or +- 1 ppm (the default criteria). For example, if the mean = 30 ppm, single readings of below 29 ppm and above 31 ppm are disallowed).
13.2 Interference Check. Before the initial use of the EC cell and interference gas scrubber in the field, and semi-annually thereafter, challenge the interference gas scrubber with NO and NO2 gas standards that are generally recognized as representative of diesel-fueled engine NO and NO2 emission values. Record the responses displayed by the CO EC cell and other pertinent data on Figure 1 or a similar form.
13.2.1 Interference Response. The combined NO and NO2 interference response should be less than or equal to +- 5 percent of the up-scale CO calibration gas concentration.
13.3 Repeatability Check. Conduct the following check once for each nominal range that is to be used on the CO EC cell within five days prior to each field sampling program. If a field sampling program lasts longer than five days, repeat this check every five days. Immediately repeat the check if the EC cell is replaced or if the EC cell is exposed to gas concentrations greater than 150 percent of the highest up-scale gas concentration.
13.3.1 Repeatability Check Procedure. Perform a complete EC cell  sampling run (all three phases) by introducing the CO calibration gas to the measurement system and record the response. Follow Section 10.1.3. Use Figure 1 to record all data. Repeat the run three times for a total of four complete runs. During the four repeatability check runs, do not adjust the system except where necessary to achieve the correct calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer.
13.3.2 Repeatability Check Calculations. Determine the highest and lowest average "measurement data phase" CO concentrations from the four repeatability check runs and record the results on Figure 1 or a similar form. The absolute value of the difference between the maximum and minimum average values recorded must not vary more than +- 3 percent or +- 1 ppm of the up-scale gas value, whichever is less restrictive.
14.0 Pollution Prevention (Reserved)
15.0 Waste Management (Reserved)
16.0 Alternative Procedures (Reserved)
17.0 References
(1) "Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer Test Protocol", Topical Report, Phil Juneau, Emission Monitoring, Inc., July 1997.
(2) "Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers", EMC Conditional Test Protocol 30 (CTM-30), Gas Research Institute Protocol GRI-96/0008, Revision 7, October 13, 1997.
(3) "ICAC Test Protocol for Periodic Monitoring", EMC Conditional Test Protocol 34 (CTM-034), The Institute of Clean Air Companies, September 8, 1999.
(4) "Code of Federal Regulations", Protection of Environment,
40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 1-4; 10.

Table 1:  Appendix A - Sampling Run Data.

Facility________________ Engine I.D.______________ Date_________

 Run Type:    (__)         (__)       (__)          (__)
  (X)       Pre-Sample   Stack Gas  Post-Sample   Repeatability
            Calibration   Sample    Cal. Check     Check

Run #
1
 1
2
 2
3
 3
4
 4
Time
Scrub.
OK
Flow-
Rate
Gas
O2
CO
O2
CO
O2
CO
O2
CO

Sample Cond.
Phase

"

"

"

"

Measure-
ment
Data Phase

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

   Mean

Refresh
Phase

"

"

"

"


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10566-10568]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.: Request for Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces MET Laboratories, Inc.'s (MET),
application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before March 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit a copy of comments and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TDY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The

hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.--4:45 p.m.,
e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0028). OSHA will place all
submissions, including any personal information provided, in the public
docket without revision, and these submissions will be available online
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before March 12, 2014 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David W. Johnson, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL that details its
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of recognition
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts
renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. II.C.
In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to
OSHA, not less than nine months, or no more than one year, before the
expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes
a request for renewal and any additional information the NRTL wishes to
submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with the terms of its
recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site
assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key sites within the past 18
to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior
to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the
submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the
on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or
deny renewal in the Federal Register and solicit comments from the
public. OSHA then publishes a final Federal Register notice responding
to any comments and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of
five years, or denying the renewal of recognition.
    MET initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on May 16, 1989
(54 FR 21136). MET's most recent renewal was on May 23, 2002, for a
five-year period ending on May 23, 2007. MET submitted a timely request
for renewal, dated June 06, 2006 (see Ex. OSHA-2006-0028-0004), and
retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal
process. The current address of the MET facility recognized by OSHA and
included as part of the renewal request is MET Laboratories, Inc., 914
West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that MET is applying for renewal of its
current recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers MET's existing NRTL
scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated MET's application for renewal and
preliminarily determined that MET can continue to meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is
making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site
review of MET's facilities based on its evaluations of MET's
application and all other available information. This information
includes OSHA's most recent audit of MET conducted on September 26-28,
2012, in which the auditors found some non-conformances with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. MET addressed these issues sufficiently
to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. This preliminary finding does
not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in MET's application and other pertinent
documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend whether to grant MET's application for
renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on
granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake
other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will
publish a public notice of this final decision in the Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-03920 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33026-33029]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53920; File No. SR-NASD-2006-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1 Thereto To Amend NASD Rules To Modify and Expand NASD's Authority
To Initiate Trading and Quotation Halts in OTC Equity Securities

