(i) The answers provided by the individual on that checklist,
including the individual's answers regarding medical history, are true
and complete;
    (ii) The individual understands that he or she is prohibited under
FAA regulations from acting as pilot in command, or any other capacity
as a required flight crew member, if he or she knows or has reason to
know of any medical deficiency or medically disqualifying condition
that would make the individual unable to operate the aircraft in a safe
manner; and
    (iii) The individual is aware of the regulations pertaining to the
prohibition on operations during medical deficiency and has no
medically disqualifying conditions in accordance with applicable law;
    (b) A section with instructions for the individual to provide the
completed checklist to the State-licensed physician performing the
comprehensive medical examination required under Sec.  68.5; and
    (c) A section, for the physician to complete, that instructs the
physician--
    (1) To perform a clinical examination of--
    (i) Head, face, neck, and scalp;
    (ii) Nose, sinuses, mouth, and throat;
    (iii) Ears, general (internal and external canals), and eardrums
(perforation);
    (iv) Eyes (general), ophthalmoscopic, pupils (equality and
reaction), and ocular motility (associated parallel movement,
nystagmus);
    (v) Lungs and chest (not including breast examination);
    (vi) Heart (precordial activity, rhythm, sounds, and murmurs);
    (vii) Vascular system (pulse, amplitude, and character, and arms,
legs, and others);
    (viii) Abdomen and viscera (including hernia);
    (ix) Anus (not including digital examination);
    (x) Skin;
    (xi) G-U system (not including pelvic examination);
    (xii) Upper and lower extremities (strength and range of motion);
    (xiii) Spine and other musculoskeletal;
    (xiv) Identifying body marks, scars, and tattoos (size and
location);
    (xv) Lymphatics;
    (xvi) Neurologic (tendon reflexes, equilibrium, senses, cranial
nerves, and coordination, etc.);
    (xvii) Psychiatric (appearance, behavior, mood, communication, and
memory);
    (xviii) General systemic;
    (xix) Hearing;
    (xx) Vision (distant, near, and intermediate vision, field of
vision, color vision, and ocular alignment);
    (xxi) Blood pressure and pulse; and
    (xxii) Anything else the physician, in his or her medical judgment,
considers necessary;
    (2) To exercise medical discretion to address, as medically
appropriate, any medical conditions identified, and to exercise medical
discretion in determining whether any medical tests are warranted as
part of the comprehensive medical examination;
    (3) To discuss all drugs the individual reports taking
(prescription and nonprescription) and their potential to interfere
with the safe operation of an aircraft or motor vehicle;
    (4) To sign the checklist, stating: ``I certify that I discussed
all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination,
discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere
with his or her ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle,
and performed an examination that included all of the items on this
checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that,
as presently treated, could interfere with the individual's ability to
safely operate an aircraft.''; and
    (5) To provide the date the comprehensive medical examination was
completed, and the physician's full name, address, telephone number,
and State medical license number.

Sec.  68.9  Special Issuance process.

    (a) General. An individual who has met the qualifications to
operate an aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter and is
seeking to serve as a pilot in command under that section must have
completed the process for obtaining an Authorization for Special
Issuance of a Medical Certificate for each of the following:
    (1) A mental health disorder, limited to an established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of--
    (i) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly
manifested itself by overt acts;
    (ii) A psychosis, defined as a case in which an individual--
    (A) Has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or
disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of
psychosis; or
    (B) May reasonably be expected to manifest delusions,
hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other
commonly accepted symptoms of psychosis;
    (iii) A bipolar disorder; or
    (iv) A substance dependence within the previous 2 years, as defined
in Sec.  67.307(a)(4) of this chapter.
    (2) A neurological disorder, limited to an established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
    (i) Epilepsy;
    (ii) Disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause; or

