[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57654-57655]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0124; Notice 1]

Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corporation, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corporation (Custom
Glass), a subsidiary of Guardian Industries Corporation, has determined
that certain laminated glass panes, other than windscreens, do not
fully comply with paragraph S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials. Custom Glass has filed an
appropriate report dated September 17, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 27,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Custom Glass's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Custom Glass
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Custom Glass's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    II. Glazing Involved: Approximately 160 laminated glass panes,
other than windscreens, intended for the cabs of approximately twenty
mining vehicles being manufactured by Atlas Copco in Australia. The
panes consist of two 4.0 mm tempered panes manufactured by Auto Temp,
Inc. (ATI) that were bonded together with a 0.76 mm PVB layer by Custom
Glass and then shipped to Angus Palm, Watertown, South Dakota between
August 1, 2013 and September 4, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: Custom Glass explains that the noncompliance is
that the labeling on the subject laminated glass panes does not fully
meet the requirements of paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. The panes were
labeled with the incorrect DOT number, manufacturer's trademark,
manufacturer's model number (i.e., ``M number'') and were incorrectly
marked as Tempered.
    IV. Rule Text: Refer to the entire text of Paragraph S6 of FMVSS
No. 205 for requirements and contextual restrictions.
    V. Summary of Custom Glass's Analyses: Custom Glass stated its
belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety based on the following reasoning:
    The parts are labeled with the DOT number, ``M number'' and
trademark belonging to the tempered glazing supplier, ATI. The correct
DOT number, which should have been affixed to the parts at issue, is
DOT 22. The correct ``M number'' is M85L2 (which corresponds to a
laminated glass construction with an 8.5 mm nominal thickness, from
which Guardian fabricates automotive parts for use anywhere in a motor
vehicle except windshields). The panes are marked with the correct AS
Item number.
    Although the subject laminated glass panes are affixed with the
incorrect DOT number, ``M number'' and manufacturer's trademark, the
glass construction from which the laminated glass parts were fabricated
is in full compliance with the technical requirements of FMVSS No. 205
that currently apply to laminated glass for use anywhere in a motor
vehicle except windshields.
    Custom Glass also asserts that the subject noncompliance could not
result in the wrong part being used in an OEM or ARG application given
that the part would be ordered by its unique part number and not the
``M number'' (which corresponds to the glass construction from which
the part is fabricated). The parts are also easily traceable back to
Custom Glass since they are the only glazing supplier for this
particular vehicle.
    Custom Glass has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles delivered with
laminated glass will comply with FMVSS No. 205.
    In summation, Custom Glass believes that the described
noncompliance of the subject laminated glass parts is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject laminated glass parts that
Custom Glass no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motor laminated glass parts
under their control after Custom Glass notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-22814 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12621-12623]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0112]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Back River, Hampton, VA; Air Show

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone for
certain waters in the vicinity of the northwest branch of the Back
River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters near Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, VA, during
an annual airshow. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and
vessels from entry in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Virginia or a designated representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0112 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Chief Waterways
Management Division U.S. Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On January 26, 2023, the Joint Base Langley-Eustis Fire Dispatch
notified the Coast Guard that the 2023 Air Power Over Hampton Roads Air
Show will be occurring Friday, May 5, 2023, to Sunday, May 7, 2023,
from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day and annually on the third or fourth
Friday through Sunday in April or the first or second Friday through
Sunday in May thereafter. The air show includes an aerial performance
area over a portion of the Back River, where high powered jet aircrafts
will perform aerobatic maneuvers. The Captain of the Port Virginia
(COTP) has determined that due to the hazards associated with the air
show, a safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of vessels on the
navigable water. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone annually on the
third or fourth Friday through Sunday in April or the first or second
Friday through Sunday in May from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily to protect
the public from potential hazards associated with an air show which is
expected to occur annually. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters from the shoreline of the Back River contained within the
following points: 37[deg]05'34.32'' N, 076[deg]20'47.13'' W;
37[deg]5'38.05'' N, 076[deg]20'36.49'' W; 37[deg]5'30.53'' N,
076[deg]20'31.86'' W. The duration of the safety zone is intended to
ensure the safety of vessels on these navigable waters. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Back River. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which

guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 6 hours,
each day of the event, that would prohibit entry within a small portion
of the Back River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0112 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the
proposed rule, you should see a ``Subscribe'' option for email alerts.
The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is
published.
    We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.517 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.517  Safety Zone; Back River, Hampton, VA; Air Show

