			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 1, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-18179

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Frontier Airlines, Inc.,   filed  6/14/04 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Nashville, Tennessee, and Cancun, Mexico.

Applicant rep: Edward P. Faberman,<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst: Sylvia
Moore,

<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:    July 1, 2004, through
July 1, 2006

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

                                 Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.   Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin November 7, 2004, Frontier’s proposed startup date
for these services.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

2

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90096-90098]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0961]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Laguna Madre, South Padre Island, TX

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

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters in the Laguna Madre. The safety zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by a firework display launched from a
stationary barge in the Laguna Madre, South Padre Island, Texas. Entry
of vessels or persons into this zone or remaining in the zone when it
is in effect is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2023, through
1 a.m. on January 1st, 2024.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0961 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule

without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the fireworks display, and we lack sufficient time
to provide a reasonable comment period and consider any comments
submitted before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reason provided above,
the Coast Guard finds that good cause also exists for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks
displays occurring from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2023, through 1 a.m. on
January 1st, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone in the waters of
the Laguna Madre area within a 700 yard radius of the following point;
26[deg]6'02.1'' N, 97[deg]10'17.7'' W. The purpose of this rule is to
ensure safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in the
safety zone while the display of the fireworks takes place in the
Laguna Madre.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone beginning on the
night of December 31, 2023, and continuing into the early morning of
January 1st, 2024. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable
waters of the Laguna Madre, and is defined by a 700 yard radius around
the launching platform, which will be located at the following point:
26[deg]6'02.1'' N, 97[deg]10'17.7'' W. No vessel or person is permitted
to enter the temporary safety zone during the period when it is in
effect without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz),
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine
Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly,
this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone
will be in effect for the short period of 4 hours, beginning the night
of December 31, 2023, into the early morning of January 1st, 2024. The
zone is limited to the area with a 700 yard radius of the launching
position in the navigable waters of the Laguna Madre. Prohibiting
vessel traffic within that zone does not completely restrict the
traffic within the waterway, and the rule allows mariners to request
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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A, above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal
Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000
(adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0961 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0961  Safety Zone; Laguna Madre, South Padre Island, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Laguna Madre encompassed by a 700-yard radius from the
following point; 26[deg]6'02.1'' N, 97[deg]10'17.7'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section is in effect, and subject to
enforcement, from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2023, through 1 a.m. on
January 1st, 2024.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23 of this part, remaining in, or entry into this temporary safety
zone are prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. They may
be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-
939-0450.
    (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

    Dated: December 22, 2023.
Jason Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2023-28756 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64068-64070]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2016-0813]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; 22nd International Seapower Symposium Special
Events, Rosecliff Mansion and Newport Marriott Hotel, Newport, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary 500-yard security
zone on the waters adjacent to Rosecliff Mansion and the Newport
Marriott Hotel, in Newport, Rhode Island, in conjunction with special
events of the U.S. Navy's 22nd International Seapower Symposium.
Vessels and people are prohibited from entering these security zones.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4 p.m. on September 20, 2016 through
11:30 p.m. on September 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0813 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Sector
Southeastern New England, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
TFR Temporary Final Rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule. Because of
the sensitive security issues related to these special events, the
Coast Guard was not aware of the final details with sufficient time to
solicit public comments. Thus, waiting for a full comment period to run
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to keep senior military leaders
and government officials, along with the general public, safe from
subversive acts directed at these high visibility special events.
Providing a prolonged public notice and comment period is contrary

to the public interest due to national security concerns.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same
reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal authority for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231 which
authorizes the Coast Guard to define Security Zones.
    The 22nd International Seapower Symposium is being held on Goat
Island, Newport, RI, from September 18 to September 23, 2016. High
level U.S. officials and delegates from over 125 countries are expected
to attend. As part of the Symposium, special events are being held on
the evenings of Tuesday, September 20 and Thursday, September 22, 2016,
at Rosecliff Mansion and the Newport Marriott Hotel, respectively,
which are waterfront properties in Newport, Rhode Island, and within
the COTP, Southeastern New England zone. The COTP has determined that
it is necessary to temporarily prohibit vessel traffic from transiting
within 500 yards of Rosecliff Mansion (approximate position 41[deg]-
27'54'' N., 071[deg]-18'18'' W.) and the Newport Marriott Hotel
(approximate position 41[deg]-29'23'' N., 071[deg]-19'04'' W.),
Newport, RI, to safeguard the symposium attendees against potential
sabotage, subversive acts, or other threats.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    For the reasons discussed above, this rule establishes temporary
500-yard security zones in the navigable waters adjacent to Rosecliff
Mansion (approximate position 41[deg]-27'54'' N., 071[deg]-18'18'' W.)
and the Newport Marriott Hotel (approximate position 41[deg]-29'23''
N., 071[deg]-19'04'' W.) respectively, in Newport, Rhode Island. These
security zones will be effective and enforced at Rosecliff Mansion and
the Newport Marriott Hotel from 4 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 20 and Thursday, September 22, 2016, respectively. Vessels
and persons will be prohibited from entering these security zones
during this time.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be
minimal, such that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this rule
will be small, as the duration of the security zones is for only seven
and a half hours on two separate evenings. Additionally, vessels may be
permitted to transit and navigate in waters adjacent to this security
zones, minimizing any adverse impact. Maritime advisories will be
broadcasted.