    (iii) A transient loss of control of nervous system functions
without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
    (3) A cardiovascular condition, limited to a one-time special
issuance for each diagnosis of the following:
    (i) Myocardial infarction;
    (ii) Coronary heart disease that has required treatment;
    (iii) Cardiac valve replacement; or
    (iv) Heart replacement.
    (b) Special rule for cardiovascular conditions. In the case of an
individual with a cardiovascular condition, the process for obtaining
an Authorization for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate shall be
satisfied with the successful completion of an appropriate clinical
evaluation without a mandatory wait period.
    (c) Special rule for mental health conditions. (1) In the case of
an individual with a clinically diagnosed mental health condition, the
ability to operate an aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter
shall not apply if--
    (i) In the judgment of the individual's State-licensed medical
specialist, the condition--
    (A) Renders the individual unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the airman privileges required to operate an aircraft under
Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter; or
    (B) May reasonably be expected to make the individual unable to
perform the duties or exercise the privileges required to operate an
aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter; or
    (ii) The individual's driver's license is revoked by the issuing
agency as a result of a clinically diagnosed mental health condition.
    (2) Subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an individual
clinically diagnosed with a mental health condition shall certify every
2 years, in conjunction with the certification under Sec.  68.3(b)(3),
that the individual is under the care of a State-licensed medical
specialist for that mental health condition.
    (d) Special rule for neurological conditions. (1) In the case of an
individual with a clinically diagnosed neurological condition, the
ability to operate an aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter
shall not apply if--
    (i) In the judgment of the individual's State-licensed medical
specialist, the condition--
    (A) Renders the individual unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the airman privileges required to operate an aircraft under
Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter; or
    (B) May reasonably be expected to make the individual unable to
perform the duties or exercise the privileges required to operate an
aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter; or
    (ii) The individual's driver's license is revoked by the issuing
agency as a result of a clinically diagnosed neurological condition.
    (2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, an individual
clinically diagnosed with a neurological condition shall certify every
2 years, in conjunction with the certification under Sec.  68.3(b)(3),
that the individual is under the care of a State-licensed medical
specialist for that neurological condition.

Sec.  68.11  Authority to require additional information.

    (a) If the Administrator receives credible or urgent information,
including from the National Driver Register or the Administrator's
Safety Hotline, that reflects on an individual's ability to safely
operate an aircraft under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter, the
Administrator may require the individual to provide additional
information or history so that the Administrator may determine whether
the individual is safe to continue operating under that section.
    (b) The Administrator may use credible or urgent information
received under paragraph (a) to request an individual to provide
additional information or to take actions under 49 U.S.C. 44709(b).

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
8. The authority citation for part 91 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
9. In Sec.  91.319, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.

* * * * *
    (j) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate under Sec.  61.113(i) of this chapter unless the aircraft
is carrying not more than 6 occupants.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f) and Sec. 2307 of Public Law 114-190 on December 22, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-31602 Filed 1-10-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 19689]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0036]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on March 8, 2021, Georgetown
Loop Railroad (GLRX) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 230, Steam
Locomotive Inspection and Maintenance Standards. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0036.
    Specifically, GLRX requests relief from 49 CFR 230.16(a)(2), Fifth
annual inspection, of flexible staybolts and caps, for a period of one
year for locomotive GLRX #111. The locomotive has operated for 375
service days since it entered service in 2016 with a newly constructed
boiler. GLRX states that because of the coronavirus disease 2019, GLRX
#111 did not incur any service days in 2020. If granted the requested
relief, GLRX explains it would perform the required testing at the 2022
annual inspection.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 1, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-07654 Filed 4-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1681-1687]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74011; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-149]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees
for NYSE ArcaBook

January 7, 2015.
    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 December 24, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 fees for NYSE ArcaBook to: (1)
Establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-
display basis and add an access fee for managed non-display data
recipients, operative on January 1, 2015; and (2) establish a fee cap
for redistributor internal support use, operative on March 1, 2015. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site 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 fees for NYSE ArcaBook, as set
forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''), as follows:
     To establish eligibility requirements for redistribution
of market data on a Managed Non-Display basis and establish an access
fee for Managed Non-Display data recipients, operative on January 1,
2015; and
     To establish a fee cap for redistributor internal support
use, operative on March 1, 2015.
Proposed Changes to Managed Non-Display Services and Fees
    Non-Display Use of NYSE Arca Equities market data means accessing,
processing, or consuming NYSE Arca Equities market data delivered via
direct and/or Redistributor \4\ data feeds for a purpose other than in
support of a data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display
Services manages and controls the access to NYSE ArcaBook and does not
allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution of
NYSE ArcaBook by the data recipients. Managed Non-Display Services Fees
apply when a data recipient's non-