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters from the shoreline of the Back River contained within the
following points: 37[deg]5'34.32'' N, 076[deg]20'47.13'' W;
37[deg]5'38.05'' N, 076[deg]20'36.49'' W; 37[deg]5'30.53'' N,
076[deg]20'31.86'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Virginia (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced annually on
the third or fourth Friday through Sunday in April or the first or
second Friday through Sunday in May from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day
during the event.

    Dated: February 10, 2023.
J.A. Stockwell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2023-03999 Filed 2-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2193-2197]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00363]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87907; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2019-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing of the Thirtieth
Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and
Twenty-Second Substantive Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

January 8, 2020.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System
(``NMS'') thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 5,
2019,\3\ the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan'')
participants (``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposal to amend the
Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated Consolidated
Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'') (each a ``Plan'' and together with the CTA
Plan, the ``Plans'').\5\ These amendments represent the Thirtieth
Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan and the Twenty-Second Substantive
Amendment to the CQ Plan (``Amendments''). As described in the
Amendments, the Participants propose to make mandatory a conflicts of
interest disclosure regime that currently is voluntary. Under the
current practice, which the Amendments would make mandatory, the
Participants,\6\ the Processor,\7\ the Administrator,\8\ and the
members of the Advisory Committee \9\ (collectively, the ``Disclosing
Parties'') \10\ provide responses to a set of questions designed to
provide transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest of such
parties. Each of the Disclosing Parties' responses are then made
publicly available on the Plans' website.\11\ The Participants state
that they believe that publicly providing these responses increases
transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plans.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, CTA/CQ Operating
Committee to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated July
3, 2019 (``Transmittal Letter'').
    \4\ The Participants are the national securities association and
national securities exchanges that submit trades and quotes to the
Plans and include: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange,
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., The Investors' Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.,
Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX, Inc., The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (each a ``Participant'' and
collectively, the ``Participants''). Participants are also members
of the Plans' Operating Committees.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978)
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980),
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan).
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is
a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17
CFR 242.608.
    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ The ``Processor'' is charged with collecting, processing and
preparing for distribution or publication all Plan information. The
Processor of the Plans is the Securities Industry Automation
Corporation.
    \8\ The ``Administrator'' is charged with administering the
Plans to include data feed approval, customer communications,
contract management, and related functions. The Administrator of the
Plans is the New York Stock Exchange LLC.
    \9\ ``Advisory Committee members'' are individuals who represent
particular types of financial services firms or actors in the
securities market, and who were selected by Plan participants to be
on the Advisory Committee.
    \10\ A list of the Processor, Administrator, and Advisory
Committee members is available at https://www.ctaplan.com/governance.
    \11\ See https://www.ctaplan.com/governance.
    \12\ See Transmittal Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Amendments have been filed by the Participants
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under Regulation NMS.\13\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, contemporaneously with the issuance of
this notice, it has issued a notice of proposed order (``Governance
Notice'') \14\ soliciting public comment on a proposed order that would
direct the national securities exchanges and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (collectively, ``SROs'') to act jointly in
developing and filing with the Commission a proposed new single
national market system plan, which will replace the existing national
market system plans that govern the public dissemination of real-time,
consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks
(``Equity Data Plans''). The Commission stated in the Governance Notice
its view that, among other concerns,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87906 (January 8,
2020).

conflicts of interest are inherent to the Equity Data Plans' current
governance structure because some exchange Participants have a dual
role as both an SRO jointly responsible for the operation of the
Equity Data Plans and part of a publicly held company that offers
proprietary data products. Moreover, an SRO representative on the
operating committee may have direct responsibility for some or all
of an exchange's proprietary data business.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at A-66 to A-67 (footnotes omitted).

