[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16005-16007]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91365; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule

March 19, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 10, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fee
Schedule (``Market Data Fee Schedule'') to adopt a billing dispute
practice substantially similar to the practice adopted by another group
of exchanges for their transaction and market data fees. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to
adopt a billing dispute practice similar to the practice adopted by
another group of exchanges for their transaction and market data fees.
As discussed below, the proposed provision would be substantially
similar to provision in the fee schedules of the Cboe U.S. Equities
markets--Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Equities''),\4\ Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX Equities''),\5\ Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA
Equities''),\6\ Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Equities'') \7\--and
the Cboe U.S Options markets--Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
Options''),\8\ Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options''),\9\ the options
platform of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''),\10\ the options
platform of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') (collectively,
the ``Cboe Exchanges'').\11\ In addition, the Exchange and the
Exchange's affiliates, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'') and
NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') as well as other equities and
options markets \12\ already have in place a similar billing dispute
provision for transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BZX Equities Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90897 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4161 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2020-094).
    \5\ See BYX Equities Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90899 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4156 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBYX-2020-034).
    \6\ See EDGA Equities Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90900 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4149 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeEDGA-2020-032).
    \7\ See EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90901 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4137 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-064).
    \8\ See Cboe Options Fee Schedule, footnote 7, available at,
https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf. See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91053 (February 3, 2021),
86 FR 8814 (February 9, 20221) (SR-Cboe-2021-010).
    \9\ See C2 Options Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/ctwo/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91049 (February 3, 2021), 86 FR
8824 (February 9, 2021) (SR-C2-2021-002).
    \10\ See BZX Options Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90897 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4161 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2020-094).
    \11\ See EDGX Options Fee Schedule, available at, https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90901 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR
4137 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-064).
    \12\ See NASDAQ Equity Rules, Equity 7 (Pricing Schedule),
Section 70(b) (all fee disputes must be submitted no later than 60
days after receipt of billing invoice, in writing and accompanied by
supporting documentation); NASDAQ Options Rules, Options 7 (Pricing
Schedule), Section 7(a)-(b) (same); NASDAQ BX Equity Rules, Equity 7
(Pricing Schedule), Section 111(b) (Collection of Exchange Fees and
Other Claims and Billing Policy) (same); NASDAQ BX Options Rules,
Options 7 (Pricing Schedule), Section 7(a)-(b) (BX Options Fee
Disputes) (same); NASDAQ PHLX Equity Rules, Equity 7 (Pricing
Schedule), Section 1(a) (same); NASDAQ PHLX Options Rules, Options 7
(Pricing Schedule), Section 1(a) (same); NASDAQ ISE Options Rules,
Options 7 (Pricing Schedule), Section 1(b) (same); NASDAQ GEMX
Options Rules, Options 7 (Pricing Schedule), Section 1(b) (same);
NASDAQ MRX Options Rules, Options 7 (Pricing Schedule), Section 1(b)
(same); MIAX Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_01_13_21.pdf (same); MIAX Pearl Fee
Schedule, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_PEARL_Options_Fee_Schedule_03012021.pdf (same); and MIAX
Emerald Fee Schedule, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Emerald_Fee_Schedule_02_22_21.pdf (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to
adopt a billing dispute procedure to prevent market data subscribers
from contesting their bills long after they have been sent an invoice.
The Exchange and other equities and options markets already have a
billing dispute procedure in effect for their transaction fees that
allows for sixty (60) days to dispute billing errors.\13\ The Cboe
Exchanges also have a billing dispute procedure in place for both its
equities markets and options markets and apply that procedure to both
transaction fees and market data fees on each of the Cboe
Exchanges.\14\ In contrast to the other exchanges, the Cboe Exchanges'
billing dispute policy allows for ``three full calendar months'' to
dispute billing errors.\15\ Similar to the Cboe Exchanges, the Exchange
is proposing a ninety (90)