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 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
security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above this 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 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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact 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 rule does
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of temporary security zones for special
events being held in conjunction with the 22nd International Seapower
Symposium. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-0813 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0813  Security Zones: Rosecliff Mansion and Newport
Marriott Hotel, Newport, Rhode Island.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, within 500 yards of Rosecliff Mansion
(approximate position 41[deg]-27'54'' N., 071[deg]-18'18'' W.) and the
Newport Marriott Hotel (approximate position 41[deg]-29'23'' N.,
071[deg]-19'04'' W.), Newport, Rhode Island.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective
and enforced from 4 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 20, 2016
at Rosecliff Mansion, and from 4 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Thursday,
September 22, 2016, at the Newport Marriott Hotel.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
``Designated on-scene patrol personnel'' means any commissioned,
warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard operating Coast
Guard vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the
Captain of the Port, Southeastern New England.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.30 and 165.33 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.33 of
this part, entry into or movement within these zones is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Southeastern New England.
    (3) Any vessel permitted to enter these security zones shall comply
with the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or designated on-scene patrol
personnel.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed
as directed.
    (5) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the zone on
VHF-16.

    Dated: August 31, 2016.
J.A. Smith,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Southeastern
New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-22463 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67463-67465]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0195]

Acrylonitrile Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified by the Acrylonitrile Standard (29 CFR 1910.1045).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
January 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0195, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0195) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available

online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on
submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the
Acrylonitrile (AN) Standard protect workers from the adverse health
effects that may result from their exposure to AN. The major
information collection requirements of the AN Standard include
notifying workers of their AN exposures, implementing a written
compliance program, providing examining physicians with specific
information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of their medical
examination results, maintaining workers exposure monitoring and
medical records for specific periods, and providing access to these
records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, the affected workers, and designated representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Acrylonitrile Standard (29 CFR
1910.1045).
    OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease in the burden hour total
from 2,299 to 1,999 hours, a total decrease of 300 hours as a result of
the decreased number of affected establishments based on updated data.
There was a slight adjustment of the number of exposure monitoring
samples from 864 to 814., but the number of medical exams slightly
decreased from 630 to 594, which resulted in a slight cost decrease.
The adjustment of the burden hours and costs are shown in detail by
provision in the supporting statement.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Acrylonitrile Standard (29 CFR part 1910.1045).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0126.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 16.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 4,516.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from five minutes (.08 hour) to
obtain a physician's certificate to 12 hours to develop a compliance
program.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,999.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $144,628.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0195) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>). Comments
and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 7, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor, for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-26868 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Phone conversation between Matt LaPenta and Phil Duvic (AWI) on November
18, 2010.

Number of “Fabricators”

What would you estimate is the percentage of your members that engage in
manufacturing architectural woodwork, for example, moulding, wood
flooring, and windows and doors?

Represents 1200 manufacturers, 1005 of which are in NAICS 33721.  They
make woodwork, moulding, casework.

Of these manufacturers, what percentage would you estimate use composite
wood products (hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium density
fiberboard) in their products?

100%

Of these manufacturers, what percentage would you estimate produce at
least some product lines that are CARB compliant because they use CARB
certified panels or component parts and follow the CARB recordkeeping
and labeling requirements?

Don’t know

What percentage of your members also manufacturer other wood products,
such as cabinets, furniture, or casework? casework

Of these manufacturers, what percentage would you estimate use composite
wood products (hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium density
fiberboard) in their products? 100%

Of these manufacturers using composite wood products, what percentage
would you estimate produce at least some product lines that are CARB
compliant because they use CARB certified panels or component parts and
follow the CARB recordkeeping and labeling requirements? Don’t know

Do the manufacturers that are producing CARB compliant product lines
also carry product lines for sale outside of California that are not
CARB compliant?  If, so what percentage of production volume would you
estimate are product lines that are not compliant with CARB because they
do not use CARB certified panels or component parts or do not follow the
CARB recordkeeping and labeling requirements? Don’t know

Impact of Labeling Requirements

A national regulation of composite wood products could potentially
require manufacturers that use composite wood materials to put a label
on every separate item that gets produced and shipped out.  Given this,
could you estimate the average number of labels that would be needed
annually for each manufacturer that uses composite wood materials? A
labeling requirement makes little sense for custom orders – instead a
certification statement with invoice makes more sense.