    The Governance Notice solicits public comment on a proposed order
that would direct the SROs to include provisions in the New Data Plan
(as defined in the Governance Notice) addressing several issues arising
from the current governance structure of the Plans, and the proposed
order discusses the Commission's view that the new data plan should
include a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy.
    In addition, contemporaneously with the publication of notice of
the Amendments set forth below, the Commission also is publishing a
separate proposed amendment from the Plans concerning a confidentiality
policy.

II. Text of the Amendment

    Set forth below is the entirety of the Amendment submission that
the Participants prepared and filed with the Commission, which includes
a statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with
the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statement of the Purpose of the Amendment

1. Background
    With Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data
products and also acting as Participants in running the public market
data stream, potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the
structure developed under Regulation NMS. There may be instances in
which representatives from the Participants and Advisory Committee
members have responsibilities with respect to both proprietary data and
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') data. Drawing on the
expertise of persons with such overlapping responsibilities may give
rise to potential conflicts of interest, and to address such potential
conflicts of interest, the Participants adopted a voluntary conflicts
disclosure regime.
    After discussion among the Participants and the Advisory Committee
at several meetings of the

Plans' Operating Committee, the Participants believe that a disclosure
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interest.
    As noted below, the Disclosing Parties have voluntarily provided
responses to the disclosure regime questions. The responses are
available on the Plans' website. The purpose of the Amendments is to
make the disclosures a requirement on a prospective basis instead of
relying on voluntary disclosures.
Required Disclosures
    As part of the disclosure regime, the Participants propose that the
Participants, the Processors, the Administrators, and members of the
Advisory Committee respond to questions that are tailored to elicit
responses that disclose the potential conflicts of interest.
    The Participants propose that the Participants respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Participant's firm for profit or not-for-profit? If
the Participant's firm is for profit, is it publicly or privately
owned? If privately owned, list any owner with an interest of 5% or
more of the Participant, where to the Participant's knowledge, such
owner, or any affiliate controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the owner, subscribes, directly or through a third-party
vendor, to SIP and/or exchange Proprietary Market Data products.
     Does the Participant firm offer real-time proprietary
equity market data that is filed with the SEC (``Proprietary Market
Data'')? If yes, does the firm charge a fee for such offerings?
     Provide the names of the representative and any
alternative representatives designated by the Participant who are
authorized under the Plans to vote on behalf of the Participant. Also
provide a narrative description of the representatives' roles within
the Participant organization, including the title of each individual as
well as any direct responsibilities related to the development,
dissemination, sales, or marketing of the Participant's Proprietary
Market Data, and the nature of those responsibilities.
    The Participants propose that the Processors respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Processor an affiliate of or affiliated with any
Participant? If yes, disclose the Participant(s)?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by the manager employed by the Processor to provide Processor
services to the Plans and the staff that reports to that manager
(collectively, the ``Plan Processor'').
     Does the Plan Processor provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products or other Plans? If yes,
disclose the services the Processor performs and identify which Plans.
Does the Plan Processor have any profit or loss responsibility for a
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan Processor.
    The Participants propose that the Administrators respond to the
following questions and instructions:
     Is the Administrator an affiliate of or affiliated with
any Participant? If yes, which Participant?
     Provide a narrative description of the functions directly
performed by administrative services manager and the staff that reports
to that manager (collectively, the ``Plan Administrator'').
     Does the Plan Administrator provide any services for any
Participant's Proprietary Market Data products? If yes, what services?
Does the Plan Administrator have any profit or loss responsibility for
a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products?
     List the policies and procedures established to safeguard
confidential Plan information that is applicable to the Plan
Administrator.
    The Participants propose that the Members of the Advisory Committee
respond to the following questions and instructions:
     Provide the Advisor's title and a brief description of the
Advisor's role within the firm.
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's use or procurement of market data?
     Does the Advisor have responsibilities related to the
firm's trading or brokerage services?
     Does the Advisor's firm use the SIP? Does the Advisor's
firm use exchange Proprietary Market Data products?
     Does the Advisor's firm have an ownership interest of 5%
or more in one or more Participants? If yes, list the Participant(s).
     Does the Advisor actively participate in any litigation
against the Plans?
    The Participants will post the responses to these questions on the
Plans' website. If a Disclosing Party has any material changes in its
responses, the Disclosing Party must promptly update its disclosures.
Additionally, the Disclosing Parties will update the disclosures on an
annual basis to reflect any changes. This annual update must be made
before the first quarterly session meeting of each calendar year, which
is generally held in mid-February.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    Each of the Participants has approved the amendments in accordance
with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan, as
applicable. The Participants also received and incorporated feedback
from the Advisory Committee in preparing the disclosure requirements.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    The Disclosing Parties have voluntarily completed, and the
Participants have posted, responses to the questions outlined above on
the Plans' website. The purpose of the amendment, going forward, is to
make the disclosures a requirement rather than relying on voluntary
disclosures.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants, together with
the other Disclosing Parties, have determined to implement the
disclosure regime described herein. The Participants believe that
adopting this disclosure regime is an important step in addressing
potential conflicts of interest.
    The disclosure regime should increase transparency in the
governance of the public market data stream, and consequently, increase
confidence in the proper functioning of the Operating Committee.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    Section IV(c)(i) of the CQ Plan and Section IV(b)(i) of the CTA
Plan require the Participants to unanimously approve the amendments
proposed herein. They so approved it.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