day period for market data subscribers to dispute billing errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See notes 4-11, supra.
    \15\ The Cboe Exchanges' billing dispute policy provides, in
relevant part: ``All fees and rebates assessed prior to the three
full calendar months before the month in which the Exchange becomes
aware of a billing error shall be considered final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, all disputes concerning market data fees and credits
billed by the Exchange would have to be submitted to the Exchange in
writing and accompanied by supporting documentation. Further, all
disputes would have to be submitted no later than ninety (90) days
after receipt of a billing invoice. After ninety days, all market data
fees assessed by the Exchange would be considered final. The Exchange
believes that this requirement, which is substantially similar to that
in place on the Cboe Exchanges,\16\ will streamline the billing dispute
process. The Exchange would resolve an error by crediting or debiting
market data subscribers based on the fees or credits that should have
applied and will make billing adjustments regardless of whether the
error was discovered by the Exchange or by a subscriber that submitted
a dispute to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See notes 4-11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable for market data subscribers
to become aware of any potential billing errors within ninety (90)
calendar days of receiving an invoice. The Exchange provides all
subscribers on-line access to view their current subscriptions and
their invoices. In addition to being able to view the level of their
subscription, the Exchange also sends subscribers an invoice by mail
each month. Given the tools that the Exchange provides to allow
subscribers to monitor their billing, requiring that subscribers
dispute an invoice within ninety (90) calendar days will encourage them
to review their invoices promptly so that any disputed charges can be
addressed in a timely manner while the information and data underlying
those charges (e.g., applicable fees and subscriber information) is
still easily and readily available. This practice will avoid issues
that may arise when subscribers do not dispute an invoice in a timely
manner, and will conserve Exchange resources that would have to be
expended to resolve untimely billing disputes.\17\ As such, the
proposed rule change would alleviate administrative burdens related to
billing disputes, which could divert staff resources away from the
Exchange's regulatory and business purposes. The proposed rule change
to provide all fees and credits are final after ninety (90) days also
provides both the Exchange and subscribers finality and the ability to
close their books after a known period of time. Finally, the Exchange
notes that it routinely conducts audits of its market data customers to
ensure that customers are complying with the terms of the subscriber
agreement they have signed. The audit process is independent of the
billing process. The audit function is administered by the Exchange's
market data compliance group and the billing function is administered
by the Exchange's market data operations group. Each group is charged
with distinct responsibilities that do not overlap. The proposed
billing dispute provision is not intended to circumvent the audit
process in any manner and the adoption of the ninety (90) day period to
dispute billing errors would not affect subscribers' ability to take a
position with respect to billing charges identified through the audit
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The same rationale has been advanced by the other markets
that have adopted a similar billing procedure. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71286 (January 14, 2014), 79 FR 3442, 3442
(January 21, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for subscribers to be fully aware of this rule regarding
fee disputes, the Exchange proposes to include the language proposed
for the Market Data Fee Schedule on each customer invoice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\19\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the requirement to submit all billing
disputes in writing, and with supporting documentation, within ninety
(90) days from receipt of the invoice, is reasonable because, as noted
above, the Exchange provides ample tools for market data subscribers to
properly and swiftly monitor and account for various charges incurred
in a given month. Also, the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply equally to all market data subscribers. The
proposed provision regarding fee disputes in the Market Data Fee
Schedule promotes the protection of investors and the public interest
by providing a clear and concise time frame for market data subscribers
to dispute market data fees and for the Exchange to review such
disputes in a timely manner. In addition, the proposed 90-day
limitation promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it
would be implemented prospectively on all market data subscribers, only
applying to invoices issued after the proposed rule change becomes
operative. Moreover, the proposed billing dispute language, which will
lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to
the billing dispute language adopted by the Cboe Exchanges,\20\ and
with the one difference noted above,\21\ the proposed provision is same
as that in place at the Exchange's affiliates for transaction fees and
at other equities and options markets.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See notes 4-11, supra.
    \21\ Whereas the Exchange, its affiliates and other equities and
options markets allow for sixty (60) days to dispute billing errors,
the Cboe Exchanges' billing dispute policy allows for ``three full
calendar months.'' See note 15, supra.
    \22\ See note 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\23\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change, which would apply
equally to all market data subscribers, would establish a clear process
for billing disputes, and is substantially similar to rules adopted by
the Cboe Exchanges and rules adopted by other equities and options
markets as well as by the Exchange's affiliates for transaction fees.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would impair the
ability of market data subscribers or competing venues that also sell
market data products to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets. Moreover, because the Exchange does not propose to
alter or modify specific fees or credits applicable to market data
subscribers,

the proposal does not impose any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \26\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-17 and should be submitted on
or before April 15, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06121 Filed 3-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 65046]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

In the Matter of Cape Systems Group, Inc., Caribbean Cigar
Company, Casual Male Corp., Cell Power Technologies, Inc., Cellmetrix,
Inc. (f/k/a BCAM International, Inc.), Cellular Products, Inc. (n/k/a
872 Main Street Corp.), Ceptor Corp., CGS Scientific Corp., and
Ciprico, Inc., File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of Trading

October 19, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cape Systems Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended December 31, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Caribbean Cigar Company because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Casual Male Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended February 3, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cell Power Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended April 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cellmetrix, Inc. (f/k/a BCAM International, Inc.) because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cellular Products, Inc. (n/k/a 872 Main Street Corp.) because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31,
1994.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Ceptor Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
CGS Scientific Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended February 29, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Ciprico, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on October 19, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 1, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26698 Filed 10-19-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65270-65274]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0742; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-5]

Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Brookshire, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D airspace, Class E surface area
airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Brookshire, TX, to accommodate the new air traffic control
tower at Houston Executive Airport. The FAA is taking this action for
the safe and efficient use of the airspace to contain Instrument Flight
Rule (IFR) arrival and departure operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 1-800-647-
5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and
effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Houston Executive Airport,
Brookshire, TX.

History

    On March 28, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D and Class E
Airspace at Houston Executive Airport, Brookshire, TX (81 FR 17114)
Docket No. FAA-2014-0742. Houston Executive Airport opened an operating
control tower October 1, 2014. Federal regulations (14 CFR 91.126,
91.127, and 91.129) establish airspace requirements around an operating
tower. Interested parties were invited to participate in three informal
meetings with the local community held on June 17, June 18, and
December 15, 2015, during the course of establishing this airspace, and
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. 146 comments were received by the end of the
comment period May 12, 2016. An additional five comments were received
after the comment period (one having 322 signatures on a petition
opposing the upper altitude limit of 2,700 feet MSL; the petition
supports 2,000 feet MSL as acceptable and safer). One commenter
requested to withdraw his request. Of the 150 comments, many voiced
opinions on different aspects of the proposal as described in more
detail below.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received multiple comments from 150 commenters that have
been grouped to reflect general subject areas. The groups are
categorized as follows;

1. Support of the Class D proposal at 2,500 feet
2. Support of the Class D airspace at 2,000 feet
3. Support of the Class D proposal at 1,700 feet
4. Support for Class D at 2,500 but with Full Circle (4 miles) Airspace
without cutout for Sport Flyers Airport
5. Concerns of east-west VFR corridor compression
6. Increase airspace to match Class B airspace
7. Support for Class E airspace only
8. No support for any change to the present airspace allocation
9. Airspace compression in the northeast quadrant under Class B