If labels were required for each shipment of products instead of each
individual item, about how may items would be included in a typical
shipment? Don’t know

Number of Wood Veneer “Laminator Product”  Manufacturers

The recent federal legislation uses the term laminated product to mean a
finished good (such as a custom panel, cabinet, window, door, or piece
of furniture) that is produced by affixing a wood veneer to a purchased
platform.  How many of your members would you say produce such laminated
products by affixing wood veneer themselves?  Please do not include
other types of laminates (such as high pressure laminates, thermally
fused papers, vinyl films, decorative foils, or polypropylene films) in
your answer. Almost nobody would do this.  Members do not include
architectural panel manufacturers – ask HPVA about them.

For those manufacturers that would be classified as wood veneer
laminators, how common is it for these manufacturers to also fabricate
products using purchased panels that were already finished with a wood
veneer or other decorative finish? n/a

What percentage of the production of wood veneer laminated products are
produced using formaldehyde-based resins to affix wood veneers to
purchased platforms? n/a

If wood veneer laminators using UF resins were to switch to a lower
emission resin, what would be the likely resin choice? n/a

Of those wood veneer laminators that use no-added formaldehyde resins,
what are the most common adhesives used? n/a

If wood veneer laminators were subject to the same third party testing
requirements as CARB, about how many different product types would need
to be third party certified for a typical manufacturer? n/a


[Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 220)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69488-69489]
[DOCID:fr16no05-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[R05-OAR-2005-IN-0008; FRL-7997-7]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of Delaware County to Attainment of
the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Delaware
County ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed determination is
based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for the period of 2002-2004 that demonstrate that the
8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area.
    EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Indiana to
redesignate Delaware County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
This request was submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) on August 25, 2005. In proposing to approve this
request, EPA is also proposing to approve the State's plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015 in this area as a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also
proposing to find adequate and approve the State's 2015 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for this area.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's ozone redesignation request and the requested SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this action as non-controversial and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If we do not receive any adverse comments in
response to these direct final and proposed rules, we do not
contemplate taking any further action in relation to this proposed
rule. If EPA receives adverse comments with respect to this rule, we
will publish a timely withdrawal of the action, informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. EPA will respond to the public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in

commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 16,
2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-0008, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA's

electronic public docket and comments system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    5. Mail: You may send written comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    6. Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R05-OAR-2005-IN-
0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
, unless the comment includes information claimed to be

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office. This
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make a determination that the Delaware County, Indiana nonattainment
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that Delaware County
has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the Clean Air Act. EPA is thus proposing to approve a request to
change the legal designation of Delaware County from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
Indiana's maintenance plan as a SIP revision for Delaware County (such
approval being one of the Clean Air Act criteria for redesignation of
an area to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep
Delaware County in attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years.
Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for
the newly-established 2015 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) MVEBs for this area. The Adequacy
comment periods for the 2015 MVEBs began on August 2, 2005, with EPA's
posting of the availability of the State's submittal on EPA's Adequacy
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm. The

Adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on September 1, 2005. No
requests for this submittal or adverse comments on this submittal were
received during the Adequacy comment periods. Please see the Adequacy
Section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process.
Therefore, we are finding adequate and approving the State's 2015 VOC
and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

II. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the
Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

    For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Copies of the
request and the EPA's analysis are available electronically at RME or
in hard copy at the above address. (Please telephone Edward Doty at
(312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

    Dated: November 9, 2005.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-22695 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 55350]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14683-000]

Mr. Adam R. Rousselle, II; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 17, 2015, Mr. Adam R. Rousselle, II, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Blue Marsh Dam
Water Power Project (project) to be located on Tulpehocken Creek, near
the town of Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The project would consist of the following: (1) a proposed 6-foot-
diameter penstock; (2) a proposed powerhouse containing two generating
units having a total installed capacity of 2,500 kilowatts; (3) a
tailrace returning flow to Tulpehocken Creek; (4) a proposed 0.9-mile-
long, 12.47-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the
Pennsylvania Power Company system; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of about
9,943,000 kilowatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Adam R. Rousselle, II, 104 Autumn Trace
Drive, New Hope, PA 18938; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tim Looney; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14683-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14683) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 9, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23152 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57221-57226]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22439]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93279; File No. SR-DTC-2021-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Depository Trust Company; Order
Approving the Proposed Rule Change Relating to Confidential
Information, Market Disruption Events, and Other Changes

