[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39678-39679]
[DOCID:fr13jy06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-985-000]

Valero Power Marketing LLC; Notice of Withdrawal

June 27, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 26, 2006, Valero Power Marketing LLC
submitted a withdrawal of its Application for Market-Based Rate
Authorization and Request for Waivers and Blanket Authorizations, filed
on May 9, 2006, and its request for an Extension of Time, filed on June
20, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must
be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 7, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10986 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Attached please find the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America's and American Gas Association's joint request for an extention of time related to Pipeline Safety: Safety in Transmission, Docket No. PHMSA 2011-0023.  Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Terry Boss or Christina Sames.


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="12/05/2008 01:42:53 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 47819-47820]
[DOCID:fr09au10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Workshop on Optimizing Clinical Trial Design for the Development
of Pediatric Cardiovascular Devices

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of
Health (NIH), with support from the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Society for
Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) are announcing a
public workshop entitled ``Optimizing Clinical Trial Design for the
Development of Pediatric Cardiovascular Devices.'' The topic to be
discussed is pediatric cardiovascular device development. The purpose
of the public workshop is to solicit information from clinicians,
academia, professional societies, other government agencies, and
industry on various efficient and pragmatic clinical trial designs that
are conducive to overcoming the challenges in developing devices for
the pediatric cardiology market. The information gathered in this and
future workshops will help to develop future guidance on optimal
designs for pediatric cardiology device trials.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on September 30,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at Moscone Center, 747
Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94103.
    Contact Person: Francesca Joseph, Office of Orphan Products
Development, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 32, rm. 5277, Silver Spring, MD 20903,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-
847-8621, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Registration information will be posted on the
Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/
WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Lynn Colegrove by phone<PHONE_NUMBER> at least 7 days in
advance.
    Registration and seating will be on a first-come, first-served
basis. A discussion preference will be afforded to clinical research
investigators involved in pediatric clinical device trials, health care
givers, and patient advocates. There is no registration fee to attend
the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating
is limited. There will be no onsite registration.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office
of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the medical device industry, rarely have
devices been developed, evaluated, and approved specifically for
treatment of children with congenital heart disease. The small,
heterogeneous population, need for long-term followup, lack of market
incentive, and misperceptions of regulatory requirements and costs are
a few of the issues that make a standard randomized control trial
difficult to conduct in pediatric cardiology. The goal of the workshop
is to educate the medical device industry and pediatric clinical
community about device development and regulatory approval processes,
and to identify clinical trial designs that lend themselves to
overcoming the challenges in pediatric cardiovascular device
development. Subsequently making this information available to
industry, the clinical community, and the public is imperative to
furthering the development of pediatric cardiovascular devices and
alleviating this critical unmet need. The marketing approval of more
cardiovascular devices specifically designed and/or labeled for
pediatric patients would have a significant impact on public health.
Invited experts will address types of clinical trials with a particular
focus on trial designs and statistical analysis methods, as well as
alternative sources of clinical data, that can help to address the
challenges in this particular patient population. After each section
there will be an audience question and answer session and panel
discussion allowing workshop participants to interact with the speakers
and panelists. A concluding session will allow for additional
interactions.
    Background information on the public workshop, registration
information, the agenda, information about lodging, and other relevant
information will be posted, as it becomes available, on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/
default.htm.

    Dated: August 4, 2010.
Nancy Stade,
Acting Associate Director for Regulations and Policy, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-19530 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67718-67719]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3519-001.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, L.L.C.
    Description: NedPower Mount Storm, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate Restrictions to be
effective 10/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4128-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Filing of a Refund Report to be effective
N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4479-001.
    Applicants: Endure Energy, L.L.C.
    Description: Endure Energy, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance filing to baseline refile to be effective 10/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-191-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2012 Administrative Cost Filing to be effective 1/1/
2012.

    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-192-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Electric Power, LLC.
    Description: Liberty Electric Power, LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 12/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-193-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate Restrictions to be
effective 10/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-194-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 3083--Queue No. W3-136
to be effective 9/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-195-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Waiver of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 2, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-196-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original Service Agreement No. 3084--Queue No. W3-138
to be effective 9/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111026-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 26, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28341 Filed 11-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59616-59618]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

October 3, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP91-203-075, RP92-132-063.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits a report re the
status of Tennessee's discussions with their customers concerning the
development of a mutually agreeable solution to address the over-
collections.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0033.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-225.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to Rate
Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate agreement with Nexen Marketing USA Inc
(Contract 113035), to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 09/26/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 8, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-70-020.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Original Sheet
No. 89 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-197.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits a
negotiated rate agreement with XTO Energy Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-13-033.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits Original Sheet
31 et al. of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 10/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-480-022.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits First Revised
Sheet No. 17 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1,
to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0302.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP03-36-036.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits its Fortieth
Revised Sheet 9 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 10/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-646-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits Thirty-Seventh
Revised Sheet No. 31 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume
No. 1.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081001-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-647-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline LLC submits Original Sheet
1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-1-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Co. submits its 14th Revised
Sheet 66C et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-2-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System submits Fifth
Revised Sheet 100 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-3-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission LLC's First Revised Sheet 36 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-4-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 80 (Superseding First Original Sheet 80) to its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 1 to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-5-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline LLC submits Twelfth
Revised Sheet 11 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-6-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline Gas Company LLC submits Eighteenth Revised
Sheet 10 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-7-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Second Revised Sheet 2102 et al. to FERC Electric Gas,
Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-8-000.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Co its entire FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 which replaces the Original Volume 1,
Part 1 of 3.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-9-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company LP submits
Twentieth Revised Sheet 4 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-10-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Gas Storage.
    Description: Liberty Gas Storage Company, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 132 to its FERC Gas Tariff,

Original Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/8.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-11-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline LLC submits Sixteenth Revised Sheet
5, FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume 1, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-12-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Co submits Twenty-Fourth Revised
Sheet No. 5 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-13-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Fifteenth
Revised Sheet 478 with an effective date of 1/1/08 and a market version
of Amendment III to Service Agreement F02092 with United Refining
Company.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-14-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Viking Gas Transmission Co submits Twenty-Fourth
Revised Sheet 5B to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP06-76-004.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits its Seventh
Revised Sheet 24 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP06-115-004.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Third Revised
Sheet 35B, to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0036.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23899 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35341-35342]
[DOCID:fr23jn08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0321]