June 1, 2006.
    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 22, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'') 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 NASD. On May 23,
2006, NASD filed with the Commission Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replace and susperseded the original rule
filing in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing to (1) amend NASD rules to modify and expand
NASD's authority to initiate trading and quotation halts in over-the-
counter (``OTC'') equity securities; \4\ and (2) adopt IM-6660-1 to
identify certain factors that NASD may consider in determining, in its
discretion, whether imposing a trading and quotation halt in an OTC
equity security is appropriate. Below is the text of the proposed rule
change, as amended. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed
deletions are in brackets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASD Rule 6610.
    \5\ The proposed rule text incorporates certain technical
corrections that NASD will incorporate into an amendment that it
will file with the Commission before approval of the proposed rule
change. Telephone conversation between Kosha Dalal, Associate
General Counsel, NASD and Tim Fox, Special Counsel, Commission on
June 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[6545]6660. Trading and Quotation Halt in OTC[BB-Eligible] Equity
Securities

(a) Authority for Initiating a Trading and Quotation Halt
    In circumstances in which it is necessary to protect investors and
the public interest, NASD may direct members, pursuant to the
procedures set forth in paragraph (b), to halt trading and quotations
in OTC Equity Securities (as such term is defined in Rule 6610)[the
over-the-counter (``OTC'') market of a security or an American
Depository Receipt (``ADR''), that is included in the OTC Bulletin
Board (``OTCBB'')] if:
    (1) The OTC[BB] Equity S[s]ecurity or the security underlying an
American Depository Receipt (``ADR'') that is an OTC Equity Security
(``OTC ADR'')[the OTCBB ADR] is listed on or registered with a foreign
securities exchange or market, and the foreign securities exchange,
market, or regulatory authority overseeing such issuer, exchange, or
market, halts trading in such security for regulatory reasons because
of public interest concerns (``Foreign Regulatory Halt''); provided,
however, that NASD will not impose a trading and quotation halt if the
Foreign Regulatory Halt was imposed solely for material news, a
regulatory filing deficiency, or operational reasons; [or]
    (2) The OTC[BB] Equity S[s]ecurity or the security underlying
[the]an OTC[BB] ADR is a derivative or component of a security listed
on or registered with a national securities exchange, The Nasdaq Stock
Market, or foreign securities exchange or market (``listed security'')
and the national securities exchange, The Nasdaq Stock Market, or
foreign securities exchange or market, imposes a trading halt in the
listed security[.]; or
    (3) NASD determines that an extraordinary event has occurred or is
ongoing that has had a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity
Security or has caused or has the potential to cause major disruption
to the marketplace and/or significant uncertainty in the settlement and
clearance process. [the issuer of the OTCBB security or the security
underlying the OTCBB ADR fails to comply with the requirements of SEC
Rule 10b-17 regarding Untimely Announcements of Record Dates.]
(b) Procedure for Initiating a Trading and Quotation Halt
    (1) When a halt is initiated under subparagraph (a)(1) of this
rule, upon receipt of information from a foreign securities exchange or
market on which the OTC[BB] Equity S[s]ecurity or the security
underlying the OTC[BB] ADR is listed or registered, or from a
regulatory authority overseeing such issuer, exchange, or market, NASD
will promptly evaluate the information and determine whether a trading
and quotation halt in the OTC[BB] Equity S[s]ecurity is appropriate.
    (2) Should NASD determine that a basis exists under this rule for
initiating a trading and quotation halt, the commencement of the
trading and quotation halt will be effective simultaneous with the
issuance of appropriate public notice.
    (3) Trading and quotations in the OTC market may resume when NASD
determines that the basis for the halt no longer exists, or when [five]
ten business days have elapsed from the date NASD initiated the trading
and quotation halt in the security, whichever occurs first. NASD shall
disseminate appropriate public notice that the trading and quotation
halt is no longer in effect.
(c) Violation of OTC[BB] Trading and Quotation Halt Rule
    If a security is subject to a trading and quotation halt initiated
pursuant to this rule, it shall be deemed conduct inconsistent with
just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 2110 for
a member:
    (1) To effect, directly or indirectly, a trade in such security; or
    (2) To publish a quotation, a priced bid and/or offer, an unpriced
indication of interest (including ``bid wanted'' and ``offer wanted''
indications), or a bid or offer accompanied by a modifier to reflect
unsolicited customer interest, in any quotation medium. For purposes of
this rule, ``quotation medium'' shall mean any: system of general
circulation to brokers or dealers that regularly disseminates
quotations of identified brokers or dealers; or publication,
alternative trading system or other device that is used by brokers or
dealers to disseminate quotations to others.
* * * * *