October 8, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On June 25, 2021, Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2021-011 (the ``Proposed Rule Change'') pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to amend DTC's rules relating to
confidentiality requirements, Market Disruption Events, and procedures
for disconnecting a participant from DTC's network, among other
changes.\3\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2021.\4\ The Commission received comments
that it has considered with respect to the Proposed Rule Change.\5\ For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed
Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Notice of Filing, infra note 4, at 86 FR 36833.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92342 (June 25,
2021), 86 FR 36833 (July 13, 2021) (File No. SR-DTC-2021-011)
(``Notice of Filing'').
    \5\ See id. The comment letters are available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2021-011/srdtc2021011.htm. Several comments generally supported the
Proposed Rule Change, and the Commission considers the additional
comments in its analysis at Section III infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to the Proposed Rule Change, DTC is proposing three main
changes to its Rules, Bylaws, and Organization Certificate(``Rules''):
\6\ (1) Standardizing the confidentiality requirement applicable to DTC
with respect to its participants' information and adding
confidentiality requirement applicable to participants with respect to
DTC's information, (2) updating its Market Disruption and Force Majeure
Rule (``Force Majeure Rule'') to authorize two additional officers to
determine that a Market Disruption Event has occurred, and (3) adding a
new rule setting forth the procedures under which DTC would be able to
disconnect a participant from its network in certain circumstances
(``Systems Disconnect Rule''). The Commission provides relevant
background and describes each of these proposed changes in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at https://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/rules/dtc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    DTC serves as the central securities depository for substantially
all corporate and municipal debt and equity securities available for
trading in the United States.\7\ DTC provides depository services and
asset servicing for a wide

range of security types such as money market instruments, equities,
warrants, rights, corporate debt and notes, municipal bonds, government
securities, asset-backed securities, and collateralized mortgage
obligations.\8\ DTC's custodial services include the safekeeping,
record keeping, book entry transfer, and pledge of securities among its
Participants and Pledgees.\9\ DTC also provides services to securities
issuers, such as maintaining current ownership records and distributing
payments to shareholders.\10\ In light of DTC's critical role in the
marketplace, DTC was designated a Systemically Important Financial
Market Utility (``SIFMU'') under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.\11\ Due to DTC's
unique position in the marketplace, a failure or a disruption to DTC
could, among other things, increase the risk of significant liquidity
problems spreading among financial institutions or markets, and thereby
threaten the stability of the financial system in the United
States.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Financial Stability Oversight Counsel 2012 Annual
Report, Appendix A (``FSOC 2012 Report''), available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). See FSOC 2012 Report, supra note 5.
    \12\ See FSOC 2012 Report, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC participants connect to DTC's systems, either directly through
the Securely Managed and Reliable Technology (``SMART'') network or
through a third party service provider or service bureau.\13\ DTC's
parent company, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'')
manages the SMART network, which connects a nationwide complex of
networks, processing centers, and control facilities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87698 (December 9,
2019), 84 FR 68269 (December 13, 2019) (File No. SR-DTC-2019-008)
(describing the DTCC SMART network).
    \14\ DTCC provides a set of core business processes for DTC and
DTCC's other subsidiaries, including the technology systems and
networks, that provide connectivity between DTC and its participants
and that provide DTC with the ability to provide its services as
required under the Rules. Most corporate functions are established
and managed on an enterprise-wide basis pursuant to intercompany
agreements under which it is generally DTCC that provides services
to DTC and DTCC's other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes

1. Confidentiality Requirements
    Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to DTC: DTC collects
confidential information from its participants to assess whether each
participant meets DTC's membership requirements either to gain or
continue access to DTC's depository, custodial and settlement services
(hereinafter collectively, settlement services).\15\ In turn, DTC is
required to maintain the confidentiality of any information furnished
by its participants. Currently, DTC's Rules obligate DTC to hold
participants' information in the same degree of confidence as may be
required by law or the rules and regulations (hereinafter collectively,
``regulations'') of the appropriate regulatory body having jurisdiction
over the participant.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 2, supra note 4 (establishing DTC's right to
require applicants to furnish information to become Participants or
Pledgees of DTC and to require participants to furnish information
relating to assurances of financial responsibility and operational
capability).
    \16\ See Section 1 of Rule 2, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC states that its current Rules create ambiguity because DTC's
obligations depend on each participant's regulatory requirements, which
could lead to unequal treatment of participants and conflicts of law
with DTC's regulatory requirements or with respect to a participant who
is subject to multiple jurisdictions' regulations.\17\ DTC also states
that applying different standards creates operational burdens because
DTC must track the regulations applicable to each of its participants
and must maintain the confidentiality of each participant's information
to the same degree as required by the applicable regulations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 36833-34.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to clarify its confidentiality requirements and to enhance
its operational efficiency, DTC proposes to revise its Rules to
establish a standard, which will require DTC to hold participant
confidential information to the same degree as DTC's regulatory
requirements that relate to the confidentiality of records, and to
remove the references to each participant's particular regulatory
obligations. DTC represents that the proposed change would provide
participants with similar protections because DTC believes its
regulatory requirements are comparable to the regulations applicable to
its participants and, therefore, would not result in changes to DTC's
current practices or the protection offered to its participants'
confidential information.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id. at 36834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to Participants: DTC's
Rules do not include obligations for its participants to protect
confidential information furnished by DTC or its affiliates.\20\
However, DTC states that, in connection with the development of cyber
and information security programs pursuant to applicable participant
regulatory requirements, DTC and DTCC have received an increasing
number of requests from participants for confidential information, such
as information regarding DTCC's network operations, data security
practices, and legal settlements.\21\ Additionally, DTC states that
participants may request DTC or DTCC to disclose confidential
information regarding its cyber threat indicators, sources of cyber
threat information, or other information and actions taken following a
cyber incident relating to a participant, DTC, or DTCC.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DTC states that, historically, it has generally not
provided, nor been requested to provide, information that contains
confidential or proprietary information of DTC or its affiliates to
its participants except for information necessary for participants
to connect to DTCC Systems, which is typically protected under
intellectual property laws. See id.
    \21\ See id. See also, supra discussion in Section II.A
(Background) relating to DTCC Systems.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate information sharing by DTC while protecting the
confidentiality of proprietary and confidential information DTC shares
with its participants, DTC proposes to add participant confidentiality
requirements to its Rules. The new provisions will require participants
to maintain the confidentiality of information furnished by DTC through
proper safeguards to prevent disclosure of such confidential
information, except as necessary to perform its obligations under DTC's
Rules or as otherwise required by applicable law. DTC proposes that
participants be required to maintain the confidentiality of this
information to the same extent and using the same means the participant
uses to protect its own confidential information, but no less than a
reasonable standard of care. DTC's proposal will also entitle DTC or
DTCC to seek any temporary or permanent injunctive or other equitable
relief in addition to any monetary damages under the Rules if a
participant breaches its confidentiality requirements. Additionally,
DTC's proposal will entitle DTC to impose other disciplinary
proceedings or restrictions on access to services for a participant's
failure to comply with its confidentiality requirements, consistent
with the existing tools available to DTC regarding a participant's
failure to comply with its Rules.
2. Market Disruption Event
    DTC's Rules contain provisions that identify the events or
circumstances that DTC would consider to be a Market Disruption Event,
including, for