Special Local Regulation; Thunderboat Regatta; Mission Bay, San
Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Thunderboat Regatta special
local regulation in Fiesta Bay of Mission Bay, San Diego from 7:30 a.m.
on September 19, 2008 through 5:30 p.m. on September 21, 2008. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants,
crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of
the waterway. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may
enter the special local regulation without permission of the Captain of
the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 7:30
a.m. on September 19, 2008 through 5:30 p.m. on September 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619) 278-
7233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation for the Thunderboat Regatta in 33 CFR 100.1101 on
September 19, 2008, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., September 20, 2008,
from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and September 21, 2008, from 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, a vessel may not enter the
regulated area, unless it receives permission from the COTP. Spectator
vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not
anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of participants or
official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1101(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area
newspapers. If the COTP or his designated representative determines
that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration
stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: 8 June 2008.
C.V. Strangfeld,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E8-14047 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


compliance burden on regulated entities.\127\ SIFMA suggested that
auto-populating Form G-32 with initial minimum denomination information
from NIIDS would assist the marketplace overall in better complying
with MSRB Rule G-15(f), on minimum denominations.\128\ SIFMA also
suggested that certain call-related fields in NIIDS might be useful if
included on Form G-32, but suggested that the MSRB first should conduct
a thorough review of the data to ensure that the structure of the data
provided in NIIDS provides an accurate representation of the different
call features used in the municipal securities market.\129\ In any
event, SIFMA suggested that the MSRB should undertake a notice and
comment period with respect to any additional data elements it would
propose to make public through EMMA.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ BDA Letter I, NAMA Letter I and SIFMA Letter I.
    \127\ BDA Letter I at 4 and NAMA Letter I at 5.
    \128\ SIFMA Letter I at 19.
    \129\ Id.
    \130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether the MSRB Should Request Additional Information on Form G-32
That Currently Is Not Provided in NIIDS, and If So, What Data
    Five commenters provided comments on this issue.\131\ All five of
the commenters thought certain items would be useful if included on
Form G-32, and disseminated, but none believed all of the identified
potential items from the Concept Proposal should be included. The City
of San Diego and NAMA specifically thought the municipal advisor fee
should not be included, and the City of San Diego also believed the
management fee should be excluded because of the vast differences in
how it is determined between differing transactions.\132\ SIFMA
indicated that EMMA is not the proper venue for disclosing fees and
expenses that are incorporated into the information provided in the
official statement.\133\ Additionally, BDA indicated that minimum
denomination and call information would be useful on Form G-32.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ BDA Letter I, City of San Diego Letter I, GLEIF Letter I,
NAMA Letter I and SIFMA Letter I.
    \132\ City of San Diego Letter I at 2 and NAMA Letter I at 5.
    \133\ SIFMA Letter I at 19.
    \134\ BDA Letter I at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA indicated that additional information would benefit issuers
and the marketplace, especially information related to true interest
cost and yield to maturity.\135\ SIFMA raised concerns regarding the
current process for submitting information on commercial paper issues,
which are not subject to the NIIDS requirement and, according to SIFMA,
``consistently raise significant operational and compliance
difficulties.'' \136\ SIFMA asked that the MSRB engage in discussions
with SIFMA members to assess the operational issues and develop
solutions to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of commercial paper
submissions.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ NAMA Letter I at 5.
    \136\ SIFMA Letter I at 24.
    \137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters specifically noted their support for the inclusion
of legal entity identifiers (``LEIs'') on Form G-32.\138\ GLEIF
indicated its belief that