III. Regulation NMS Rule 601(a) (Solely in its Application to the
Amendments to the CTA Plan)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks comments on the Amendments. Interested persons
are invited to submit written data, views, and comments concerning the
foregoing, including whether the Amendments are consistent with the Act
and the rules thereunder. Among other things, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether the Amendments to the current Plans
address the concerns outlined in the Governance Notice or whether they
should be further enhanced regarding conflicts of interest in national
market system plan governance. Accordingly, the Commission requests
comments on matters including, but not limited to, the following:

Proposed Disclosure

    1. The text of the Amendments, set forth above, state that: ``With
Exchanges permitted to offer both proprietary market data products and
also acting as Participants in running the public market data stream,
potential conflicts of interest are inherent in the structure developed
under Regulation NMS.'' The Amendments further note that ``[t]here may
be instances in which representatives from the Participants and
Advisory Committee members have responsibilities with respect to both
proprietary data and [SIP] data'' and that ``such overlapping
responsibilities may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.'' Do
commenters believe the proposed Amendments adequately address those
potential conflicts? Please provide sufficient detail to support your
views, including, to the extent available, actual or possible examples.
    2. If commenters do not believe that the proposed Amendments
adequately address the potential conflicts of interest arising from the
Plans' current governance structure, is that because commenters believe
the Amendments are inadequate in any particular way? Or is it because
commenters believe that the potential conflicts of interest have not
been characterized accurately? If so, in what ways do commenters
believe the Amendments fail to describe the current environment and
potential conflicts of interest?
    3. In their filing, the Participants state that the proposed
questions in the disclosure document are tailored to elicit information
relevant to assess the extent of an individual's potential conflict of
interests with the Plans. Do commenters believe that the questions for
Participants, Processors, Administrators, and members of the Advisory
Committee are sufficient to elicit information to provide insight into
all potential conflicts? Will public availability of the responses
increase transparency and confidence in the governance of the Plans? Do
commenters believe the proposed disclosures are sufficient or should
enhanced disclosures be required? If so, what additional items of
disclosure should be required and why? Do commenters believe that
additional disclosures should be required for the representatives and
alternative representatives of a Participant, Processor, Administrator,
or member of the Advisory Committee?
    4. In their filing, the Participants state that a disclosure-based
regime is a pragmatic step to address potential conflicts of interests.
Do commenters agree or disagree with that statement? Do commenters
believe that a disclosure-based regime is sufficient to address the
potential conflicts that Participants, Processors, Administrators, and
members of the Advisory Committee may face in their roles within the
Plans?
    5. Do commenters think any other types of persons should be
required to provide disclosures, such as services providers to the
Administrator that provide audit, accounting, or other professional
services? As an example, if auditing services are outsourced to a
Participant's employer or an affiliate that also is offering
proprietary data products to SIP customers and/or conducting audits for
those products, should that entity also be required to disclose its
conflicts and otherwise be subject to the terms of the conflicts of
interest policy, even if it is neither the Administrator nor Processor?
    6. Do commenters believe that an alternative approach could better
identify and address conflicts of interests among Participants,
Processors, Administrators, and the Advisory Committee, as well as
auditors? For example, should a disclosure regime be supplemented with
certain prohibited conduct or procedural requirements, such as a
prohibition on a Participant voting when that Participant has direct
business responsibilities related to producing, selling, or managing
competing data products? If you believe an alternative approach is
appropriate, please provide details on any such alternative approach.
Do commenters regard the Plans' ability to identify and protect the
confidentiality of competitive information as an important component to
the Plans' ability to manage conflicts of interest? If so, how do
commenters regard the interaction between these proposed Amendments and
the separate proposed Plan amendments to govern treatment of
confidential information noted above?
    7. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
each party are sufficient to identify the specific relationships that
may give rise to a conflict under the Plans and related information?
Separately, do commenters believe that the proposed questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plans? Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made?
    8. Do commenters believe that the Plans should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, or financial interests,
and any employment