example, events that lead to the suspension or limitation of trading or
banking in the markets in which DTC operates, or the unavailability or
failure of any material payment, bank transfer, wire or securities
settlement systems.\23\ Upon the declaration of a Market Disruption
Event, DTC's Rules provide DTC with tools to address such an event,
such as suspending any or all services and taking, or requiring
participants to take, any actions DTC considers appropriate to
facilitate the continuation of DTC's services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Rule 38, supra note 6. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 83953 (August 27, 2018), 83 FR 44381 (August 30, 2018)
(File No. SR-DTC-2017-803); 83972 (August 28, 2018), 83 FR 44964
(September 4, 2018) (File No. SR-DTC-2017-021).
    \24\ See Rule 38, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, DTC's Board of Directors may declare a Market Disruption
Event and may take any actions authorized by DTC's Rules to address the
event.\25\ However, DTC's Rules also authorize certain officers to make
an interim declaration of a Market Disruption Event, to allow DTC to
prevent delays in addressing a Market Disruption Event if the Board of
Directors is unable to convene.\26\ In the event of such an interim
declaration, the Board of Directors must ratify, modify, or rescind the
officer's determination as soon as practicable.\27\ Currently, the
officers authorized to make such determination are the Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Group Chief Risk Officer, and General
Counsel.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Section 2 of Rule 38, id.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC proposes to add two additional officers of DTC, the Chief
Information Officer and the Head of Clearing Agency Services, to the
list of authorized officers that could make such an interim
determination if the Board of Directors is unable to convene. DTC
states these two officers, like the other officers currently provided
in the Rules, maintain senior executive level positions at DTC, oversee
divisions of DTC, and hold positions at DTC that would provide them a
necessary global view into DTC's operations and systems to enable them
to determine the existence of a Market Disruption Event.\29\ DTC states
adding these two additional officers would facilitate DTC's ability to
implement its emergency procedures in the event of a Market Disruption
Event.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 36834.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Systems Disconnect Rule
    As mentioned above in Section II.A (Background), DTC's participants
connect to DTC's systems, either through the DTCC-managed SMART network
or through other electronic means, such as through a third party
service provider or service bureau. DTC's Rules do not address DTC's
ability to disconnect a participant whose network connection risks
harming DTC's systems. DTC's proposal will establish procedures under
which DTC would be able to disconnect a participant from its network
due to the risk of an imminent threat to DTC, participants, or other
market participants.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 36834-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC's proposal will address DTC's authority to take certain actions
upon the occurrence, and during the pendency, of a Major Event. A
``Major Event'' will be defined as the happening of one or more
``Systems Disruptions'' reasonably likely to have a significant impact
on DTC's operations, including ``DTCC Systems,'' \32\ that affect the
business, operations, safeguarding of securities or funds, or physical
functions of DTC, its participants, or other market participants.
``Systems Disruption'' will, in turn, be defined as the unavailability,
failure, malfunction, overload, or restriction (whether partial or
total) of a DTCC Systems Participant's systems that disrupts or
degrades the normal operation of such DTCC Systems Participant's
systems; or anything that impacts or alters the normal communication or
the files that are received, or information transmitted, to or from the
DTCC Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``DTCC Systems'' will be defined as the systems, equipment
and technology networks of DTCC, DTC and/or their Affiliates,
whether owned, leased, or licensed, software, devices, IP addresses
or other addresses or accounts used in connection with providing the
services set forth in the Rules, or used to transact business or to
manage the connection with DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC's proposal would also provide governance procedures applicable
to DTC's determination whether, and how, to implement the provisions of
the Systems Disconnect Rule. The same officers with delegated authority
under the Force Majeure Rule may make a determination that a Major
Event has occurred. As discussed in Section II.B.2 (Market Disruption
Event) above, DTC states these officers maintain senior executive level
positions at DTC, oversee divisions of DTC, and hold positions at DTC
that would provide them a necessary global view into DTC's operations
and systems to enable them to determine the existence of a Market
Disruption Event, which would also enable them to determine the
existence of a Major Event.
    However, the proposed process for declaring a Major Event, by
contrast, would start with a designated officer, whereas, for a Market
Disruption Event, the officer would make an interim determination only
if the Board of Directors were unable to timely convene. DTC states it
designed the process in this way to improve its ability to respond
quickly, efficiently, and effectively to a Major Event that arises
abruptly.\33\ Following this determination, any management committee
including all of the officers authorized to determine a Major Event
would convene, and DTC would convene a Board of Directors meeting as
soon as practicable thereafter, and in any event within five Business
Days following such determination, to ratify, modify, or rescind the
Officer Major Event Action.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 36835.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule will require participants to notify
DTC immediately upon becoming aware of a Major Event, and, likewise,
will require DTC to notify its participants promptly of any action DTC
takes or intends to take with respect to a Major Event.\35\ Finally,
the proposal will address certain miscellaneous related matters
including: (i) A limitation of liability for any failure or delay in
performance, in whole or in part of DTC's obligations under the Rules,
arising out of or related to a Major Event, (ii) a statement that DTC's
power to take any action pursuant to the Systems Disconnect Rule also
includes the power to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend or vary such
action, (iii) a statement that DTC's powers pursuant to the Systems
Disconnect Rule shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of,
authority granted elsewhere in the Rules to take action as specified
therein, (iv) a requirement that participants shall keep any
confidential information provided to them by DTC in connection with a
Major Event confidential, and (v) a statement that in the event of any
conflict between the provisions of the Systems Disconnect Rule and any
other Rules or Procedures, the provisions of the Systems Disconnect
Rule would prevail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.