requiring issuers to register for LEIs would help move towards global
harmonization for U.S. issuers to be identified by LEIs.\139\ SIFMA
noted that Form G-34 should have a field for the submission of LEIs, as
the LEI system would be useful to the MSRB in terms of enhancing
transparency in the issuance of municipal securities.\140\ While SIFMA
recognized the potential costs to issuers to register for LEIs, it
believed the MSRB should strongly promote the value of obtaining LEIs
by issuers and obligors as part of the issuance process.\141\
Additionally, SIFMA suggested the MSRB provide written materials
describing the benefits of and the process for obtaining LEIs to assist
the industry in promoting the benefits to issuers and obligors during
the issuance process.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ GLEIF Letter I and SIFMA Letter I.
    \139\ GLEIF Letter I at 1.
    \140\ SIFMA Letter I at 21.
    \141\ Id.
    \142\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Questions
    Has the IRS's issue price rule impacted any primary offering
practices in the municipal securities market, and in what ways? If any
MSRB rules are affected, what, if any, amendments should be considered?
    BDA, GFOA, NABL and SIFMA each provided comments on this question.
BDA believed the IRS's issue price rule has not changed the primary
offering practices for municipal securities.\143\ NABL stated that no
MSRB rule should be adopted if it would undermine, conflict with or
make impractical the continued compliance with the issue price
rules.\144\ GFOA expressly supported NABL's position.\145\ Finally,
SIFMA noted that the issue price rules should take the lead on matters
related to bona fide public offerings and initial offering prices and
that the MSRB should wait on any rulemaking in this area until the
market has adapted to the IRS requirements.\146\ The MSRB determined
that the rules being considered in the Concept Proposal did not impact
or conflict with the IRS issue price rules, nor did they impact an
underwriter's ability to conform with those rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ BDA Letter I at 5.
    \144\ NABL Letter I at 2.
    \145\ GFOA Letter I at 1.
    \146\ SIFMA Letter I at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are there any other primary offering practices that the MSRB should
consider in its review?
    Three commenters provided thoughts on other primary offering
practices the MSRB should consider.\147\ Doty suggested that the MSRB
consider amending Rule G-32(iii)(A) to require disclosure of ``the
amount of any compensation received by the broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer at any stage of the offering from an obligated person
or any other party, in addition to the governmental issuer, in
connection with completion of one or more stages of the offering or
completion of the entire offering or both.'' \148\ According to Doty,
without disclosure, investors would believe that the underwriter/
placement agent received only the compensation paid by the governmental
issuer, without knowledge of the underwriter's/placement agent's full
compensatory motivation to complete the transaction.\149\ Doty further
suggested that municipal advisors should disclose all of their
compensation in both negotiated and competitive offerings and whether
their compensation was contingent upon the closing of the transaction
or achievement of any other factor, such as the size of the
transaction.\150\ The MSRB agrees that the issue of compensation paid
to the underwriter is an issue of interest, but believes consideration
of this issue should be undertaken separately from the primary offering
practices rule review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Doty Letter I, NAMA Letter I and Wells Capital Letter I.
    \148\ Doty Letter I at 1.
    \149\ Doty Letter I at 2.
    \150\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA suggested that the MSRB should ensure that all references in
the MSRB rule book to dealer-municipal advisors, municipal advisors and
financial advisors ``correctly reflect the actual duties and
responsibilities of [m]unicipal [a]dvisors that are stated in the
Exchange Act and the Final Municipal Advisor Rule.'' \151\
Additionally, NAMA urged the MSRB to address the impact of rulemaking
on small municipal advisory firms.\152\ The MSRB agrees that certain
terminology and references in its rules could be clarified or
modernized as a result of the municipal advisor regulatory regime, but
that consideration of such changes should be undertaken separately from
the primary offering practices rule review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ NAMA Letter I at 6.
    \152\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wells Capital asked that the MSRB address in Rule G-32 the current
practices related to the ``deemed final'' POS required under SEC Rule
15c2-12 regarding both timing of the pricing and completeness of the
deemed final POS.\153\ In Wells Capital's experience, pricing of
municipal deals usually is not based on a deemed final POS as is
required under Rule 15c2-12.\154\ Additionally, Wells Capital requested
that the MSRB address issues regarding the minimum time needed between
the issuance of a deemed final POS and pricing. Wells Capital urged the
MSRB to impose a minimum number of business days between the
distribution of a deemed final POS and the pricing of that transaction.
According to Wells Capital, underwriters attempt to rush final pricing
without a deemed final POS in the hopes that the buy-side will not
detect all the ``warts'' in the transaction or will not raise questions
that have not been adequately addressed in the POS. Finally, Wells
Capital urged the MSRB to address current practices by issuers and
underwriters related to selective disclosure.\155\ For jurisdictional
reasons the MSRB is unable to address the issues proposed by Wells
Capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Wells Capital Letter I at 3.
    \154\ Id.
    \155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What are the reasonable alternatives to each of the above
proposals? For example, are any of the proposals that would require a
rule change better addressed through other means, such as interpretive
guidance, compliance resources, additional outreach/education, new MSRB
resources, or voluntary industry initiatives? Are there less burdensome
or more beneficial alternatives?
    The MSRB received no comments related to this set of questions.
    After carefully considering commenters' suggestions and concerns
regarding the Concept Proposal, the MSRB determined to seek further
comment, on certain of the concepts, as discussed in more detail below.
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Request for Comment
    The Request for Comment sought further comment on proposed
amendments to Rule G-11 related to (1) simultaneous issuance of the
free-to-trade wire; (2) providing additional information to the issuer
related to designations and allocations; and (3) alignment of the
timeframe for the payment of group net sales credits with the payment
of net designation sales credits. Additionally, the Request for Comment
sought input on proposed amendments related to Rule G-32 and Form G-32,
including (1) disclosures of CUSIP numbers advance refunded and the
percentages thereof; (2) whether non-dealer municipal advisors should
be required to make the official statement available to the underwriter
after the issuer approves it for

distribution; (3) whether Form G-32 should be auto-populated with
additional information from NIIDS; and (4) whether Form G-32 should be
amended to request additional information that would not be auto-
populated from NIIDS. The MSRB received 10 comments letters in
response, which are summarized below.
Rule G-11--Primary Offering Practices
Free-to-Trade Wire
    The Request for Comment again sought feedback on proposed
amendments to Rule G-11, on primary offering practices, to add a
requirement that the senior syndicate manager issue the free-to-trade
wire to all syndicate members at the same time. BDA, GFOA and SIFMA
supported this proposed change. However, BDA recommended that the rule
not prescribe the manner of dissemination of a free-to-trade wire,
specifically, because industry customs change and eventually
dissemination of such information may be made in another manner.\156\
Instead, BDA suggested modifying the proposed language to require
notification ``in any reasonable manner accepted and customary'' in the
industry.\157\ GFOA suggested that the proposed change include language
that addresses the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issue price
rules.\158\ Specifically, GFOA suggested that language be included that
indicates trades may not be allowable at any price if issue price
restrictions (such as hold-the-price restrictions) are in place.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ BDA Letter II at 1.
    \157\ Id.
    \158\ GFOA Letter II at 2.
    \159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, the MSRB believes equal access to information
is important to the fair and effective functioning of the market for
primary offerings of municipal securities. In addition, after
consulting with stakeholders, the MSRB added selling groups to the
parties that should receive the free-to-trade information as proposed.
The MSRB believes requiring dissemination of this information for
receipt by all syndicate and selling group members at the same time,
would prevent preferential access to the free-to-trade information. In
response to commenters, the MSRB is not proposing to dictate the timing
of when, or the form of how, the free-to-trade communication should be
sent, but that dissemination be electronic by an industry-accepted
method. The MSRB does not believe it is prudent or necessary to include
a reference to IRS issue price rules in proposed changes to Rule G-11,
as syndicate and selling group members have an existing obligation to
comply with all other rules and regulations that may apply to primary
offerings.
Additional Information for the Issuer
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB asked whether MSRB Rule G-
11(g) should be amended to require the senior syndicate manager to
provide to the issuer the same information it provides to the syndicate
regarding the designations and allocations of securities in an
offering. Four commenters generally supported the proposed change.\160\
Both BDA and SIFMA indicated that the information should be required to
be provided to the issuer only upon request and suggested that
additional issuer education regarding the information and its
availability should be undertaken.\161\ SIFMA also noted that, if Rule
G-11 is amended as proposed, it should provide that issuers can opt out
of receiving this information.\162\ Additionally, SIFMA suggested that
the information should be provided in a consistent manner across the
industry so that it is useable.\163\ GFOA and NAMA supported having the
senior syndicate manager provide the issuer, at all times, with the
same information it provides the syndicate regarding designations and
allocations.\164\ GFOA noted that education of issuers cannot replace
the actual receipt of the information,\165\ and NAMA indicated that it
is not helpful to allow issuers to opt out of receiving the information
or to direct them to a website to review the official statement.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ BDA Letter II; GFOA Letter II; NAMA Letter II; and SIFMA
Letter II.
    \161\ Id.
    \162\ SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \163\ Id.
    \164\ GFOA Letter II at 1; and NAMA Letter II at 5.
    \165\ GFOA Letter II at 1.
    \166\ NAMA Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments received, the MSRB has determined to
propose requiring the senior syndicate manager to provide issuers the
same information it provides to the syndicate regarding both the
designations and allocations of securities in an offering. As
previously noted, the MSRB believes that, while issuers sometimes may
be involved in reviewing and approving allocations or may be able to
request information regarding designations and allocations from various
sources, including the senior syndicate manager and certain third-party
information resources, some issuers are unaware this information is
available and can be requested. By making dissemination of this
information to issuers a requirement, the MSRB ensures that all
issuers, regardless of size, will receive the designation and
allocation information relevant to their primary offerings. The MSRB
also notes that because underwriters are already required to provide
this information to syndicate members, no additional documents should
have to be produced to comply with the proposed requirement.
Alignment of the Timeframe for the Payment of Group Net Sales Credits
With the Payment of Net Designation Sales Credits
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB sought input on whether Rule
G-11 should be amended to align the time period for the payment of
group net sales credits (currently, 30 calendar days following delivery
of the securities to the syndicate) with the payment of net designation
sales credits (10 calendar days following delivery of the securities to
the syndicate). BDA supported this change,\167\ while SIFMA opposed
it.\168\ According to SIFMA, the determination of the amounts due and
owing to each syndicate member for group orders is based on different
information than that needed for the determination of amounts due and
owing for net designation orders.\169\ SIFMA stated its belief that,
absent evidence of significant problems with the current timing of the
payments, no changes should be made.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ BDA Letter II at 2.
    \168\ SIFMA Letter II at 2.
    \169\ Id.
    \170\ SIFMA Letter II at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the potential differences in the timing
of these payments, the MSRB has proposed amendments to Rule G-11 that
would align the payment of net designation and group net sales credits.
The MSRB believes that based on current practices there is no reason
for the discrepancy in the timing of the payment of these sales credits
and that aligning these payments would avoid unnecessary credit risks
among syndicate members. If fact, several stakeholders indicated that
they are already making group net sales credit payments consistent with
the 10-day requirement.
Rule G-32--Disclosures in Connection With Primary Offerings
Equal Access to the Disclosure of the CUSIP Numbers Advance Refunded
and the Percentages Thereof
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB asked for comment on proposed
amendments to Rule G-32, on disclosures in connection with a