or other commercial relationships that could materially affect the
ability of a party to be impartial regarding actions of the Plans?
    9. The Participants propose to continue to post the conflicts of
interest disclosures for each party on the Plans' website. Do
commenters believe that doing so provides sufficient public notice of
potential conflicts? If not, in what other manner should the
disclosures be made public? For example, should Participants be
required to acknowledge potential conflicts when discussing specific
matters at Operating Committee meetings or subcommittee meetings that
present a conflict? Should a complete set of the disclosures be
included in the materials for each Plan meeting? Is the timing clear
with respect to the requirement that a Disclosing Party ``promptly''
update its disclosures, or should the Amendments be more specific? What
do commenters consider sufficiently prompt? Within one week? Within 30
days? Some other timeframe?
    10. As proposed, the Amendments state that disclosures will be made
and updated annually or upon any material change. Do commenters believe
that these intervals are sufficient, or should updates be required more
frequently such as in advance of scheduled Plan meetings? What
constitutes a ``material'' change that should require the filing of an
amended disclosure? Please explain.

Proposed Disclosure for Participants

    1. Do commenters believe that any individual representing a
Participant that is directly involved in the management, development,
pricing, or sale of proprietary data products offered to SIP customers
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Participants should address the conflicts their representatives may
face in their dual role of pricing and developing SIP data products as
well as their own proprietary data products?
    2. Do commenters believe that a Participant should be recused from
voting when it or an affiliate is competing for a contract to serve as
a Processor for the Plans? Why or why not? Are there any other
scenarios that present conflicts that should result in a Participant
being recused from voting?
    3. Do commenters believe recusal on certain Plan action when a
potential conflict is present is an appropriate mechanism to address
conflicts? If so, under what circumstances? If applicable, do
commenters believe that recusal should be mandatory or should it be
voluntary? Why or why not?
    4. Do commenters believe that Operating Committee members should be
permitted to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest of
another Participant for discussion before the Operating Committee, even
if the Participant did not itself disclose the potential conflict? Do
commenters believe that the Operating Committee should have the ability
to take action in response to disclosed or undisclosed conflicts, such
as requiring the Participant to recuse itself from a certain discussion
or vote on a particular matter? If so, how should the Operating
Committee take such action? Should the Participants vote on recusal or
should the Participants seek input from the Advisory Committee? Why or
why not?