display applications are hosted by a Redistributor that has been
approved for Managed Non-Display Services.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE data product to a data recipient or to any system
that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69315 (Apr. 5,
2013), 78 FR 21668 (Apr. 11, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-37) and 73011
(Sept. 5, 2014), 79 FR 54315 (Sept. 11, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-93)
(``Non-Display Fee filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is
required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data
recipients that are receiving NYSE ArcaBook through the Redistributor's
Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE ArcaBook
through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service does not have any
reporting requirements.
    Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved
under the Unit-of-Count policy.\6\ In connection with the retirement of
the Unit-of-Count Policy,\7\ eligibility for Managed Non-Display
Services of NYSE ArcaBook would no longer be based on eligibility under
the Unit-of-Count Policy. The Exchange proposes instead to establish
eligibility requirements specifically for the redistribution of market
data for Managed Non-Display Services. The Exchange also proposes to
add an access fee that would apply to a data recipient that receives
NYSE ArcaBook from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62188 (May 27,
2010), 75 FR 70311 (Nov. 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-23)
(establishing Unit-of-Count Policy for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca
Trades). NYSE ArcaBook uses the Unit-of-Count Policy for purposes of
determining eligibility for Managed Non-Display Services.
    \7\ The Exchange has separately proposed to retire the Unit-of-
Count Policy and modify the eligibility requirements for Managed
Non-Display Services for all of its proprietary market data
products, including NYSE ArcaBook, and thereby harmonize the
eligibility requirements for all NYSE Arca Equities data products
that have Managed Non-Display fees. See SR-NYSEArca-2014-147 (filing
for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades) and SR-NYSEArca-2014-148
(filing for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed) (collectively, ``NYSE Arca
2014 Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed
Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements
for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the
Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE ArcaBook for
data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further
internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by
data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-
Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the
data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the
Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE
ArcaBook in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than
using raw message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE
ArcaBook prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of
NYSE ArcaBook and without rendering NYSE ArcaBook inaccurate, unfair,
uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The proposed
eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution models
currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70748 (Oct. 23,
2013), 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-105) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``Phlx'')); 70269 (Aug. 27, 2013), 78 FR 54336
(Sept. 3, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-106) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish non-display
Managed Data Solution for NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'')); and
69182 (Mar. 19, 2013), 78 FR 18378 (Mar. 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-28)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for Phlx
equities market PSX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display
Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-
Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a
monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE ArcaBook
through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data
recipient receiving NYSE ArcaBook through a Redistributor's Managed
Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting
requirements.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of
$1,000/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE
ArcaBook from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, data recipients are
required to pay an Access Fee of $2,000/month to receive NYSE ArcaBook,
which has not been charged to data recipients of Managed Non-Display
Services of NYSE ArcaBook. Because the purpose of an access fee is to
charge data recipients for access to the Exchange's proprietary market
data, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge an access fee
to all data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display
Services.\9\ In recognition that data recipients of Managed Non-Display
Services receive NYSE ArcaBook in a controlled format, the Exchange
proposes to establish an Access Fee that would be applicable only to
data recipients of Managed Non-Display Services and that would be half
the size of the current Access Fee. In connection with this change, the
Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to specify that the
current Access Fee of $2,000/month is charged to data recipients other
than those receiving data through Managed Non-Display Services. The
proposed Managed Non-Display Access fee would be in addition to the
current Managed Non-Display Services Fee of $1,800/month by each data
recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is proposing to establish access fees
for Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca
Trades, and NYSE Arca Integrated Feed that are also half of the
existing access fee for each respective data feed. See NYSE Arca
2014 Filings, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Redistributor Internal Support User Fee Cap
    The Exchange currently charges a Professional User Fee of $40/
month. This user fee generally applies to each display device that has
access to NYSE ArcaBook. The Exchange proposes to establish a
Redistributor Support Fee Cap of $2,000/month, the equivalent of fees
payable for 50 Professional Users per month, effective as of March 1,
2015, and to add the Redistributor Support Fee Cap to the Fee Schedule.
    The proposed cap on user fees would apply to a Redistributor's
internal users who receive the NYSE ArcaBook data feed and provide
support to the Redistributor for the NYSE ArcaBook data feed in the
areas of customer service, data quality, development, software product
management, product development, programming, technical operations,
technical support, and sales. These internal users would be required to
be located on the Redistributor's premises or to access NYSE ArcaBook
only on the Redistributor's platform. Internal users using NYSE
ArcaBook in connection with trading, investment advice, newsroom
activities, research, algorithmic programming for trading systems, free
trials/sales promotions, personal use, or to perform any other
functions not related to the provision of support functions to the
Redistributor's external customers would not be included in the
Redistributor Support Fee Cap.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Nasdaq Global Data Policies, Oct. 10, 2014, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/AdministrationSupport/AgreementsData/datapolicies.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2014), ``Non-Billable:
Internal Administrative Usage Policy,'' which establishes similar
standards for internal administrative usage on a non-billable basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Redistributors would have to request that their Professional User
Fees related to such internal support functions be counted towards the
Redistributor