primary offering, to require disclosures of CUSIP numbers advance
refunded and percentages thereof to be made to all market participants
at the same time. GFOA and NFMA supported this proposed change, with
both indicating a preference for a shorter timeframe for disclosure
than the current five business days.\171\ BDA and SIFMA noted they
support access to this information, but in light of recent tax changes
that eliminate some advance refundings, they questioned the value of
such a requirement.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ GFOA Letter II at 2; and NFMA Letter II at 2.
    \172\ BDA Letter II at 2; and SIFMA Letter II at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that advanced refunding information should be
provided to market participants, at the same time, because equal access
to advance refunding information is important for the efficient
functioning of the primary market for municipal securities.
    Additionally, the Request for Comment sought input on whether
information on potential advance refundings would be useful to the
market (i.e., a ``gray list''). The MSRB asked whether there should be
a requirement, or a voluntary option, for underwriters to submit to
EMMA lists of bonds, by CUSIP number, that the issuer has indicated may
be advance refunded. NFMA indicated that a list of partial refunding
candidates should be made available on EMMA.\173\ GFOA and SIFMA
objected to the submission of information on potential refundings,
indicating that information should be provided only once the
information regarding the advance refunded maturities is final.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ NFMA Letter II at 2.
    \174\ GFOA Letter II at 2; and SIFMA Letter II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, given that ``potential refunding'' is not a
consistently defined term in the municipal securities market, the MSRB
believes that the disclosure of such information could be confusing to
investors. Thus, the MSRB has determined not to pursue rulemaking
regarding the disclosure of ``potential'' refundings in the market.
Whether Non-Dealer Municipal Advisors Should Make the Official
Statement Available to the Managing or Sole Underwriter After the
Issuer Approves It for Distribution
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB asked for feedback on proposed
amendments to Rule G-32(c) that would extend the requirements of that
rule to non-dealer municipal advisors. Acacia, Ehlers, NAMA and PRAG
opposed this suggested change,\175\ while BDA, NFMA and SIFMA supported
it.\176\ Acacia, Ehlers, NAMA and PRAG urged the MSRB to eliminate Rule
G-32(c) entirely, noting that there is no longer a need for this
requirement, even with respect to dealer financial advisors, given that
Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12 addresses the delivery of the official
statement.\177\ Acacia and NAMA indicated that, if the MSRB decides to
amend the rule as proposed, further clarification would be needed to
understand exactly how it would be applied (e.g., terms should be
defined and clarification given to application of the rule).\178\
Acacia and NAMA also indicated that requiring the non-dealer municipal
advisor to deliver the official statement to the underwriter blurred
the lines between municipal advisor and broker-dealer roles.\179\ NFMA
believed that including non-dealer municipal advisors in this
requirement would enhance market transparency and fairness.\180\ SIFMA
noted that there is no reason for the requirement to apply differently
to dealer financial advisors and non-dealer municipal advisors.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Acacia Letter II at 1; Ehlers Letter II at 1; NAMA Letter
II at 1; and PRAG Letter II at 1.
    \176\ BDA Letter II at 2; NFMA Letter II at 2; and SIFMA Letter
II at 4.
    \177\ Acacia Letter II at 1-2; Ehlers Letter II at 1; NAMA
Letter II at 2-3; and PRAG Letter II at 1.
    \178\ Acacia Letter II at 2; and NAMA Letter II at 2-3.
    \179\ Acacia Letter II at 2; and NAMA Letter II at 3.
    \180\ NFMA Letter II at 2.
    \181\ SIFMA Letter II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters, the MSRB engaged in additional outreach
on the usefulness of the requirements of Rule G-32(c). As a result of
these additional discussions and the written comments received, the
MSRB is proposing to eliminate Rule G-32(c) entirely. The MSRB agrees
with commenters that there is no longer a need for this requirement
because, as noted by commenters, SEC Rule 15c2-12 requires the delivery
of the official statement to the underwriter by the issuer or its agent
regardless of who prepares the document. This requirement, thus,
encompasses those instances where a dealer acting as a financial
advisor or non-dealer municipal advisor has prepared the official
statement.
Additional Data Fields on Form G-32 Auto-Populated From NIIDS
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB sought public comment on the
inclusion of certain additional data fields on Form G-32 that would be
auto-populated with information underwriters currently are required to
input into NIIDS. The Request for Comment included an appendix of those
data elements on which comment was sought.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See Appendix A to MSRB Notice 2018-15 for the complete
list of these data fields as originally proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BDA, SIFMA and the SEC Investor Advocate supported the inclusion of
the proposed data fields on Form G-32.\183\ SIFMA indicated that while
it supports the auto-populating of minimum denomination information
from NIIDS onto Form G-32, it does not believe the submitting
underwriter should have an obligation to update minimum denomination
changes over the life of the security.\184\ The SEC Investor Advocate,
however, encouraged the MSRB to consider requiring an ongoing
disclosure obligation for minimum denomination information.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ BDA Letter II at 2; SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 3;
and SIFMA Letter II at 4.
    \184\ SIFMA Letter II at 4.
    \185\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those instances where a primary offering is not NIIDS eligible,
the MSRB noted in the Request for Comment, that these additional data
fields would need to be input manually by the underwriter. SIFMA noted
that the requirement to input information into such a large number of
fields on a manual basis would create a significant burden on the
dealer.\186\ SIFMA urged the MSRB to consider exempting private
placements and other non-NIIDS-eligible issues from the proposed
rule.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ SIFMA Letter II at 4.
    \187\ SIFMA Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB is proposing to add 57 additional data fields on Form G-
32, only one of which (i.e., minimum denomination) would be required to
be input manually for primary offerings that are not NIIDS eligible.
Commenters agreed that, with respect to NIIDS-eligible offerings, the
burden of compliance would be low given that this information is
already required to be input into NIIDS. With respect to non-NIIDS-
eligible offerings, however, the MSRB believes the benefits associated
with requiring the manual entry of all 57 additional data points does
not outweigh the burden of requiring the manual entry of this data.
Particularly because non-NIIDS-eligible issues such as private
placements are less likely to trade in the secondary market where this
information would be useful. Therefore, with respect to non-NIIDS-
eligible offerings, at this time, the MSRB is not proposing to require
the underwriter manually input the remaining 56 proposed additional
data fields.