    1. Comment: Support of the Class D proposal at 2,500 feet.
    Fifty-one comments supported the proposal, as is, with a top of
2,500 feet MSL. The positive comments ranged from support of the
proposal at 2,500 feet MSL to extending and expanding

controlled airspace to 2,700 feet MSL. One commenter proposed to
increase the upper limit to 2,700 feet MSL. There were a variety of
reasons cited in support of the proposal, including the following:
    (a) Confusing to have an air traffic control tower but no Class D
airspace surrounding the airport. Establishing class D airspace on the
FAA sectionals charts will better identify the air traffic control
tower to our transient and overflying aircraft.
    (b) The air traffic control tower will enhance the safety of the
operations and support the continued growth of the airport. Standard
clearance from Houston Executive Airport is to maintain heading to
2,000 feet. Don't want aircraft at 2,100 feet. Aircraft transitioning
along I-10 are in the direct flight path of departing traffic off TME
RWY 18. Aircraft flying over I-10 at 2,000 feet without communicating
with the tower could easily result in mid-air collision with departing
traffic.
    (c) Limiting airspace to 2,000 feet will only encourage pilots to
transition the airspace with no communication, which is dangerous.
    (d) A few miles north of the airport the Class B airspace begins at
3,000 feet but the majority of the Class B area over the airport is
4,000 feet.
    (e) Simply requesting a transition to the tower will make everyone
aware of the transitioning aircraft.
    (f) The airspace is usually congested with pilots landing or
departing Houston Executive Airport or nearby airports and pilots
flying VFR along I-10 at 2,500 feet Class D ceiling is the ceiling
pilots have been taught to fly.
    (g) Should declare the full circle of 4 NM radius as Class D,
including surface to 2,700 feet MSL as done at KHY, KAFW, KFWS, KADS.
    (h) The rule if adopted would make the controlled airspace around
Houston Executive Airport consistent with comparable towered airfields
in the U.S. Sugarland and Conroe were given higher ceiling altitudes
than 2,500 feet.
    (i) Houston Executive Airport is only airport on the west side of
Houston on the I-10 corridor with the ability to handle large cabin
class aircraft and a runway length of 6,610 feet.
    (j) Not true that having the top of the Class D airspace at 2,500
feet ``squeezes VFR aircraft into a narrow band.'' It is a simple
matter to call Houston Executive Tower and coordinate a clearance to
transit the Class D airspace or call Houston Approach and get a
clearance to transit through the Class B airspace. Support for Class D
Airspace, but radar is necessary.
    FAA response: An operating tower that meets 14 CFR part 91
regulations is entitled to the establishment of airspace around the
tower. Houston Executive Airport (TME) became operational on October 1,
2014. Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, 14 CFR 91.126 and
FAA Order 7400.2 states that no person may operate an aircraft to,
from, or through, an airport having an operational control tower unless
two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and
the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4-
nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL.
    Although the FAA initially considered a top altitude of 2,700 feet,
based on feedback from the first informal meeting and considerations
for the safe and efficient use of airspace, the FAA determined that
2,500 feet, as provided in 14 CFR 91.126, is an appropriate altitude
for the operations at the airport based on further information received
from informal meetings, radar operating practices, and surveillance
equipment. The airspace was tailored to provide minimum inconvenience
while optimizing safety. Radar equipment is not a requirement for a
control tower. This particular tower is a Non Federal Contract Tower;
the FAA is not responsible for providing this type of equipment.
Currently, airport traffic activity does not meet the threshold for
establishing a radar environment.
    2. Comment: Support of the Class D airspace at 2,000 feet.
    Seventy-six comments opposed the 2,500-foot top and another 322
signed a late-filed petition opposing the altitude of 2,500 feet. This
group of 398 did support the creation of the airspace if the top
altitude was 2,000 feet MSL. They said reducing tower coordination with
a 2,000-foot altitude, and allowing for more separation of airspace
between Class B and Class D, would provide a greater and safer
transition for aircraft flying along Houston's east/west corridor.
    Some of the reasons for limiting top of airspace to 2,000 included:
    (a) Other airports (DWH, HQZ, GKY, and SGR) have a top altitude of
2,000 feet.
    (b) A 2,500 foot MSL will severely restrict approaches and
departures at IWS.
    (c) A 2,000 foot ceiling or lower could lessen the effect on the
KIWS traffic located 12 NM E of TME, which has a high proportion of VFR
and sport pilot traffic. Most IFR departures from KIWS (Runway 15) are
cleared to enter controlled airspace heading 270 degrees at 2,000 feet.
    (d) Industry standard for Class D is a tower with a 4-NM radius and
2,000 feet MSL.
    (e) The most commonly used altitudes are around 1,500 feet; this
ensures clearance along the entire route of class B at 2,000 feet and
1000 feet minimum altitude over densely populated terrain. It is also
common for westbound traffic to stay just north of I-10 and east-bound
traffic stays south of I-10. Much of this VFR traffic doesn't want to
communicate with the KTME tower. The wisdom of providing only 500 feet
of space between the top of class D and the base of Class B (3,000 feet
MSL) within two Victor Airways is in question. By establishing the
upper limit of the Class D Airspace to 2,000 feet MSL, pilots would
have a 500-foot separation from traffic in both Class B and Class D
airspace, instead of only 250 feet separation under the proposal.
    FAA response: Transiting VFR aircraft are able to fly through this
airspace at 2,000 feet by establishing radio communications and
receiving approval by the tower based on the air traffic situation. The
same aircraft can fly over the airspace at 2,501 feet without
communicating with the tower. The potential for aircraft to be
departing Houston Executive Airport and climbing to 2,000 feet with
aircraft overflying the same area at 2,001 feet does not provide an
adequate safety net. Although there was a comment that Sugar Land
Airport had a 2,000 foot top altitude, a review of this comment reveals
a top altitude up to, but not including 2,600 feet. David Wayne Hooks
Airport does have up to but not including a 2,000 foot top altitude;
however, this airport underlies Class B airspace that begins at 2,000
feet. An IFR exit to the west of DWH is capped at 2,000 feet. In making
its decision, the FAA reviewed the operations at the airport, informal
meeting notes, radar operating practices, and surveillance equipment.
With respect to the comment about victor airways, they are in a small
section of the class D footprint. Approximately 10 percent underlie
Class B Shelf at 3,000 feet. Controlled traffic on V-68 and V-222 will
be at 3,000 feet or higher. VFR aircraft are knowledgeable about these
airways and are to maneuver themselves to be clear of other aircraft,
see and avoid. The airspace was tailored to provide minimum
inconvenience while optimizing safety. The FAA has determined that
2,500 feet is an appropriate altitude to enhance safety and allow
flexibility to the VFR pilot.
    3. Comment: Support of the Class D proposal at 1,700 feet.
    One commenter supported Class D airspace with an altitude of 1,700
feet.