IM-6660-1 Factors To Be Considered When Initiating a Trading and
Quotation Halt

    NASD may impose a trading and quotation halt in an OTC Equity
Security pursuant to Rule 6660(a)(3) where NASD determines, in its
discretion, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular
event, that halting trading in the security is the appropriate
mechanism to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly
marketplace. As a general matter, NASD does not favor imposing a
trading and quotation halt in an OTC Equity

Security and will exercise this authority in very limited
circumstances. In determining whether to impose a trading halt under
Rule 6660(a)(3), NASD will consider several factors in making its
determination, including but not limited to: (1) The material nature of
the event; (2) the material facts surrounding the event are undisputed
and not in conflict; (3) the event has caused widespread confusion in
the trading of the security; (4) there has been a material negative
effect on the market for the subject security; (5) the potential exists
for a major disruption to the marketplace; (6) there is significant
uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the security;
and/or (7) such other factors as NASD deems relevant in making its
determination. NASD may review all or some of these factors as it
determines appropriate.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, 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. NASD 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
    Effective October 1, 2005, NASD transferred ownership and
operations of the OTC Bulletin Board (``OTCBB'') from The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') to NASD. Prompted in part by the transition
of the OTCBB, NASD has been analyzing the regulatory framework in this
sector of the marketplace to determine whether changes in this area are
appropriate.\6\ As part of this ongoing effort, NASD is proposing
several changes related to its current authority under NASD Rule 6545
to halt trading and quotations in the OTC market of a security or
American Depository Receipt (``ADR'') that is included in the OTCBB.
    Generally, national securities exchanges, such as the New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') as well as Nasdaq, have the authority to
halt trading and quotations in a security listed on such exchange.\7\
Issuers that have securities listed on a national securities exchange
enter into a listing agreement with such exchange that provides, among
other things, that such issuer will give timely notice of material news
affecting the security or issuer. Such exchanges generally have the
authority to halt trading and quotations in a security to allow a
company to announce important news or where there is a significant
order imbalance between buyers and sellers in a security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53224
(February 3, 2006), 71 FR 7101 (February 10, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-
112) (approving amendments to NASD Rule 3360 to expand the short
interest reporting requirements to OTC equity securities).
    \7\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 80B (Circuit Breakers); Section 202.06
of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (Procedure for Public Release of
Information); and NASD Rule 4120 (Trading Halts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD, however, does not have a listing agreement or similar
relationship with issuers of OTC Equity Securities \8\ and cannot
compel such issuers to disclose material information. As a result, NASD
currently has limited trade halt authority with respect to these
securities. Specifically, NASD Rule 6545(a) currently provides NASD
with authority to halt trading and quotations of OTCBB securities only
where: (1) The OTCBB security (or security underlying an OTCBB ADR) is
listed on or registered with a foreign market and the foreign
regulatory authority or market halts trading in the security; (2) the
OTCBB security (or the security underlying the OTCBB ADR) is a
derivative or component of a security listed on or registered with
Nasdaq, a national securities exchange or foreign exchange and the
exchange or market halts trading in the underlying security; or (3) the
OTCBB issuer fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10b-17 under
the Act,\9\ which generally requires the issuer of a class of
securities that are publicly traded to give notice to NASD no later
than 10 days prior to the record date of a dividend or distribution.
Pursuant to NASD Rule 6545, NASD has authority to halt trading and
quotations of OTCBB-eligible securities for up to five business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``OTC Equity Security'' as used in proposed NASD
Rule 6660 is defined in NASD Rule 6610(d), as may be amended from
time to time. NASD Rule 6610(d) provides that the term means any
equity security not classified as a ``designated security,'' for
purposes of the NASD Rule 4630 and 4640 Series. This term also
includes certain exchange-listed securities that do not otherwise
qualify for real-time trade reporting because they are not
``eligible securities'' as defined in NASD Rule 6410(d). The term
``OTC Equity Security'' does not include ``restricted securities,''
as defined by Rule 144(a)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933, nor
any securities designated in the PORTAL Market under the NASD Rule
5300 Series.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.10b-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is proposing four amendments to expand its current authority
to halt trading and quotations:
    First, NASD is proposing to expand the scope of its current trade
halt authority to include authority to halt trading and quotations in
all OTC Equity Securities, which includes ADRs that trade in the OTC
market. NASD's existing trading halt authority is limited to OTCBB
securities and therefore NASD does not have authority to impose trading
or quotation halts in other OTC Equity Securities (e.g., securities
quoted exclusively on the Pink Sheets). NASD believes that its trading
and quotation halt authority should apply uniformly to all OTC Equity
Securities and is therefore proposing to expand NASD's existing trading
halt authority to all OTC Equity Securities.\10\ NASD believes that
eliminating this disparity will further investor protections in this
area of the securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In addition, because the current NASD Rule 6500 Series
relates solely to OTCBB securities, NASD is proposing to renumber
the amended NASD Rule 6545 as NASD Rule 6660, which would be part of
the NASD Rule 6600 Series (OTC Equity Securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NASD is proposing to modify and expand NASD's existing
trading halt authority to provide more general trading and quotation
halt authority beyond halts related to non-compliance with Rule 10b-17,
while limiting such authority to only those extraordinary events that
have a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security and
that have the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace
and/or cause significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance
process. Specifically, the proposed trading and quotation halt
authority would provide NASD with the ability to impose a trading and
quotation halt for material events, where NASD determines, in its
discretion, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular
event, that halting trading in the security is the appropriate
mechanism to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly
marketplace.
    Third, NASD is proposing to increase the maximum number of business
days that it can impose a trading and quotation halt from up to five
business days to ten business days. NASD believes that a period of up
to ten business days is consistent with the maximum duration that the
Commission is permitted to suspend trading in securities in accordance
with section