Additional Data Fields on Form G-32 Not Auto-Populated From NIIDS
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB sought comment on the addition
of certain data fields on Form G-32 that would not be auto-populated
with information from NIIDS and, thus, would require manual completion.
Specifically, the MSRB sought comment on the addition of eight data
fields on Form G-32.
    Ability for minimum denomination to change--BDA, NFMA and the SEC
Investor Advocate supported the inclusion of this information on Form
G-32.\188\ The SEC Investor Advocate indicated he also wants the MSRB
to require the updating of minimum denomination information over the
life of the security.\189\ SIFMA supported adding a field for ``initial
minimum denomination'' and suggested that a dealer should not be
required to update minimum denomination information over the life of
the security.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ BDA Letter II at 2-3; NFMA Letter II at 3; and SEC
Investor Advocate Letter II at 4.
    \189\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 5.
    \190\ SIFMA Letter II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB agrees with commenters that the information relating to
whether the minimum denomination may change would be useful to
regulators. In addition, this information would be useful to investors,
should the MSRB disseminate the information in the future. However, the
MSRB agrees with SIFMA that requiring an underwriter or dealer to
continuously update this information for the life of the municipal
security would be burdensome.
    Additional syndicate managers--BDA objected to inclusion of this
manual data field and stated that the information would not assist
market participants and could impose new burdens on underwriters.\191\
The SEC Investor Advocate supported including this data field, noting
that it may provide additional transparency to the market.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ BDA Letter II at 3.
    \192\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that including this additional data field would
be useful to regulators. The MSRB disagrees that providing this
information is burdensome as this information is typically known at or
before the pricing of an issue, and therefore, is generally readily
available for disclosure by the senior syndicate manager.
    Call schedule--BDA and SIFMA opposed including this data field and
indicated that including this information would be burdensome for the
underwriter.\193\ SIFMA suggested that the underwriter be required to
provide a link to the official statement instead.\194\ NFMA and the SEC
Investor Advocate supported the addition of this information and
believed it would promote increased transparency and fairness to the
market.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ BDA Letter II at 3; and SIFMA Letter II at 5.
    \194\ SIFMA Letter II at 5.
    \195\ NFMA Letter II at 3; and SEC Investor Advocate Letter II
at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB agrees with NFMA and the SEC Investor Advocate and is
proposing to require this information on Form G-32. The MSRB believes
requiring this information would immediately increase regulatory
transparency, providing regulators with intermediate premium call dates
and prices. Additionally, should the MSRB make this information
available in the future, access to the relevant call information could
help investors make more informed decisions.
    LEI for credit enhancers and obligated person(s) if readily
available--BDA objected to this data field, stating that this
information is not easily obtainable in almost all instances and that
the market would not benefit from this information.\196\ BDA further
noted that any benefits would not outweigh the burden to
underwriters.\197\ NFMA, the SEC Investor Advocate and SIFMA supported
the inclusion of this data field on Form G-32.\198\ The SEC Investor
Advocate encouraged the MSRB to take more initiative, as appropriate,
with respect to the use of LEIs, and encouraged the MSRB to continue
incorporating LEIs into its rulemakings and engaging in industry
outreach and education on the importance of obtaining LEIs, as well as
the process for obtaining them.\199\ SIFMA supported this proposed
change and urged the MSRB to work with LEI issuers to ensure the most
efficient and least burdensome collection methodology.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ BDA Letter II at 3.
    \197\ Id.
    \198\ NFMA Letter II at 3; SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 4-
6; and SIFMA Letter II at 5.
    \199\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 5.
    \200\ SIFMA Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes requiring this information on Form G-32, if
readily available, would further promote the value of obtaining LEIs
and encourage industry participants to obtain them as a matter of
course. The MSRB also believes that LEI information provides for the
more precise identification of parties that are financially responsible
to support the payment of some or all of an issue and would further
assist regulators and policymakers in identifying and monitoring risk
exposure in the financial markets. In response to concerns regarding
the potential burden of providing this information, the MSRB is only
proposing LEI information be provided for obligated persons, other than
the issuer, that is ``readily available.'' An LEI would be considered
``readily available'' if it were easily obtainable via a general search
on the internet (e.g., web pages such as https://www.gleif.org/en/lei/search).
    Name of obligated person(s)--BDA, NFMA and the SEC Investor
Advocate supported this proposed change.\201\ The SEC Investor Advocate
indicated that providing this information may provide additional
transparency to the market.\202\ They further noted that the name(s) of
obligated persons in a primary offering are not always readily
available, thus requiring this information on Form G-32 ``may help
investors make more informed investment decisions and better understand
who is legally committed to support the payment of all or some of an
issue.'' \203\ SIFMA questioned the value of having to manually key in
the name of an obligated person, noting that there is no standard
naming convention.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ BDA Letter II at 3; NFMA Letter II at 3; and SEC Investor
Advocate Letter II at 7.
    \202\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 7.
    \203\ Id.
    \204\ SIFMA Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During its stakeholder outreach, the MSRB also received comments
regarding the potential burden of manually entering this information
for issues in which there are multiple obligated persons, other than
the issuer. The MSRB understands that those instances in which there
are multiple obligated persons may be relatively infrequent. Thus, the
benefit of having the entire financial picture, including the identity
of all obligated persons, outweighs the proposed burden that may exist
in the rare instances in which there are multiple obligated persons
responsible for support payment and continuing disclosures.
    The MSRB believes that the proposed data field would allow for
easier access to important primary market information and enhance
regulatory transparency. The MSRB also agrees with commenters, that
should it make this information available in the future, it could help
investors make more informed investment decisions.
    Percentage of CUSIP numbers advance refunded--NFMA and the SEC
Investor Advocate supported this