    FAA response: 14 CFR 91.129 sets minimum altitudes when operating
in Class D airspace, unless otherwise required, by the distance from
cloud criteria; each pilot of a turbine-powered airplane and each pilot
of a large airplane must climb to an altitude of 1,500 feet above the
surface as rapidly as possible. The FAA has determined that 2,500 feet
is an appropriate altitude to enhance safety and allow flexibility to
the VFR pilot.
    4. Comment: Support for Class D at 2,500 feet but with Full Circle
(4 miles) Airspace without Cutout for Sport Flyers Airport.
    FAA response: The informal meetings with the community resulted in
reducing the size of the proposed Class D to its current cutout shape.
This proposal reduces the allowed 4-nautical mile radius around TME to
assist the operators transitioning in and out of Sport Flyers Airport
without the need of establishing radio communications with TME. The
proposed cutout also allows for accommodation of a private airstrip to
the southwest of TME. This cutout complies with established rules in
FAA Order 7400.2K Chapter 17-2-3, SATELLITE AIRPORTS, paragraph a.
Using shelves and/or cutouts to the extent practicable, exclude
satellite airports from the Class D airspace area.
    5. Comment: Concerns of east-west VFR corridor compression.
    Forty-eight comments were received as to this loss of airspace and
to the creation of airspace above 2,000 feet as a safety issue, having
a major impact on the VFR community. They commented that the east/west
corridor along I-10 has long been a familiar route for VFR pilots
transitioning through the airspace for the last thirty years; they
enjoy the visual reference and not having to communicate with small
airports at the accustomed altitude of 2,000 feet. Comments included:
    (a) Compressing transient VFR traffic along I-10 corridor to 500'
vertically will increase risk of collision.
    (b) Will make flying cross country more stressful.
    (c) Proposed airspace is dangerous because it sits at the mouth or
exit of the VFR corridor between the two huge Class B airspaces over
Houston.
    (d) KTME does not need Class D because it does not have a lot of
traffic and it is not for the common good of all.
    (e) Proposed airspace significantly reduces usable airspace for the
majority to accommodate a few elite jets; Safety should be for the most
pilots, not the richest. There are only a few IFR days where Class D
might be beneficial; but there are many VFR flyers.
    (f) Class D should not be implemented until tower existence is
published.
    (g) Will cause transition to South and cause flights and noise over
residential areas of Katy, Cinco Ranch, and Brookshire. Should consider
these alternatives: (1) No Class D; (2) Class D ceiling 1,500 AGL
rather than 2,000 AGL; (3) Make southern border of Class D align with
northern edge of I-10.
    (h) VFR traffic will deviate around the south side putting west and
east-bound traffic on potential collision course for the following
reasons:
    (1) By establishing Class D around KTME, this VFR traffic will
choose to deviate around the south side of the proposed Class D. That
will put west- and east-bound traffic on a potential collision course.
Although in practice VFR traffic is often at 1,500' even this far out
west, it could fly at a higher altitude. However, even the Houston VFR
flyway chart encourages VFR traffic to stay below 2,500' in this area.
Adhering to that recommended altitude would still require a deviation
south around the proposed KTME Class-D, so the safety concern noted
above still stands.
    (2) VFR aircraft flying in opposite directions would normally have
a 1,000 ft. separation between themselves (whole altitudes + 500 ft.).
With only 1,500 foot above TME (2,500 ft to 4,000 ft) . . . what are
the procedures for safe separation??? IFR are at the whole altitudes!
So . . . If TME Class D has a ceiling of 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft to 3,900 ft
is all that is left! In such a case. Only one VFR altitude is available
[Eastbound: 3,500 ft] [FAR Part 91.159] and that leaves Westbound VFR
traffic with dangerous choices. VFR traffic flying over TME at 2,100
with a 2,000 ft. corridor above TME is less likely than VFR traffic
using 2,600 or 3,900 in a 1,500 ft. corridor. Westbound VFR won't have
any option that will give them more than 400 ft. separation from
Eastbound VFR or IFR traffic.
    (i) Would have to drop 1,500 feet in order to land at West Houston
Airport when coming from the West. Would we be better off with this
traffic flying over Houston at 10,000 feet or around the Class B
airspace?
    (j) This would interfere with all the commercial flights coming
into IAH and HOU.
    (k) Directly effects VFR traffic on Victor airways.
    (l) Rather than speak with the tower at KTME, aircraft will in all
likelihood divert either north or south. This then increases over
flights to X09 and the Gloster (1XO7) skydive location JIM MAIM.
    (m) Eliminates practice area used by local pilots.
    (n) IFR has no priority over VFR in uncontrolled airspace.
    (o) Same result can be achieved by Class E controlled airspace to
the ground, not just at nighttime like in this proposal, but for 24/24
instead of a daytime Class D. I would therefore propose to change the
controlled airspace for KTME to Class E 24h instead of day Class D/
Night Class E.
    (p) IFR pilots could use Hobby.
    (q) IFR pilots have the same obligation as VFR pilots to ``See and
Avoid'' when in VMC.
    (r) Aircraft diverting either north or south would put aircraft
closer to the instrument approaches for KTME.
    FAA response: The term corridor is generally used for the portion
of I-10 that is underneath the Class B airspace; when the Class B
airspace terminates, so does the corridor. It is important to note that
the portion of the east/west I-10 corridor that lies inside the Class D
does not underlie Class B. The VFR operation can still occur along I-10
either by circumnavigating the area approximately 14 flying miles or by
establishing radio communications with the operating tower according to
14 CFR 91.126 or (if Class E airspace) 14 CFR 91.127. Since this area
is not charted and the opening of TME was not widely known, the FAA has
provided relief during this period by waiving the requirement to
establish radio communications with the control tower during the
airspace rulemaking process. 14 CFR 91.129 set minimum altitudes when
operating in Class D airspace, unless otherwise required by the
distance from cloud criteria, each pilot of a turbine-powered airplane
and each pilot of a large airplane must climb to an altitude of 1,500
feet above the surface as rapidly as possible. The distance needed to
climb to 1,500 feet does not make the option to cap the southern border
at I-10 feasible. VFR aircraft departing to and from West Houston
Airport could have a normal climb/descent profile by communicating with
TME tower and receiving permission to transition through the airspace;
this should not be approved if aircraft activity is in the same area.
This would maintain or increase safety from today's environment.
    This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, including no significant noise
impacts. No extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation
of an environmental assessment.
    When operating in VFR weather conditions, it is the pilot's
responsibility