Proposed Disclosures for Processors

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
Processors are sufficient to identify the specific circumstances in
which a Participant is both voting on an Operating Committee and
competing to act as Processor for one of the Plans? Do commenters
believe that the disclosure questions are tailored to the role that
Processors perform and the fact that they are present at Plan meetings
but do not vote on Plan matters, or should different or additional
disclosure be required for Processors? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Processor questions effectively require all
material facts necessary to not only identify the nature of the
potential conflict, but also the effect it may have on the Plans?
Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential
effects? Should the Amendments elaborate on what ``profit or loss
responsibility for a Participant's Proprietary Market Data products''
means in the context of the required disclosures? Alternatively, do
commenters believe that the Plans' separately-proposed confidentiality
proposal would address some of the potential effects of conflicts of
interests if approved?
    2. Do commenters have concerns about affiliations between a Plan's
Processor and a Participant? If so, do commenters believe the conflicts
of interest disclosure is sufficient to address those concerns? Should
the Amendments require a description of the nature of the affiliation?
    3. Do commenters believe that a Participant or its affiliate that
is competing for a contract to serve as a Processor for the Plans
should participate in discussions and related Plan votes regarding the
selection of the Processor for the Plans? If so, how do commenters
believe Participants should address the conflicts they face in their
dual role of competing to serve as a Processor while serving as a
Participant that participates in the discussion of, and ultimately
votes on, selection of the Processor?

Proposed Disclosures for Administrators

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
Administrators are sufficient to identify the specific interests and
employment, commercial or other relationships that may give rise to a
conflict under the Plans? Separately, do commenters believe that the
proposed Administrator questions effectively require all material facts
necessary to not only identify the nature of the conflict, but also the
effect it may have on the Plans? Should the Amendments require more
disclosure of such potential effects or greater details with respect to
the disclosures that are made?
    2. To the extent that the Administrator enlists assistance from an
auditor or any other professional services subcontractor for any of the
Plan(s), and the subcontractor is affiliated with an entity that is
involved in the development, pricing, or sale of proprietary data
products offered to SIP customers, or is subject to any other conflict,
should all of the disclosures and conflicts policies referenced above
also be applicable to them? Or do commenters believe that concerns
arising from potential conflicts of interest would be more
appropriately addressed for a subcontractor if the subcontractor could
attest that it is sufficiently walled-off from the proprietary data
business of its affiliate?

Proposed Disclosures for Members of the Advisory Committee

    1. Do commenters believe that the proposed disclosure questions for
Advisory Committee members are sufficient to identify the specific
interests and employment, commercial, or other relationships that may
give rise to a conflict under the Plans? Separately, do commenters
believe that the proposed Advisory Committee members' questions
effectively require all material facts necessary to not only identify
the nature of the conflict, but also the effect it may have on the
Plans? Should the Amendments require more disclosure of such potential
effects or greater details with respect to the disclosures that are
made? Should the Amendments require Members of the Advisory Committee
to identify affiliations with any Disclosing Party, and clarify that
both direct and indirect ownership interests in a Participant are
subject to disclosure? Is it clear what

``actively participate in any litigation against the Plans'' means, or
should the Amendments require additional detail?
    2. Do commenters believe that the Plans should require additional
public disclosures of any personal, business, commercial, or financial
interests, and any employment relationships that could materially
affect the ability of the Advisory Committee Member to participate
impartially in discussing actions of the Plans? Please explain.
    3. Do commenters believe that Advisory Committee members that
purchase SIP data products should participate in discussions regarding
the pricing of SIP data products? If so, how do commenters believe
Advisory Committee members should address that potential conflict?