12(k) of the Act.\11\ NASD believes increasing the maximum number of
days from five to ten business days will allow more time for regulators
to act and for the market of the subject security to stabilize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 781(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, NASD is proposing to adopt IM-6660-1 to identify certain
factors that NASD may consider in determining, in its discretion,
whether halting trading in an OTC Equity Security under proposed NASD
Rule 6660(a)(3) is appropriate. Proposed IM-6660-1 provides that as a
general matter, NASD would not favor imposing a trading halt and thus
would exercise this authority in very limited circumstances. It
identifies factors that NASD would consider in determining whether to
impose a trading halt under this expanded authority. Specifically, IM-
6660-1 provides that NASD would consider several factors in making its
determination, including but not limited to: (1) The material nature of
the event; (2) whether the material facts surrounding the event are
undisputed and not in conflict; (3) whether the event has caused
widespread confusion in the trading of the security; (4) whether there
has been a material negative effect on the market for the subject
security; (5) whether the potential exists for a major disruption to
the marketplace; (6) whether there is significant uncertainty in the
settlement and clearance process for the security; and/or (7) such
other factors as NASD deems relevant in making its determination. NASD
may review all or some of these factors as it determines appropriate.
NASD staff would weigh the relevant information and make a
determination whether halting trading in the security is appropriate
and may consult with NASD's Uniform Practice Code (``UPC'') Committee
(or any successor thereto) as it deems necessary or appropriate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The UPC Committee is a standing committee of NASD,
currently consisting of six professionals in the securities
industry. The UPC Committee has authority to advise NASD on issues
of interest and concern to the securities industry, including
specifically interpretations with respect to the UPC. NASD staff may
present matters relating to possible trading halts to the UPC
Committee from time to time. However, the role of the UPC Committee
in this regard is advisory only. NASD staff will retain full power
and authority to make all determinations under proposed NASD Rule
6660 and IM-6660-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is proposing to expand its trading and quotation halt
authority in the OTC market at this time in large part due to several
recent events, for which NASD believes that having this type of
authority would have been beneficial to investors and the marketplace.
For example, in 2005, an issuer announced that 3 million shares of its
common stock, an OTC Equity Security, were issued improperly prior to
the impending payment of a 3 million for 1 share dividend (i.e., a
forward split) in the security. As a result, significant questions
arose regarding the accuracy of publicly disseminated information
concerning the issuer, including the total shares outstanding, the
availability of non-restricted shares for trading and delivery, the
issuer's shareholders, and rights with respect to shares of the issuer.
The impact of this event was far-reaching, including widespread
investor confusion and the potential for several large clearing firms
to be forced to recognize substantial net capital charges on their
short positions and open fails.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SEC Order of Suspension of Trading, In the Matter of
Gluv Corporation (File No. 500-1; May 27, 2005). See also NASD
Notice to Members 05-41 (June 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NASD's experience to date, each event presents a unique
set of facts and circumstances. As a result, NASD would exercise
significant discretion in determining whether a particular event
affecting a security warranted a trading and quotation halt. The
authority would not be used to correct informational imbalances
resulting from corporate news about the issuer (e.g., financial
results, release of new product, or pending regulatory investigation)
because NASD has no listing or other agreement with the issuer of an
OTC Equity Security and therefore cannot compel such issuers to
disclose material information.
    It is important to note that for OTC Equity Securities, quoting may
not automatically resume when a trading halt ends. Rule 15c2-11 under
the Act \14\ and NASD Rule 6740 require a broker-dealer to review
information about the issuer and have a reasonable basis under the
circumstances to believe that the information on the issuer is accurate
in all material respects and the sources of such information are
reliable unless an exception to Rule 15c2-11 is available. If a trading
or quotation halt is in effect for more than four consecutive business
days, the ``piggyback'' exception of Rule 15c2-11(f)(3) \15\ would not
be available. As a result, broker-dealers would be required to comply
with the requirements of Rule 15c2-11 and NASD Rule 6740 before
resuming publication of quotations for the subject security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-11.
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-11(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD believes that the proposed amendments will further the goal of
investor protection in this sector of the marketplace and enhance the
quality of the OTC market. NASD will announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be
30 days following publication of the Notice to Members announcing
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\16\
which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule
change, as amended, will further investor protection and the operation
of a fair and orderly market by expanding NASD's current authority to
halt trading and quotation in OTCBB securities to (1) all OTC Equity
Securities and (2) extraordinary events that have the potential to
cause major market disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2006-039 and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8810 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56889-56891]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0273]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Black River, South of East Erie Avenue Bridge in
Front of Black River