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

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \36\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. After careful consideration, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations applicable to
DTC. In particular, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \37\ of the Act and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(1),\38\ (e)(2),\39\ and (e)(17)(i) \40\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \41\ of the Exchange Act requires, in part,
that the rules of a clearing agency, such as DTC, be designed, in part,
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible. The Commission finds that the Proposed
Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \42\ for
the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section II.B.1 (Confidentiality
Requirements), DTC proposes to revise its Rules to establish a standard
relating to DTC's obligation to maintain the confidentiality of
information it collects from participants to assess each participant's
compliance with DTC's membership requirements. The Commission believes
such a uniform standard will help DTC meet its obligations and will
help each participant better understand DTC's obligations for
maintaining the confidential information it shares with DTC, which, in
turn, may facilitate the sharing of such information and improve DTC's
ability to evaluate its participants' eligibility to access DTC's
settlement services.
    Also, as described above in Section II.B.1 (Confidentiality
Requirements), DTC proposes to add participant confidentiality
requirements to its Rules to ensure participants maintain the
confidentiality of information DTC shares, which participants may then
use to determine whether to participate in DTC's settlement services by
understanding DTC system requirements and DTC system safeguards. The
Commission believes participant confidentiality requirements will help
each participant better understand its rights and obligations for
maintaining the confidential information DTC shares, which, in turn,
may facilitate participant compliance. Therefore, the Commission
believes the proposed changes to DTC and participant confidentiality
requirements are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate
settlement of securities transactions by DTC.
    As described above in Section II.B.2 (Market Disruption Event) and
Section II.B.3 (Systems Disconnect Rule), risks, threats, and potential
vulnerabilities due to a Market Disruption Event or a Major Event could
impede DTC's ability to provide its settlement services. DTC proposes
to add two officers authorized to make an interim determination that a
Market Disruption Event has occurred if the Board of Directors is
unable to timely convene. The Commission believes the proposed change
will improve DTC's ability to respond quickly to a Market Disruption
Event, which could help DTC mitigate the impact of such event on DTC,
its participants, and the broader market.
    Additionally, as described above in Section II.B.3 (Systems
Disconnect Rule), DTC proposes to add the Systems Disconnect Rule,
which will set forth the procedures under which DTC would be
authorized, upon the occurrence of a Major Event (as defined in the
proposed rules), to take certain actions, including disconnecting a
participant from DTC's systems, suspending data transmissions between
DTC and the participant, and requiring the participant to take other
actions necessary to protect DTC and its participants. The Commission
believes the proposed Systems Disconnect Rule will enable DTC to
respond quickly to a potential cyber threat or other network
disruption, which could help DTC prevent the spread of a participant's
systems disruptions to DTC, its participants, and other market
participants that could otherwise cause losses to DTC or its
participants.
    One commenter suggests certain revisions to the definition of Major
Event so that certain terms in the Systems Disconnect Rule are
consistent with the definition of Market Disruption Event in the Force
Majeure Rule.\43\ The Commission disagrees. Consistency between the
Systems Disconnect Rule and Force Majeure Rule is not necessary because
DTC designed the Systems Disconnect Rule for a different purpose.
Although both rules relate to events that, if left unaddressed, could
affect DTC's ability to provide settlement services, the Force Majeure
Rule is designed to cover events caused by external forces that impact
DTC and its participants, whereas the Systems Disconnect Rule is
designed only to cover disruptions to participant's computer systems or
network that could flow through to DTC systems. Therefore, differences
between the two rules do not raise consistency concerns, because of
their different purposes.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See letter from Anonymous, dated July 28, 2021, supra note
5.
    \44\ The commenter also suggests adding language to the end of
the Major Event definition to indicate that, to avoid doubt, a Major
Event would not include disruptions due to normal market forces. The
Commission does not believe that such additional language is
necessary because, as discussed above in Section II.B.3 (Systems
Disconnect Rule), a Major Event is limited to one or more ``Systems
Disruption(s)'' (as defined in the proposed rule), which is properly
limited to disruptions to participant systems or its network
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the reasons described above, the Commission believes
the proposed changes relating to a Market Disruption Event or a Major
Event will help promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and with assuring DTC safeguards
securities and funds that are in its custody or control or for which it
is responsible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the
implementation of the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-
founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect
of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\46\ The Commission
finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(1) of the Exchange Act \47\ for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Sections II.B.1 (Confidentiality
Requirements) and II.B.2 (Market Disruption Event), DTC proposes to
establish a consistent standard for its obligation to maintain the
confidentiality of information it collects from its participants and to