to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft (14 CFR
91.113(a)). The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) recommends that
for aircraft 8,000 feet AGL and below, extra vigilance be maintained
and that monitoring an appropriate control frequency is to the VFR
pilot's advantage to ``get the picture of traffic in the area.'' VFR
pilots are to see and avoid other aircraft and to be extremely vigilant
in congested VFR areas and Victor airways. Once again, an operating
tower that meets the requirements of FAA Order 7400.2K, Chapter 17, is
authorized Class D airspace. This proposal will have Class D airspace
during tower operating hours and Class E surface area airspace during
non-operating hours. The proposed altitude of 2,500 does not interfere
with commercial traffic landing or departing IAH or HOU. The formal
establishment of Class D airspace will allow for charting of the
airspace dimensions and altitude which will provide notice to pilots to
communicate or circumnavigate this area. The pilot will not be affected
if the aircraft flies above 2,500 feet. The FAA acknowledges the
inconvenience to the VFR pilot of flying at or above 2,500 feet and
establishing radio communications with control towers. 14 CFR 91.126,
Class G airspace; 14 CFR 91.127, Class E airspace require communication
with the operating control tower (TME) unless otherwise authorized by
ATC. The FAA does not agree that altitude compression will be
constrained in this area since the floor of the Class B airspace is
southeast of the proposed Class D airspace.
    6. Comment: Three commenters stated that the proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) should be to establish Class B Airspace in the Brookshire, TX
area, instead of Class D and Class E Airspace. The commenters preferred
to have the entire airspace controlled by the FAA. Some of the reasons
cited in favor of Class B airspace were:
    (a) A few miles north of the airport, the Class B airspace begins
at 3,000 feet but the majority of the Class B area over the airport is
4,000 feet.
    (b) Raising the top to meet the Class B further removes any
confusion to transient traffic.
    (c) TME, with its physical location near Houston's Corporate Energy
Corridor and ample 6,610' x 100' runway, is attracting an ever growing
number of larger and faster aircraft (turboprops and jets).
    (d) Class D airspace tends to have less recreational flyers and
experimental traffic that tend to increase immediate airport traffic
congestion and noise with constant circling for touch and goes, etc.
    FAA response: This airport and its location do not meet criteria
for Class B airspace.
    7. Comment: Supports Class E airspace only.
    Five comments received supported the proposal of 2,500 feet if the
airspace would be classified as Class E airspace.
    FAA response: The requirement for VFR aircraft to establish radio
communications is still in effect for Class G and/or Class E airspace;
14 CFR 91.126 and 14 CFR 91.127. Establishing the proposed Class D
airspace will reduce the overall airspace dimensions. Approval to
transit the area is still required; the benefit will be that all
aircraft will have access to VFR charts and the airspace would be
depicted.
    14 CFR 91.127, Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in
Class E airspace, states:
    (c) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized
or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through
or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way
radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the
control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical
miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if
the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate
that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR
weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a
clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in
flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with 14 CFR 91.185.
    8. Comment: No support for any change to the present airspace
allocation.
    Thirty-one comments received rejected the proposal entirely. An
immediate return to the status quo was requested based on the long
standing operations in this area. Additionally, many commenters cited
the east/west I-10 corridor and the compression of the VFR navigable
air space in the northeast affected area as a concern. The majority of
comments provided for an alternate choice of a top altitude of 2,000
feet.
    FAA response: The TME control tower opened October 1, 2014, and is
operational; the status quo can no longer be maintained. The FAA is
complying with all appropriate regulations.
    9. Comment: Airspace compression in the northeast quadrant under
Class B.
    Twenty comments received concerned the compression of navigable
airspace under Class B and Class D airspace around TME. Cited were
safety concerns for VFR aircraft to squeeze into an already congested
airspace. The concerns were departures of airports underneath the Class
B, practice areas for student training, and the airspace compression
along the east west I-10 corridor.
    FAA response: The FAA has reviewed these concerns and agrees this
is a compression of airspace with the establishment of Class D
airspace. The proposal notes that 10 percent of the Class D footprint
sits below the Class B shelf at 3,000 feet. The east/west I-10 corridor
underlies Class B airspace; however, the portion of I-10 that does
underlie the proposed Class D does not underlie Class B airspace.
During the informal meetings this factor was taken into consideration
and resulted in the proposed airspace being lowered from 2,700 feet to
2,500 feet to allow for more airspace. The compression to the northeast
underlying Class B airspace is not considered the VFR corridor. The FAA
believes this to have minimal impact on those aircraft that would have
to fly around or over the proposed airspace.
    The tower at Houston Executive Airport is established and the Class
D and E airspace areas are being provided according to federal
regulations. The Class D proposal to reduce the allowed footprint of
the airspace provides for safe and efficient use of airspace. Class D
enhances safety by setting VFR weather minima specified in 14 CFR
91.155 and through the communications and other requirements in 14 CFR
91.129 (and 14 CFR 91.127 for E airspace). Once Class D airspace is
charted, the information is accessible to all pilots. The FAA
understands the concerns of the commenters. However, the FAA chose the
upper limit of the airspace at 2,500 feet to establish higher weather
minima for VFR aircraft, transitioning above the airspace thus
restricting access to VFR flights in the airspace while IFR operations
are in progress. VFR aircraft transitioning at 2,000 feet through the
airspace will still be allowed to do so as long as radio communications
are established with the tower prior to the aircraft entering the Class
D airspace, and no additional conflicts with other airspace users
arise.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A
dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class D airspace, and Class E surface area airspace
extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL
within a 4-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport, excluding that
airspace west and northwest, to accommodate the establishment of an
airport traffic control tower. This action reduces the allowed 4
nautical mile radius around Houston Executive Airport to assist the
operators transitioning in and out of Sport Flyers Airport without the
need of establishing radio communications with Houston Executive
Airport. The proposed cutout also allows for accommodation for a
private airstrip to the southwest of Houston Executive Airport. This
amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71
also establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth within a 6.6-mile radius of Houston
Executive Airport, to accommodate standard instrument approach
procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management
of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class D and E airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, 6002,
and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016,
and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3,
2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