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

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Black River. This action is necessary to provide
for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Black River
Landing, Lorain, OH, during a dragon boat festival. This established
rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September
18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0273 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Jared Stevens, Waterways Management Division, Marine
Safety Unit Cleveland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival has occurred annually for over a
decade. In past years events were held on the Cuyahoga River in
conjunction with the Head of the Cuyahoga regatta, for which the
Captain of the Port Buffalo initiated a rulemaking in 2015 (80 FR
51943) to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the
hazards associated with the rowing event. Due to increased
participation in the Dragon Boat Festival, the dragon boat event has
been relocated to the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH, to preserve
the safety of spectators and vessels.
    On January 31, 2022, the Cleveland Dragon Boat Association notified
the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a dragon boat festival from
8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 18, 2022. In response to this
request the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on June 17, 2022 (87 FR 36430), with zero comments submitted.
Typically, the event occurs on, or around, the first through third
Saturday of September between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Dragon
Boat Festival is to occur south of the East Erie Avenue bridge in front
of the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH. Hazards from the event
include, but are not limited to, sponsor operated vessels needing to
transit the area during the festival. These vessels are expected to
accompany the vessels competing in the rowboat style races. The Captain
of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the festival will be a safety concern for anyone within
this portion of the Black River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within this portion of the Black River before,
during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is establishing
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33
U.S.C. 1231).