Participant Statement Regarding Competition

    1. The Participants state in their filing that the Amendments do
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Do commenters
believe that the Amendments to the Plans impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act?
    2. What effect might the Amendments have on competition, if any?
Please explain. How would any effect on competition from the proposal
benefit or harm the national market system and/or various market
participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of
the national market system or different market participants would be
affected. Please support any response with data, if possible.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2019-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2019-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Amendments that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Amendments 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 website viewing and printing at
the principal office of the Plans. 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-CTA/
CQ-2019-01 and should be submitted on or before February 4, 2020.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00363 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19911-19912]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-193-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 18, 2019, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gulf), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002,
filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section
7(c) and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations requesting abandoning authority, authorizing
the replacement of: (i) Approximately 1,350 feet (ft.) of existing 30-
inch-diameter pipeline of Mainline 100; (ii) approximately 1,300 ft. of
existing 30-inch-diameter pipeline of Mainline 200, referred to as the
Mainline 100 and Mainline 200 Replacement Project. All as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Dave
Hammel, U.S. Legal, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana St,
Houston, TX 77002-2700, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Columbia Gulf requests pre-determination of rolled-in treatment of
rates and surcharges in accordance with the Commission's Policy
Statement in Docket No. PL99-3-000. The estimated cost of the project
will be $18,919,720.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the

Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: May 22, 2019.

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09292 Filed 5-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 61696]
[DOCID:fr25no09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1829-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated March 24, 2009, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 6, 2009, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig
Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Dakota resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of March 13 to August 10, 2009, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 24, 2009, to
authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at
90 percent of total eligible costs.
    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section
408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Dated: November 10, 2009.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-28308 Filed 11-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69140-69142]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0745; Project Identifier 2019-CE-030-AD; Amendment
39-21296; AD 2020-21-23]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E
airplanes. This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country
to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improperly manufactured
horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolts. If not corrected, this
could lead to fatigue failure of the bolts and loss of airplane
control. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 7, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 7,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O.
Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74;
exception occurred on : 2020-24047.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-24047.htm
fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com;
internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0745.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0745; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; phone: (816) 329-
4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.
Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes with a
certain horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolt installed. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2020 (85 FR 47716). The
NPRM proposed to require replacing the horizontal stabilizer rear
attachment bolts and was prompted by MCAI originated by the European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Community. EASA issued AD No. 2019-
0129, dated June 6, 2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

    On the final assembly line, horizontal stabilizer rear
attachment bolts were detected that had not received correct heat
treatment. Subsequent investigation determined that certain parts,
identified by FAUF, were improperly manufactured and consequently
have reduced material properties.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a fatigue
failure of an affected part, possibly resulting in loss of control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide inspection and replacement
instructions.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of affected parts, and prohibits (re)installation
thereof.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0745.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. An individual commenter supported the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12 Service Bulletin No.
55-004, dated March 29, 2019. The service information contains
procedures for checking the rear attachment bolts for the horizontal
stabilizer and replacing any defective bolts. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 14 products of U.S.
registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    The FAA estimates that the required actions will take 1.5 work-
hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $5,127.50 per
product and $71,785 for the U.S. operator fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2020-21-23 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-21296; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0745; Project Identifier 2019-CE-030-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 7, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-12, PC-12/45,
PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated
in any category, with a horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolt
part number (P/N) 5<IP_ADDRESS> marked with production order number
FAUF 10169753, FAUF 10171067, or FAUF 10171267 installed.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of horizontal stabilizer rear
attachment bolts that had not received correct heat treatment during
the manufacturing process. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
fatigue failure of a bolt and subsequent loss of airplane control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    (1) Within 1,350 hours time-in-service after the effective date
of this AD or within 13 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace each horizontal stabilizer rear
attachment bolt P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> marked with production order
number FAUF 10169753, FAUF 10171067, or FAUF 10171267 by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, section 3.B.(2) through (4) and
figures 1 and 2, of Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No. 55-004, dated
March 29, 2019, except you are not required to return parts to the
manufacturer.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a
horizontal stabilizer rear attachment bolt P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> marked
with production order number FAUF 10169753, FAUF 10171067, or FAUF
10171267 on any airplane.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved
AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI), or lacking a
PI, your local Flight Standards District Office.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2019-0129, dated June 6, 2019, for more information. You may examine
the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0745.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12 Service Bulletin No. 55-004,
dated March 29, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in
this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support
(MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371

Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41
exception occurred on : 2020-24047.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-24047.htm
619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24047 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P