ASW TX D Brookshire, TX [New]

Houston Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]48'18'' N., long. 95[deg]53'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29[deg]46'44''
N., long. 95[deg]58'06'' W., to lat. 29[deg]47'35'' N., long.
95[deg]55'49'' W., to lat. 29[deg]51'55'' N., long. 95[deg]55'52''
W., thence clockwise along the 4-mile radius of Houston Executive
Airport to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

ASW TX E2 Brookshire, TX [New]

Houston Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]48'18'' N., long. 95[deg]53'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29[deg]46'44''
N., long. 95[deg]58'06'' W., to lat. 29[deg]47'35'' N., long.
95[deg]55'49'' W., to lat. 29[deg]51'55'' N., long. 95[deg]55'52''
W., thence clockwise along the 4-mile radius of Houston Executive
Airport, to the point of beginning. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

ASW TX E5 Brookshire, TX [New]

Houston Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]48'18'' N., long. 95[deg]53'52'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on September 14, 2016.
Vonnie L. Royal,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-22723 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		4/23/15

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	4/13/15 Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants with NRDC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On April 13, 2015, Aileen Roder and I met with David Doniger, Ben Longstreth, and David Baake of the Natural Resources Defense Council to discuss legal issues concerning the Clean Power Plan proposal for existing power plants.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23515]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1627-000]

AM Wind Repower 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
AM Wind Repower LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, 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 May 4, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at https://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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08464 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19747]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Order 2012-3-7; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022]

Proposed Cancelation

    of the Air Taxi Authority Of VIH Cougar Helicopters, Inc.
AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2012-3-7) Docket DOT-OST-
2012-0022.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that VIH
Cougar Helicopters, Inc. is not a U.S. citizen as defined in 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(15) and canceling its Part 298 exemption authority.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
April 2, 2012. .

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2012-0022 and addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590,
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-7785.

Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-6408 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61037]
[DOCID:fr23no09-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0599; FRL-8982-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revision to Clean Air Interstate Rule Sulfur Dioxide Trading
Program; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final
rule to approve the timing change for the first phase of the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) trading budget under the Commonwealth of
Virginia's approved Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) regulations. In
the direct final rule published on October 22, 2009 (74 FR 54485), we
stated that if we received adverse comment by November 23, 2009, the
rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received
an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment received in a
subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published
on October 22, 2009 (74 FR 54534). EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.

DATES: Effective Date: The direct final rule is withdrawn as of
November 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 5, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
Accordingly, the addition of an entry for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140, Part IV,
Section 5-140-3400 to the table in paragraph (c) is withdrawn as of
November 23, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-27826 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 53496]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-14-000.
    Applicants: Panda Hummel Station LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Panda Hummel Station LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-615-002.
    Applicants: Albany Green Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Revisions for Exelon MBR
Entities to be effective 11/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2201-002.
    Applicants: Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tariff Revisions of the Exelon MBR
Entities to be effective 11/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2470-001.
    Applicants: Red Dirt Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Red Dirt Wind Project, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 10/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-261-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-11-07_SA 3028 Ameren
IL-Prairie Power Project#7 Elvaston to be effective 11/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20171107-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-262-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reliability Pricing Model
Offer Cap Tariff Revision--2018 Base Residual Auction to be effective
1/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20171107-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-263-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc., et. al. submits Installed
Capacity Requirement, Hydro Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits
and Related Values for the 2021/2022 Capacity Commitment Period.
    Filed Date: 11/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20171107-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-264-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Informational filing for
Qualification in the Forward Capacity Market.
    Filed Date: 11/7/17.
    Accession Number: 20171107-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-265-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1067R8 East Texas Electric
Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-266-000.
    Applicants: Southern Partners, INC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Southern Partners, INC MBR
Application to be effective 11/8/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-267-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 3148; Queue No. X1-021 to be effective 12/26/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171108-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 8, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24789 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68344-68345]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-1877]