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Buffalo (COTP)
has determined that potential hazards associated with the festival on
September 18, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone that is not
participating in the festival. The purpose of this rule is to ensure
safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published June
17, 2022. There are minor changes in the regulatory text of this rule
from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on
September 18, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of
the Black River to include south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in
front of the Black River Landing in Lorain, OH. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable
waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 a.m. through 5 p.m.
festival. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration of the rule. This safety zone will restrict navigation on
and through a small designated portion of the Black River for nine
hours on one day.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting nine hours that will prohibit entry within the area
south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in front of the Black River
Landing. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0273 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0273  Safety Zone, Black River, South of East Erie Avenue
Bridge in Front of Black River Landing, Lorain, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within the area south of the East Erie Avenue Bridge in front of
the Black River Landing in Lorain, Ohio.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on September 18, 2022.
    (c) Definitions. Official Patrol Vessel means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local
officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Buffalo
(COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this section.
Participant means all persons and vessels attending the event.
    (d) Regulations. During the enforcement of the safety zone in
paragraph (a) of this section, the following regulations, along with
those contained in this part, apply:
    (1) The Coast Guard may patrol the event area under the direction
of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may
be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign
``PATCOM.''
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels designated or assigned by
the Captain of the Port Buffalo to patrol the event.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so
directed by that officer and will be operated at a no wake speed in a
manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other
craft.
    (4) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through
transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area from 8 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on September 18, 2022, unless cleared for entry by or
through an official patrol vessel.
    (5) The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official
patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with
the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the
area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (6) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area
specified in this section, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a
navigable channel.
    (7) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation
of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of
life or property.
    (8) The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special
regulations in this section at the conclusion of the event.

    Dated: September 13, 2022.
M.I. Kuperman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2022-20093 Filed 9-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76009-76010]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0088]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Electronic Products--General
Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Electronic Products--General
Requirements'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 13, 2010 (75
FR 26964), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned

OMB control number 0910-0025. The approval expires on October 31, 2013.
A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30555 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64179-64181]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket no. FMCSA-2004-19608]
RIN 2126-AB65

Hours of Service of Drivers; Amendment of the 30-Minute Rest
Break Requirement

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA amends its December 27, 2011, final rule entitled
``Hours of Service of Drivers'' to provide an exception from the 30-
minute rest break requirement for short-haul drivers who are not
required to prepare records of duty status (RODS). The Agency also
removes regulatory text made obsolete by the passing of the July 1,
2013, compliance date for the final rule. This action responds to a
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court).

DATES: Effective October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents,
including those referenced in this document, go to:
     Regulations.gov, http://www.regulations.gov, at any time
and insert FMCSA-2004-19608 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then click
``Search.''
     Docket Management Facility, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may view the
docket online by visiting the facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t.,
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Basis for Rulemaking

    The legal basis for the December 27, 2011, final rule (76 FR 81134,
at 81140) is fully addressed there; it is also applicable to this rule.
This final rule is necessary because of the Court's vacatur of 49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii) as it applies to short-haul drivers operating under 49
CFR 395.1(e)(1)-(2).
    While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) normally requires
issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and an opportunity
for public comment prior to publication of a final rule, the APA
provides an exception when an agency ``for good cause finds . . . that
notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Because this
final rule makes only the changes necessary to conform the hours-of-
service (HOS) regulations to the Court's decision, FMCSA finds that
notice and comment are both unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest. For the same reason, the Agency finds good cause pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

II. Background Information

    On December 27, 2011, FMCSA published a final rule amending its HOS
regulations for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs). The final rule included a new provision requiring drivers to
take a rest break during the work day under certain circumstances.
Drivers may drive a CMV only if a period of 8 hours or less has passed
since the end of their last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at
least 30 minutes. FMCSA did not specify

when drivers must take the 30-minute break but the rule requires that
they wait no longer than 8 hours after the last off-duty or sleeper-
berth period of that length or longer to take the break. Drivers who
already take shorter breaks during the work day could comply with the
rule by taking one of the shorter breaks and extending it to 30
minutes. The new requirement took effect on July 1, 2013.
    On August 2, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its opinion on petitions for review of the 2011
HOS rule filed by the American Trucking Associations, Public Citizen,
and others [American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, No. 12-1092 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 2013)].
The Court upheld the 2011 HOS regulations in all respects except for
the 30-minute break provision as it applies to short haul drivers.
While the Court's mandate would not have issued until 52 days after
entry of judgment (unless a party files a petition for rehearing,
either by the panel or en banc, or moves to stay the mandate pending
the filing of a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court), the
Agency ceased enforcement of the 30-minute rest break provision against
short-haul operations effective August 5, 2013.
    The Agency also requested that its State enforcement partners cease
enforcement of the State versions of this provision beginning August 5,
2013, with the understanding that they would not be found in violation
of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) regulations (49
CFR Part 350) for doing so.