establish participant confidentiality requirements. The Commission
believes a consistent standard for DTC's confidentiality requirements
will provide for clear and transparent standard rules for participants,
rather than maintaining potentially different confidentiality standards
for participants based on the various, unrelated regulatory bodies
governing those participants. Additionally, the Commission believes
that imposing specific legal standards applicable to both DTC and its
participants to follow will provide for a well-founded legal basis for
the sharing and maintaining of confidential information between DTC and
its participants.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ One commenter suggests adding an exception for negligence
or fraud to the limitation of liability clause in the proposed
Systems Disconnect Rule, which the commenter states is customary
contractual language. See letter from Anonymous, dated July 28,
2021, supra note 5. The Commission notes DTC has already included
similar language in its Rules, which would be applicable to this
aspect of the proposal. See Rule 6, supra note 6 (providing for DTC
liability to its participants for ``gross negligence, willful
misconduct, or violations of Federal securities laws for which there
is a private right of action'', which is not limited by the proposed
Rule 38A pursuant to section 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the implementation of the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) of the
Exchange Act.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and that specify
clear and direct lines of responsibility.\50\ The Commission finds that
the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) of the
Exchange Act \51\ for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes DTC's proposal, as described above in
Section II.B.2 (Market Disruption Event), to add two officers
authorized to make an interim determination of a Market Disruption
Event if the Board of Directors is unable to convene in a timely manner
provides for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and
that provide clear and direct lines of responsibility. Likewise, the
Commission believes DTC's proposal to identify the officers authorized
to make an interim determination of a Major Event, which will then be
ratified, modified, or rescinded by the management committee and the
Board of Directors will provide for clear and transparent governance
procedures and will specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the implementation of the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) of the
Exchange Act.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the
covered clearing agency's operational risks by identifying the
plausible sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and
mitigating their impact through the use of appropriate systems,
policies, procedures, and controls.\53\ The Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) of the
Exchange Act \54\ for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes DTC's proposal, as described above in
Section II.B.2 (Market Disruption Event), to add two officers
authorized to make an interim determination of a Market Disruption
Event could help DTC mitigate the impact of a Market Disruption Event
by ensuring DTC can respond quickly to such event if the Board of
Directors were unable to convene in a timely manner. Likewise, the
Commission believes the proposed Systems Disconnect Rule, as described
in Section II.B.3 above, provides a rules-based process that will
enable DTC to identify potential cyber threats or other network
disruptions, which could help DTC prevent the spread of a participant's
systems disruptions to DTC, its participants, and other market
participants that could otherwise cause losses to DTC or its
participants.
    One commenter suggests revising the definition of Major Event to be
consistent with the definition of Market Disruption Event in the Force
Majeure Rule.\55\ The commenter further argues the impact to DTC
covered by the definition of Major Event should be limited to ``DTCC
Systems'' (as defined in the proposed rule) to ensure the scope of the
proposed rule is limited to technical systems.\56\ The Commission
disagrees. As noted above, the purposes of both the Force Majeure Rule
and the Systems Disconnect Rule are different. The Force Majeure Rule
is designed to cover events external to DTC and its participants that
materially impact, or are likely to materially impact, DTC's ability to
provide its settlement services. The Systems Disconnect Rule, by
contrast, is designed to cover a participant's systems or network
disruption, which through its connection to DTC, is reasonably likely
to have a significant impact on DTC's systems. The differences between
the rules' purposes support the need for differing standards.\57\
Furthermore, the Commission notes the reference to ``including DTCC
Systems'' in the proposed definition of Major Event takes into account
how DTC's operations, i.e., its settlement services, work, in that they
utilize DTCC Systems. Consequently, the commenter's proposed revisions
are not necessary.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Specifically, the commenter suggests deleting reference to
``reasonably'' and by replacing ``significant'' with ``material''
when describing the likelihood and level of impact to DTC. See
letter from Anonymous, dated July 28, 2021, supra note 5.
    \56\ See id.
    \57\ The Commission also disagrees with the commenter's
suggestion to remove the references to ``reasonably'' with respect
to the likelihood of an event impacting DTC's operations. The
Commission believes that DTC's assessment of the likelihood of such
an impact should be reasonable before taking actions like
disconnecting a participant from its systems. In addition, the
Commission notes that DTC's references to ``reasonably likely'' and
``significant impact'' in the proposed definition of Major Event are
consistent with the Commission's definition of a ``Major SCI Event''
under Regulation SCI. 17 CFR 242.1000. Likewise, the Commission
notes that references in the proposed rule text to ``reasonable
basis'' and ``appropriate'' is consistent with the obligations
related to a Major SCI Event under Regulation SCI. 17 CFR 242.1002.
    \58\ Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed
Systems Disconnect Rule could be used to benefit the trading
activity of certain participants at the detriment of disconnected
participants. See letter from Jarrod Knudson, dated June 27, 2021,
supra note 5. The Commission disagrees because the proposed rule, by
its terms, would only apply when certain Systems Disruptions occur
at a participant that could impact DTC's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the implementation of the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) of the
Exchange Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \60\ and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

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

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\61\ that Proposed Rule Change SR-DTC-2021-011, be, and hereby is,
approved.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \62\ In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22439 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43072-43073]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2250-000]

Public Power & Utility of New Jersey, LLC; Supplemental Notice
That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket
Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Public Power & Utility of New Jersey, LLC's application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that
such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 7, 2012.
    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-referenced proceeding(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17825 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P