Necessary Automated External Defibrillator Accessories: Policy
Regarding Compliance Date; Immediately in Effect Guidance for Industry,
Stakeholders, Health Care Professionals, and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Necessary Automated
External Defibrillator Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date.''
FDA is issuing this guidance to revise its compliance policy regarding
the deadline for filing premarket approval (PMA) applications for
previously cleared accessories necessary to the operation of automated
external defibrillator (AED) systems.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-D-1877 for ``Necessary Automated External Defibrillator
Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Necessary Automated External Defibrillator Accessories: Policy
Regarding Compliance Date'' to the Office of Policy, Guidance and
Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring,

MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that
office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Paulsen, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2108, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6883.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In February 2015, FDA published a final order requiring the
submission of premarket approval (PMA) applications for new and
existing AEDs and necessary AED accessories. The final order required
the submission of a PMA application for any preamendments and
substantially equivalent AED necessary accessory--such as batteries,
pad electrodes, adapters, and hardware keys for pediatric use--within
90 days of the date of the final order; however, the final order also
stated that FDA did not intend to enforce compliance with the PMA
submission requirement for these necessary AED accessories for 60
months following the date of the final order, which was February 3,
2020.
    For the reasons described in the guidance, at this time FDA does
not intend to enforce compliance with the PMA submission requirement
for these necessary AED accessories until February 3, 2022.
    This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment
because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is
not feasible or appropriate (see section 701(h)(1)(C) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)) and 21 CFR
10.115(g)(2)). FDA has determined that this guidance document presents
a less burdensome policy that is consistent with public health.
Although this guidance is immediately in effect, FDA will consider all
comments received and revise the guidance document as appropriate.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on Necessary Automated External Defibrillator
Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date. It does not establish
any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an
electronic copy of ``Necessary Automated External Defibrillator
Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date'' may send an email
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of
the document. Please use the document number 20043 and complete title
to identify the guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required
for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information
are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collection of
information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB
as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
          21 CFR part                     Topic                 No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
814, subparts A through E......  Premarket approval.....       0910-0231
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 22, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-23841 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64788-64789]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23347]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0041; FRL-10374-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing Area Source Category (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing Area Source Category (EPA ICR Number 2348.06,
OMB Control Number 2060-0633), to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through December 31, 2022. Public comments were
previously requested, via the Federal Register, on April 8, 2022 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor and a person is not required to respond to
a collection of information unless it displays a currently-valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 25,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0041, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the

public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area
Source Category (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC) were proposed on June
1, 2009, and promulgated on December 3, 2009. These regulations apply
to both existing facilities and new facilities that are an area source
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions and that either use or have
the potential to emit urban air toxics (i.e., benzene; methylene
chloride; cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel compounds). New
facilities include those that commenced either construction or
reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Paint and allied products
manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 219 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 504 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $134,000 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-23347 Filed 10-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 200 (Thursday, October 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65449-65451]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22824]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34049; File No. 812-15159]

Snowflake, Inc.

October 9, 2020.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under Section 3(b)(2) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').
    Applicant: Snowflake, Inc. (``Snowflake'').
    Summary of Application: Applicant seeks an order under Section
3(b)(2) of the Act declaring it to be primarily engaged in a business
other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading
in securities. Applicant states that it is primarily engaged in the
business of operating a cloud-based data platform.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 17, 2020 and
amended on October 7, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
declaration will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving Applicant with a copy
of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by the
Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November 3, 2020 and should be accompanied
by proof of service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the
Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES:  The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicant: 450
Concar Drive, San Mateo, California 94402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rochelle Kauffman Plesset, Senior
Counsel, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a Delaware corporation that, directly and through
its wholly-owned subsidiaries,\1\ provides a cloud-based data platform
(``Platform'') that enables customers to consolidate data to drive
business insights, build data-driven applications and share data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicant states that while its business operations are
primarily conducted through the parent level entity, Snowflake also
maintains wholly-owned subsidiaries that complement and advance its
overall business model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicant states that its business operations necessitate the
Applicant to generate and maintain significant amounts of liquid
capital. Applicant states that the cloud computing industry is a
capital-intensive industry that requires it to have readily available
capital for ongoing operations and expenditures. Applicant also states
that it needs to maintain substantial liquid capital to fund research
and development activities; address fluctuations in results of its
operations; and pursue potential strategic transactions, including
acquisition of businesses, new technologies, services and other assets
and strategic investments that complement its business.
    3. Applicant states that it seeks to preserve its capital and
maintain liquidity, pending the use of such capital to support its
business operations, by investing in cash items, government securities,
as well as in short-term investment grade and liquid fixed income and
money market instruments that earn competitive market returns and
provide a low level of credit risk (``Capital Preservation
Investments''). Applicant states that it does not invest in securities
for short-term speculative purposes.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Applicant seeks an order under Section 3(b)(2) of the Act
declaring that it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities and
therefore is not an investment company as defined in the Act.
    2. Section 3(a)(l)(A) of the Act defines the term ``investment
company'' to include an issuer that is or holds itself out as being
engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of
investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(l)(C) of
the Act further defines an investment company as an issuer that is
engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing,
reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and owns or
proposes to acquire investment securities having a value in excess of
40% of the value of the issuer's total assets (exclusive of Government
securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Section 3(a)(2)
of the Act defines ``investment securities'' to include all securities
except Government securities, securities issued by employees'
securities companies, and securities issued by majority-owned
subsidiaries of the owner which (a) are not investment companies and
(b) are not relying on the exclusions from the definition of investment
company in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Act.
    3. Applicant states that it does not hold itself out as being
engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading
in securities. Applicant states, however, that it maintains a
significant amount of intangible assets, such as internally-generated
intellectual property, that may not appear on its balance sheet. In
addition, Applicant states that it