Support Fee Cap. To be eligible for the fee cap, a Redistributor would
have to provide the Exchange with a list of all employees who would be
reported as eligible internal users, and to include in the list the job
functions of the employees and explanations of their uses of NYSE
ArcaBook. The Exchange reserves the right under its contracts with
Redistributors to monitor use closely and be provided with updated
lists of employees, their job functions and their use of NYSE ArcaBook,
upon request. If an employee's use of NYSE ArcaBook does not meet the
requirements of internal support function described above, it would not
be eligible for the Redistributor Support Fee Cap and would be charged
a separate Professional User Fee.
    The proposed Redistributor Support Fee Cap would be operative March
1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements
for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more
closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is
reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the
Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the
market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar
requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-
Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to
recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee
because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a
controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the
significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of
computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading
activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to
grow through innovation and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx
also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access
fees for such services.\14\ The fee is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE ArcaBook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 8. NASDAQ offers a Managed Data Solution
that assesses a monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of
$1,500 and monthly Subscriber fees of $60 for non-professionals to
$300 for professionals. See NASDAQ Rule 7026(b). Phlx charges a
monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of $2,000 and a
monthly Subscriber fee of $500. The monthly License fee is in
addition to the monthly Distributor fee of $3,500 (for external
usage), and the $500 monthly Subscriber fee is assessed for each
Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70748 (October 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (October 29, 2013)
(SR-Phlx-2013-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish the
Redistributor Support Fee Cap. The purpose of the Professional User Fee
is to charge for each use of NYSE ArcaBook data feed. The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to charge user fees for employees who
provide internal support functions at Redistributors because the
business model of Redistributors is distributing data, and as a related
function, providing support functions for such distribution of data.
Accordingly, the internal support functions at a Redistributor
contribute to the value that such Redistributor provides to its own
customers, and are therefore an integral part of a Redistributor's
business model. While such internal use is a value to a Redistributor
and its customers, the Exchange recognizes that internal support
functions differ from other uses of NYSE ArcaBook, which is why the
Exchange provides for a Redistributor Support Fee Cap. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to establish a fee cap to reflect the value
that such support functions serve within a Redistributor. While the
NYSE anticipates that only the largest vendors would devote sufficient
personnel to administrative functions to take advantage of the proposed
increased fee cap, in the Exchange's view, limiting the fee exposure of
its largest vendors does not unreasonably discriminate against other
vendors under Section 603(a)(2) of Regulation NMS.
    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the
feeds.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE ArcaBook is entirely optional. The
Exchange is not required to make NYSE ArcaBook available or to offer
any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm
required to purchase NYSE ArcaBook. Firms that do purchase NYSE
ArcaBook do so for the primary goals of using it to increase revenues,
reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the
Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine
for themselves whether NYSE ArcaBook or any other similar products are
attractively priced or not.
    Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE ArcaBook at the new prices
have a variety of alternative market data products from which to
choose,\15\ or if NYSE ArcaBook does not provide sufficient value to
firms as offered based on the uses those firms have or planned to make
of it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use NYSE ArcaBook. The Exchange notes
that broker-dealers are not required to purchase proprietary market
data to comply with their best execution obligations.\16\ Similarly,
there is no requirement in Regulation NMS or any other rule that
proprietary data be utilized for order routing decisions, and some
broker-dealers and ATSs have chosen not to do so.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NASDAQ Rule 7023 (Nasdaq Totalview) and BATS Rule
11.22(a) and (c) (BATS TCP Pitch and Multicast Pitch).
    \16\ See In the Matter of the Application of Securities Industry
And Financial Markets Association For Review of Actions Taken by
Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-15350;
AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014).
    \17\ For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, L.P. has
disclosed that it does not use proprietary market data in connection
with Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3, available at
http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-order-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of
comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses proprietary market data
feeds from all registered stock exchanges and the LavaFlow ECN. See
http://www.iextrading.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975