III. Impact of Court's Decision

    The Court vacated the rest-break requirement of 49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii) with respect to any driver qualified to operate under
either of the ``short haul'' exceptions outlined in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)
or (2). An introductory clause excluding those drivers has been added
to 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). Specifically, the following drivers are no
longer subject to the 30-minute break requirement:
     All drivers (whether they hold a commercial driver's
license (CDL) or not) who operate within 100 air-miles of their normal
work reporting location and satisfy the time limitations and
recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  395.1(e)(1).
     All non-CDL drivers who operate within a 150 air-mile
radius of the location where the driver reports for duty and satisfy
the time limitations and recordkeeping requirements of Sec.
395.1(e)(2).

IV. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this action does not meet the criteria
for a ``significant regulatory action'' as specified in Executive Order
12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, or within the meaning
of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures
(44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). While the December 27, 2011, final rule
was an economically significant regulatory action, this final rule, as
explained above, is necessary to implement the Court's opinion vacating
part of the December 2011 rule. The rule simply codifies the effect of
the Court's decision.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis for this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the Agency has not issued an NPRM
prior to this action. This final rule also complies with the
President's memorandum of January 18, 2011, entitled Regulatory
Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation (76 FR 3827). As
explained above, promulgation of this final rule is required by the
Court's decision. Additionally, Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii), as it applies to
short-haul drivers, was vacated approximately one month after it took
effect so very little of the costs and benefits of the break
requirement for these drivers were ever realized.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FMCSA is not required to prepare an assessment under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531, et seq., evaluating a
discretionary regulatory action because the Agency has not issued an
NPRM prior to this action. Further, as addressed above, promulgation of
this final rule is required as a result of the Court's decision.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule includes no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). It neither
increases nor decreases the hours for FMCSA's information collection
burden for 49 CFR Part 395, as approved by OMB under Control Number
2126-0001.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that the results of this analysis, and the
supporting 2011 hours-of-service environmental assessment, show that
this final rule will have no impact on the environment and associated
areas FMCSA analyzes within NEPA documents. Thus, FMCSA finds no
significant impact to the environment from this action and will not
conduct an environmental impact statement.
    FMCSA also analyzed this action under section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it would result in either no emissions increase, or
an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.

Executive Order 12630 (Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

    This final rule does not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    This final rule raises no environmental justice issues nor is there
any collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    This final rule does not pose an environmental risk to health or
safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Executive Order
13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or
local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a
substantial direct cost of compliance on State or local governments.
FMCSA analyzed this action in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
This final rule does not preempt or modify any provision of State law,
impose substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any State,
or diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws.
Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is not
economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR
chapter III as set forth below:

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 395 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, and 31502; sec.
113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-
159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132,
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub.
L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432, 122
Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830;
and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. Revise Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii), (c), and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  395.3  Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Rest breaks. Except for drivers who qualify for either of the
short-haul exceptions in Sec.  395.1(e)(1) or (2), driving is not
permitted if more than 8 hours have passed since the end of the
driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) Any period of 7 consecutive days may end with the beginning
of an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours that includes two
periods from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
    (2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of
an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours that includes two
periods from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
    (d) A driver may not take an off-duty period allowed by paragraph
(c) of this section to restart the calculation of 60 hours in 7
consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days until 168 or more
consecutive hours have passed since the beginning of the last such off-
duty period. When a driver takes more than one off-duty period of 34 or
more consecutive hours within a period of 168 consecutive hours, he or
she must indicate in the Remarks section of the record of duty status
which such off-duty period is being used to restart the calculation of
60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 22, 2013, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-25380 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78798-78799]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 [Docket No. FAA-2010-1220]

Airport Improvement Program: Proposed Changes to Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA) Threshold

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

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance and Request for
Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this
Notice to advise that FAA has developed draft guidance modifying its
policy requiring benefit cost analyses (BCA) for capacity projects when
applying for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for capacity
projects at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. This
modification proposes to raise the threshold at which BCAs are
required, from $5 million to $10 million in AIP Discretionary funds.
    FAA invites airport sponsors and other interested parties to
comment on the draft guidance. FAA will consider these comments in
promulgating final BCA guidance for airport sponsors.