recently engaged in an initial public offering (``IPO'') but that
proceeds from that offering has been deployed only on a limited basis.
Applicant states that it intends to invest a significant portion of the
IPO proceeds in Capital Preservation Investments. Applicant states that
it also may make a limited investment in private companies consistent
with its corporate strategy. Such investments are considered to be
investment securities for purposes of Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Accordingly, Applicant states that while it currently does not meet the
definition of investment company in Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act, it
will likely meet that definition following its deployment of the
proceeds from its IPO and will continue to do so over the long term.
    4. Section 3(b)(2) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding
Section 3(a)(l)(C) of the Act, the Commission may issue an order
declaring an issuer to be primarily engaged in a business other than
that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in
securities directly, through majority-owned subsidiaries, or controlled
companies conducting similar types of businesses. Applicant requests an
order under Section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring that it is primarily
engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting,
owning, holding, or trading in securities, and therefore is not an
investment company as defined in the Act.
    5. In determining whether an issuer is ``primarily engaged'' in a
non-investment company business under Section 3(b)(2) of the Act, the
Commission considers the following factors: (a) The company's
historical development, (b) its public representations of policy, (c)
the activities of its officers and directors, (d) the nature of its
present assets, and (e) the sources of its present income.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada, 26 SEC 426, 427 (1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicant submits that it satisfies the criteria for issuance of
an order under Section 3(b)(2) of the Act because Applicant is
primarily engaged in the business of operating its Platform and is not
in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading
in securities.
    a. Historical Development. Applicant states that it was
incorporated in 2012 and first offered its Platform in 2014, with data
warehousing as its core use. Applicant states that customer have also
used the Platform for additional purposes, including data engineering,
data lakes, data science, data applications and data exchange.
    b. Public Representations of Policy. Applicant states that it has
consistently represented publicly that it is engaged in the business of
operating its Platform. Applicant represents that it has never held
itself out, and does not now hold itself out, as an investment company
within the meaning of the Act or as engaging in the business of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities.
Applicant's offering documents emphasize its operating results and do
not emphasize either its investment income or the possibility of
significant appreciation from its cash management investment strategies
as a material factor in its business or future growth.
    c. Activities of Officers and Directors. Applicant represents that
its board of directors and executive officers devote substantially all
of their time to overseeing Applicant's business of providing its
platform to customers. Applicant's cash management activities are
managed internally by its Chief Financial Officer and externally by
four investment managers, whose activities are supervised by the Chief
Financial Officer. Applicant states that its Chief Financial Officer
spends less than 1% of his time monitoring Applicant's cash balances
and managing short-term investment securities in accordance with
Applicant's investment policy. Further, Applicant states that no
executive officer, other than the Chief Financial Officer, spends time
monitoring the cash balances and managing short-term investment
securities.
    Applicant states that as of July 31, 2020, it had approximately
2,037 employees. Fewer than five employees spend time on matters
related to the management of Applicant's investment securities.
    d. Nature of Assets. Applicant states that as of July 31, 2020
Applicant's investment securities constituted approximately 20% of its
total assets (excluding Government securities and cash items) on an
unconsolidated basis.\3\ Furthermore, 100% of its investment securities
consisted of Capital Preservation Investments. Applicant anticipates
that once proceeds from the IPO are deployed, approximately 89% of its
total assets (excluding Government securities and cash) will be in
investment securities, substantially all of which will be in Capital
Preservation Investments. In addition, Applicant states that it may
also invest in private companies as part of its corporate strategy.
However, Applicant states that it does not plan to invest more than 10%
of its total unconsolidated assets (excluding Government securities and
cash items) in investment securities that are not Capital Preservation
Investments, including investments made as part of its corporate
development strategy. Applicant states that it expects to continue
investing in Capital Preservation Investments, as well as Government
securities and cash items, to fund its current and future operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicant states that none of its subsidiaries holds
investment securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Sources of Income and Revenue. Applicant represents that since
its inception it has had net operating losses. It does, however, derive
income from its investment securities. Applicant states that a review
of its current sources of revenues provides a more accurate picture of
its operating company status, particularly given the upward trend in
recognizing substantially increased revenues based on the growth in its
customers usage of the Platform. Applicant states that, for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2020, Applicant earned approximately $252.2
million of product revenues, compared to $95.7 million as of January
31, 2019. In contrast, Applicant earned $10.8 million in net investment
income in the fiscal year ending January 31, 2020 compared to $ 8.4
million in net investment income in the prior fiscal year. All such
income was derived from the Capital Preservation Investments,
Government securities and Cash Items. Applicant states that if net
investment income were compared to its total revenues it would account
for approximately 4% of total revenues in the fiscal year ended January
31, 2020 and approximately 9% of total revenues for the prior fiscal
year.
    7. Applicant asserts that its historical development, its public
representations of policy, the activities of its officers and
directors, the nature of its assets and its sources of revenue, as
discussed in the application, demonstrate that it is engaged primarily
in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning,
holding, or trading securities. Applicant thus asserts that it
satisfies the criteria for issuing an order under Section 3(b)(2) of
the Act.

Applicant's Conditions

    Applicant agrees that any order granted pursuant to the application
will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Applicant will continue to allocate and use its accumulated cash
and investment securities for bona fide business purposes; and
    2. Applicant will refrain from investing or trading in securities
for short-term speculative purposes.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22824 Filed 10-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P