proposed data field.\205\ The SEC Investor Advocate noted that
providing this information to all market participants at the same time,
would, in his view reduce information asymmetry, which may equate to
more fairness and efficiency in the market.\206\ BDA objected to this
proposed data field noting that it was unnecessary and not
meaningful.\207\ BDA suggested that for holders of refunded bonds, the
more useful information would be the portion of a particular CUSIP
number that has been refunded.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ NFMA Letter II at 2; and SEC Investor Advocate Letter II
at 6.
    \206\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 6.
    \207\ BDA Letter II at 3.
    \208\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, the MSRB agrees with commenters that while the
proposed data field would be useful, the more useful data element would
be the dollar amount of each CUSIP number advance refunded. As a
result, the MSRB modified its proposed rule change accordingly.
    Retail order period by CUSIP number--The SEC Investor Advocate
supported including a ``yes'' or ``no'' flag by CUSIP numbers to
identify orders that should not be retail orders, while SIFMA believes
more thought should be given to the addition of this field because
there are a variety of retail order period structures and the process
for defining them can change intra-day.\209\ In response, the MSRB
determined to limit its request for retail order period information to
the proposed ``yes'' or ``no'' flag by CUSIP. The MSRB believes that
this information will enhance regulatory transparency. The MSRB also
believes that, as currently contemplated, the potential benefits of
collecting additional retail order period information by CUSIP are
outweighed by the burdens it could impose on the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ SEC Investor Advocate Letter II at 6; and SIFMA Letter II
at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Name of municipal advisor--NFMA and the SEC Investor Advocate
supported this addition.\210\ BDA objected and noted that this
information is available in the official statement and not valuable
information for secondary trading.\211\ The MSRB believes including the
name of the municipal advisor on Form G-32 would provide useful
information to investors and issuers and allow them to evaluate the
experience of a municipal advisor, should the MSRB disseminate the
information, in the future. The MSRB anticipates making this field
autofill as the underwriter begins to input the name of the municipal
advisor into the applicable text box.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ NFMA Letter II at 3; and SEC Investor Advocate Letter II
at 7.
    \211\ BDA Letter II at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MSRB asked commenters whether there were any other
data fields that should be considered for inclusion on Form G-32. For
example, the Request for Comment asked whether the MSRB should include
a ``yes'' or ``no'' flag data field to indicate when a new issue is
issued with restrictions such as being only available to qualified
institutional buyers. NFMA supported this suggested additional data
field, while SIFMA objected to its inclusion on Form G-32.\212\ In
response to commenters, the MSRB determined to add to its proposed data
fields a ``yes'' or ``no'' flag to indicate whether a primary offering
is being made with restrictions. The MSRB believes the additional
information would assist regulators in more easily identifying
transactions that may involve a restricted issue and should the MSRB
disseminate the information in the future, it could enhance dealers'
ability to identify issues that may be subject to restrictions during
the course of buying and selling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ NFMA Letter II at 3; and SIFMA Letter II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB considered the above-noted comments in formulating the
proposed rule change herein.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2019-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2019-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2019-07 and should be submitted on
or before May 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\213\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07244 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 55042-55044]
[DOCID:fr20se06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54435; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Exempt All Securities Included in the NASDAQ-100 Index
From the Price Test Set Forth in NASDAQ Rule 3350(a)