DATES: Send your comments on or before January 31, 2011. The FAA will
consider comments received on the proposed policy guidance. Any
necessary or appropriate revision to the guidance resulting from the
comments received will be adopted as of the date of a subsequent
publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Walsh, Financial Analysis and
Passenger Facility Charge Branch (APP-510), Room 619, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A draft
Program Guidance Letter is available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/bc_analysis/. In addition, hard copies can be reviewed at
Room 619, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments Invited: ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by
Docket Number FAA-2010-1220] using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 U.S.C. Section 47115(d) specifies
that, in selecting projects for discretionary grants to preserve and
enhance capacity at airports, the Secretary must consider the benefits
and costs of the projects. In 1994, FAA established its policy on
Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) requirements for airport capacity projects;
factors leading to these requirements included:
    a. The need to improve the effectiveness of Federal airport
infrastructure investments in light of a decline in Federal AIP
budgets;
    b. Issuance of Executive Order 12893, ``Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investments'' (January 26, 1994);
    c. Guidance from Congress citing the need for economic airport
investment criteria; and
    d. Statutory language from 1994 included in Title 49 U.S.C. Section
47115(d) specifies that in selecting projects for discretionary grants
to preserve and enhance capacity at airports, the Secretary shall
consider the benefits and costs of the projects (See 49 U.S.C. 47115.
Discretionary Fund).
    The FAA implemented the BCA policy to include this requirement for
capacity projects at all categories of airports in order to limit FAA's
risks when investing large amounts of discretionary funds. The FAA uses
the conclusions reached in the BCA review to determine policy and
funding decisions on possible future Federal investments.
    In 1997, FAA implemented a new BCA policy which transferred the
responsibility of preparing the BCA from FAA to the sponsor. In
addition, the policy lowered the dollar threshold from $10 million in
AIP Discretionary funds (established in 1994) to $5 million, citing
three reasons related to Executive Order 12893, technical feasibility
of lowering the threshold and workload considerations.
    The change to the $5 million threshold was made policy in 1997 and
formalized in a 1999 Federal Register notice, Federal Aviation
Administration Policy and Final Guidance Regarding Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA) on Airport Capacity Projects for FAA Decisions on
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Discretionary Grants and Letters of
Intent (LOI), 64 FR 70107 (December 15, 1999).
    Since 1997, policy has required sponsors to conduct BCAs for
capacity projects for which more than $5 million in AIP Discretionary
funding will be requested. In developing the draft guidance increasing
the threshold, FAA reviewed the reasons why the BCA threshold amount
was lowered in 1997 and concluded that the previous reasons do not
present a sufficient basis to warrant maintaining the $5 million level
threshold today.
    FAA has gained valuable experience assessing the implementation of
the policy and the need to further clarify the threshold requirements
for BCA. The $5 million threshold has remained unchanged for over 13
years while the cost of construction has risen significantly. A
construction cost of $5 million in 1997 was equivalent to $9.8 million
in July 2008. The $5 million threshold has required both FAA and
sponsors of non-primary and non-hub primary airports to devote
substantial financial and staff resources in preparing and evaluating
BCAs for relatively small projects with readily apparent capacity
benefits.
    Based on the increase in construction costs, FAA has concluded that
$10 million in AIP Discretionary funds is the appropriate threshold for
fiscal year 2011 and beyond. Further explanation for this conclusion is
detailed in the draft PGL. Under the draft guidance, the BCA threshold
is being increased to $10 million, the FAA would retain the right to
require a BCA for any capacity project, in order to evaluate the
reasonableness of project costs relative to project benefits.
    Additionally, FAA is inviting airport sponsors and other interested
parties to comment on the new $10 million threshold for which a BCA
must be performed.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 2010.
Frank San Martin,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-31614 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42671-42672]
[DOCID:fr24au09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

July 31, 2009.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may 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, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Exempt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Docket No.                       File date                  Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP08-431-000.............................          07-28-09  Sherrod Brown.
2. P-400-051................................          08-05-09  Greg Stobb,
                                                                Edwin Schlapfer.

3. P-405-087................................          08-03-09  Benjamin L. Cardin.
4. P-12569-001..............................          08-06-09  Gregory Griffith.
5. P-12569-001..............................          08-04-09  Dan Boettger.
6. P-12737-002..............................          08-06-09  Brenda Winn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20213 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P