U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion
that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the
services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system
for trading equity securities.' '' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission, to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (D.C. Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete
head-to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity
data products.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \21\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \22\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary market data products because
they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if
an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and
trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable
to customers using them in support of order routing and trading
decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by
competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus,
competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts
significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data
fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a

surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE ArcaBook unless
their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the
proposed fees unless NYSE ArcaBook can provide value by sufficiently
increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a
manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as
constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE Arca Equities and the Exchange's
affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT''), was executed by market participants that purchased one
or more proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the
same for each market). A supra-competitive increase in the fees for
either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an
exchange's revenues from both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\23\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \24\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F.W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''), and
internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow
and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FINRA's Alternative Display Facility also receives over-
the-counter trade reports that it sends to CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated
as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively,
have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in
order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from
resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for
their users.\26\ Similarly, LavaFlow ECN

provides market data to its subscribers at no charge.\27\ In this
environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices
for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face
competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
    \27\ See ``LavaFlow--ADF Migration,'' available at https://www.lavatrading.com/news/pdf/LavaFlow_ADF_Migration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the
Exchange, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE ArcaBook, competitors
offer a close substitute product.\28\ Because market data users can
find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data products, a
market that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that
users may substitute another source of market data information for its
own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status
in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's
products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the
purchase.

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \30\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \31\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \32\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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-NYSEARCA-2014-149 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-149. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-149 and should be submitted on or before
February 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00295 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27473-27476]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF17-4-000]

Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline,
L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Planned Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline
Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Sessions