September 13, 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 August 21, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons. In addition, the Commission is granting accelerated approval
of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq has submitted a proposed rule change to exempt all
securities included in the Nasdaq-100 Index from the price test set
forth in NASDAQ Rule 3350(a). The text of the proposed rule change is
below. Proposed new language is italicized.
    3350 Short Sale Rule \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Following discussions with Jeffrey Davis, Associate General
Counsel, Nasdaq, Commission staff made technical changes to the
proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)-(b) No Change.
    (c)(1)-(9) No Change.
    (10) Sales of securities included in the Nasdaq 100 Index.
    (d)-(l) No Change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Rule 3350(c) to create an exemption
from the short sale rule for securities included in the Nasdaq-100
Index. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''),
on behalf of Nasdaq, filed a similar proposal on June 15, 2006, SR-
NASD-2006-076. On August 1, 2006, Nasdaq began operating as a national
securities exchange.\4\ Therefore, Nasdaq is filing this proposal as a
national securities exchange. The previous filing, SR-NASD-2006-076,
was published for notice and comment and no comments were received.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission approved Nasdaq's application to register as
a national securities exchange on January 13, 2006. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550
(January 23, 2006). On June 30, 2006, the Commission issued an order
modifying the conditions for the operation of Nasdaq as a national
securities exchange. The Commission's order enabled Nasdaq to begin
operating as an exchange for securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC and reported to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization
Plan Governing The Collecting, Consolidation and Dissemination of
Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities
Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR
38910 (July 10, 2006); See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54241 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 45246 (August 8, 2006).
    \5\ The NASD has filed an amendment to SR-NASD-2006-076 to
propose a rule change to NASD Rule 5100 (formerly, NASD Rule 3350)
that would, if approved, exempt all securities included in the
Nasdaq-100 Index from the NASD's price test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ-100 Index. First introduced in 1985, the Nasdaq-100
Index was created to track the performance of the largest non-financial
companies listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. Nasdaq states that
the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock, also known as ``QQQ,'' is the most
actively traded ETF and the most actively traded listed equity security
in the U.S. by average daily share trading volume. As of the end of the
fourth quarter of 2005, QQQ traded an average of 90.4 million shares
per day. Nasdaq notes that QQQ has grown significantly since its
inception: From $14.5 million in assets at the start to $20.3 billion
in assets as of December 31, 2005, and from 300,000 total shares
outstanding to 501.95 million at the end of the fourth quarter of 2005.
    Nasdaq states that in addition to the QQQ, nearly 150 licensees
have contracted with Nasdaq to use the Nasdaq-100 and other Nasdaq
indices as benchmarks for the issuing and trading of their global
financial products. Nasdaq also states that these third-party
underwritten products, such as equity-linked notes, index warrants,
certificates of deposits, leveraged products and basket securities,
were sold in 32 countries and amounted to $157.05 billion in underlying
notional value as of December 31, 2005. Further, Nasdaq notes that a
total of 33 domestic and international mutual funds use this barometer
index as a benchmark as well.
    Nasdaq notes that, as a result, the Nasdaq-100 stocks are highly
liquid. For

the month of April 2006, the average daily volume for that group of
securities was over 880 million shares. The average daily volume of an
individual Nasdaq-100 security was over 8.8 million shares and the mean
daily trading value of those securities was over 3.4 million shares.
    The Regulation SHO Pilot. Nasdaq notes that on June 23, 2004, the
Commission approved new and amended short sale regulations in
Regulation SHO under the Act. In addition, Nasdaq notes that on July
28, 2004, the Commission issued an order creating a one year Pilot
(``Pilot'') suspending the provisions of Rule 10a-1(a) under the Act
and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities
association for short sales of certain securities. The Pilot was
created pursuant to Rule 202T of Regulation SHO, which established
procedures to allow the Commission to temporarily suspend short sale
price tests so that the Commission could study the effectiveness of
short sale price tests. Nasdaq also notes that on April 20, 2006, the
Commission issued an order extending the termination date of the Pilot
to August 6, 2007, the date on which temporary Rule 202T expires.
    Nasdaq notes that the Pilot exempts a selected list of securities
from short sale price test restrictions of SEC Rule 10a-1 and the rules
of self regulatory organizations, including Nasdaq Rule 3350. In
addition, Nasdaq states that of the roughly 1000 such securities,
roughly 47 percent are listed on Nasdaq and, of those, 24 currently are
included in the Nasdaq-100 Index.
    Rationale for Proposed Exemption. Nasdaq believes that the proposed
exemption is consistent with the goals of short sale regulation because
the stocks included in the Nasdaq-100 Index are highly liquid and not
implicated by the objectives of the short sale rule. In addition,
Nasdaq states that Congressional and Commission objectives included
allowing relatively unrestricted short selling in an advancing market,
preventing short selling at successively lower prices; and preventing
short sellers from accelerating a declining market by exhausting all
remaining bids at one price level. Thus, Nasdaq believes that given the
highly liquid nature of securities listed in the Nasdaq-100 Index, the
proposed exemption poses no risk to investors.
    Nasdaq believes that this conclusion is supported by the results of
the Regulation SHO Pilot to date. Nasdaq asserts that numerous
academics have used the implementation of Regulation SHO as a natural
experiment to study the effects of price-test exemptions on various
measures of market quality and trading behavior. Nasdaq asserts that a
recurring finding among these studies is that there is no indication
that the pilot increased short-sale volume or volatility, decreased
returns, or sacrificed market efficiency. In addition, Nasdaq states
that the results also show that bid test rules had little-to-no effect
on market quality or trading behavior for Nasdaq pilot stocks. Nasdaq
believes that this finding is consistent with the ability of short-
sellers to circumvent Nasdaq's bid test rule by routing orders to
markets without short-sale restrictions.
    Given the highly liquid nature of Nasdaq-100 securities and the
absence of a material impact from the removal of price-based short sale
restrictions on 24 of those securities, Nasdaq believes it would
benefit investors to exempt the remaining stocks in the Nasdaq-100
Index. As Nasdaq describes above, Nasdaq believes that the Nasdaq-100
Index serves as the basis for billions of dollars of assets and trading
in the basket of securities that make up the index. Nasdaq believes
that the disparity of regulatory treatment between Nasdaq-100
securities that are included in the Pilot and those that are not is
inefficient and potentially harmful to investors.
    In addition, Nasdaq believes that the proposed exemption will also
remove the disparity in short sale regulation that currently exists
between markets. Nasdaq states that as opposed to the Nasdaq, which has
voluntarily adopted a short sale rule for Nasdaq securities, several
exchanges that trade Nasdaq securities do so with no short sale
regulation, encouraging market participants to route short sale orders
to their markets to avoid any regulatory restriction. As a result,
Nasdaq believes that the level of regulatory protection an investor
receives depends almost entirely on the market to which the investor's
order is routed. Nasdaq asserts that this disparity harms customers on
all markets by forcing traders to choose between bypassing limit orders
posted on Nasdaq, delaying executing those orders, or declining to
execute. Nasdaq believes that the proposed exemption is designed to
help to alleviate these issues.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. 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-NASDAQ-2006-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-031. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington,

DC 20549-1090. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-031 and should
be submitted on or before October 11, 2006.

 IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act \6\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\8\ which requires, among other things,
that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Rule 3350 prohibits short sales in Nasdaq Global Market
securities at or below the current best (inside) bid displayed in the
Nasdaq Market Center when the current best (inside) bid is below the
previous best (inside) bid in the security (the ``bid test''). Nasdaq
Rule 3350 is inapplicable to National Capital Market securities. The
proposed rule change amends Nasdaq Rule 3350(c) to exempt from its
price test securities included in the Nasdaq-100 Index.
    The Commission is currently conducting the Pilot to study and
evaluate the overall effectiveness and necessity of short sale prices
tests.\9\ On April 20, 2006, we extended the Pilot in order to maintain
the status quo for price tests of Pilot securities while we complete
our analysis of the results of the Pilot and conduct any additional
rulemaking that we determine may be warranted.\10\
    We have not reached any conclusions regarding price tests. However,
we believe that this proposed rule change is consistent with the
statute. In accordance with Section 6(b) of the Act, the proposed
amendment is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. In
addition, the proposed amendment does not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Nasdaq securities are currently not subject to any price
test when traded on other exchanges. Currently, Nasdaq and the NASD
(for Nasdaq securities traded over the counter and reported to a NASD
facility) are the only markets required to apply a price test to Nasdaq
securities. Thus, Nasdaq believes it is at a competitive disadvantage
with regard to these securities as market participants may make order
routing decisions based on this disparity. In addition, we note that
the stocks included in the Nasdaq-100 Index are highly liquid and less
likely to be subject to manipulation than less liquid stocks.
    Nasdaq has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after
publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission
notes that a substantially similar rule filing, SR-NASD-2006-076, that
would have exempted all securities included in the Nasdaq-100 Index
from the price test in former NASD Rule 3350, was previously filed by
NASD on June 15, 2006, through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc., prior to Nasdaq commencing operations as a national securities
exchange.\11\ SR-NASD-2006-076 was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 22, 2006. The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause exists,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ to
approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof
in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50104 (July 28,
2004), 69 FR 48032 (August 6, 2004) (``First Pilot Order''). The
Pilot suspended price tests for the following: (1) Short sales in
the securities identified in Appendix A to the First Pilot Order;
(2) short sales in the securities included in the Russell 1000 index
effected between 4:15 p.m. EST and the open of the effective
transaction reporting plan of the Consolidated Tape Association
(``consolidated tape'') on the following day; and (3) short sales in
any security not included in paragraphs (1) and (2) effected in the
period between the close of the consolidated tape and the open of
the consolidated tape on the following day.
    \10\ See Order Extending Term of Short Sale Pilot, Release No.
34-53684 (April 20, 2006), 71 FR 24765 (April 26, 2006).
    \11\ See also, supra n. 4.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-031) is approved on an
accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15572 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68453-68454]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1152]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Petition to Request an Exemption From 100 Percent
Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing
Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations
for Dietary Supplements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice invites comments on the information collection
provisions of our existing regulations governing petitions to request
an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of
Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in
Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary
Supplements--21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii) (OMB Control Number 0910-0608)--
Extension

    The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (Pub. L. 103-417)
added section 402(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(g)), which provides, in part, that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may, by
regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary
supplements. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary
supplement is adulterated if ``it has been prepared, packed, or held
under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice
regulations.'' Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) gives
us the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of
the FD&C Act.
    Part 111 of our regulations (21 CFR part 111) establishes the
minimum Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) necessary for
activities related to manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding
dietary supplements to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement.
Section 111.75(a)(1) of our regulations (21 CFR 111.75(a)(1))
establishes a procedure for a petition to request an exemption from 100
percent identity testing of dietary ingredients. According to Sec.
111.75(a)(1)(ii), manufacturers may request an exemption from the
requirements set forth in Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(i) when the dietary
ingredient is obtained from one or more suppliers identified in the
petition. The regulation clarifies that we are willing to consider, on
a case-by-case basis, a manufacturer's conclusion, supported by
appropriate data and information in the petition submission, that it
has developed a system that it would implement as a sound, consistent
means of establishing, with no material diminution of assurance
compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing, the
identity of the dietary ingredient before use.
    Section 111.75(a)(1) reflects our determination that manufacturers
that test or examine 100 percent of the incoming dietary ingredients
for identity can be assured of the identity of the ingredient. However,
we recognize that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate,
through various methods and processes in use over time for its
particular operation, that a system of less than 100 percent identity
testing would result in no material diminution of assurance of the
identity of the dietary ingredient as compared to the assurance
provided by 100 percent identity testing. To provide an opportunity for
a manufacturer to make such a showing and reduce the frequency of
identity testing of components that are dietary ingredients from 100
percent to some lower frequency, we added to Sec.  111.75(a)(1), an
exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity testing when a
manufacturer petitions the Agency for such an exemption to 100 percent
identity testing under 21 CFR 10.30 and the Agency grants such
exemption. Such a procedure would be consistent with our stated goal,
as described in the CGMP final rule, of providing flexibility in the
CGMP requirements. Section

111.75(a)(1)(ii) sets forth the information a manufacturer is required
to submit in such a petition. The regulation also contains a
requirement to ensure that the manufacturer keeps our response to a
petition submitted under Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(ii) as a record under Sec.
111.95. The collection of information in Sec.  111.95 has been approved
under OMB Control No. 0910-0606.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are firms in the dietary supplement industry, including
dietary supplement manufacturers, packagers and re-packagers, holders,
labelers and re-labelers, distributors, warehouses, exporters,
importers, large businesses, and small businesses.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
     21 CFR Section; CGMP requirements for dietary  supplements         Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111.75(a)(1)(ii)...................................................               1                1                1                8                8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In the last 3 years, we have not received any new petitions to
request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary
ingredients; therefore, the Agency estimates that one or fewer
petitions will be submitted annually. Based on our experience with
petition processes, we estimate it will take a requestor about 8 hours
to prepare the factual and legal information necessary to support a
petition for exemption and to prepare the petition. Although we have
not received any new petitions to request an exemption from 100 percent
identity testing of dietary ingredients in the last 3 years, we believe
that OMB approval of these information collection provisions should be
extended to provide for the potential future need of a firm in the
dietary supplement industry to petition for an exemption from 100
percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.

    Dated: November 7, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27222 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P