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the impacts of the planned Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and
Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects (collectively referred to as the
Project). The FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of
the EIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), and the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) are Cooperating Agencies and can adopt the
EIS for their respective purposes and permitting actions.
    Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (JCEP) plans to construct and
operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, storage, and export
facility in Coos County, Oregon. Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.
(PCGP) plans to construct and operate an interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline and associated facilities in Coos, Douglas,
Jackson, and Klamath Counties, Oregon. The Commission will use this EIS
in its decision-making process to determine whether the Jordan Cove LNG
Terminal is in the public interest and the Pacific Connector Pipeline
is in the public convenience and necessity. Other federal agencies may
adopt the EIS when making their respective determinations or decisions.
    This notice announces the opening of the public comment period,
commonly referred to as scoping. You can make a difference by providing
your comments. Your comments should focus on potential environmental
impacts, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. This scoping opportunity is for the entire
Project, including actions and proposed plan amendments of the
Cooperating Agencies listed above. The Forest Service also seeks
comments specific to the 2012 planning rule requirements at Sec. Sec.
219.8 through 219.11 that are likely to be directly related to the
proposed amendments. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before July 10, 2017.
    If you submitted comments on this project before February 10, 2017,
you will need to refile those comments in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000 to
ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. If you sent
comments on a previous iteration of this project, you will also need to
refile those comments in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this project and
encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a PCGP company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned pipeline. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are
properly recorded. If you include personal information along with your
comments, please be aware that this information (address, phone number,
and/or email address) would become publicly available in the
Commission's eLibrary.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to include docket number PF17-4-000 with
your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one the public scoping sessions its
staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 4:00 p.m.   Sunset Middle School, Library and
 to 7:00 p.m.                        Commons Rooms, 245 South Cammann
                                     Street, Coos Bay, OR 97420
Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 4:00      Umpqua Community College, Jackson
 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.                   Hall, Rooms 11 & 12, 1140 Umpqua
                                     College Road, Roseburg, OR 97470
Thursday, June 29, 2017, 4:00 p.m.  Oregon Institute of Technology,
 to 7:00 p.m.                        College Union Building, Mt. Bailey
                                     and Mt. Theilsen Rooms, 3201 Campus
                                     Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be
considered in the EIS to be prepared for this project. Individual
verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court
reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of
verbal comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
    Each scoping session is scheduled from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Pacific Daylight Time. There will be no formal presentation by
Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to provide
comments, the Commission staff will issue numbers in the order of your
arrival. Please see Appendix 2 \1\ for additional information on the
session format and conduct expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC
staff or representative present) and become part of the public record
for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available through the
FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary).
If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal
comments, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each
commenter.
    Verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically
submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation,
Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to
answer your questions about the environmental review process.
    The submission of timely and specific comments, whether submitted
in writing or orally at a scoping session, can affect a reviewer's
ability to participate in a subsequent administrative or judicial
review of BLM and/or Forest Service decisions. Comments concerning BLM
and Forest Service actions submitted anonymously will be accepted and
considered; however such anonymous submittals would not provide the
commenters with standing to participate in administrative or judicial
review of BLM and Forest Service decisions.

Summary of the Planned Project

    JCEP plans to construct and operate an LNG export terminal on the
North Spit of Coos Bay in Coos County, Oregon. The terminal would
include gas inlet facilities, a metering station, a gas conditioning
plant, five liquefaction trains and associated equipment, two full-
containment LNG storage tanks, an LNG transfer line, LNG ship loading
facilities, a marine slip, a marine offloading facility, a new access
channel between the Coos Bay Navigation Channel and the new marine
slip, and enhancements to the existing Coos Bay Navigation Channel at
four turns. In addition, the terminal would include emergency and
hazard, electrical, security, control, and support systems,
administrative buildings, and a temporary workforce housing facility.
The LNG terminal would be designed to liquefy about 1.04 billion cubic
feet per day of LNG for export to markets across the Pacific Rim.
    PCGP plans to construct and operate an approximately 235-mile-long,
36-inch-diameter interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and
associated aboveground facilities. The pipeline would originate near
Malin in Klamath County, Oregon, traverse Douglas and Jackson Counties,
and terminate (at the LNG Terminal) in Coos County, Oregon. The
pipeline would be capable of transporting about 1.2 billion cubic feet
per day of natural gas. The associated aboveground facilities would
include the new Klamath Compressor Station (61,500 horsepower) near
Malin, Oregon; 3 new meter stations; 5 new pig launchers and receivers;
17 mainline block valves; and a gas control communication system.
    The general locations of the Project facilities are shown on maps
included in Appendix 1. In addition, PCGP provides detailed mapping of
its pipeline route on its Web page at http://pacificconnectorgp.com/project-overview/.

Land Requirements for Construction

    About 530 acres of land would be disturbed by construction of the
LNG Terminal. JCEP owns about 300 acres of this land, and the remaining
230 acres would be leased from private landowners. Following
construction, about 170 acres would be retained for operation of the
LNG terminal facilities.
    About 5,060 acres of land would be disturbed by construction of the
Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. Following construction, a 50-foot-
wide easement, totaling about 1,415 acres, would be permanently
maintained for operation of the pipeline. The majority of the remaining
3,620 acres disturbed by pipeline construction would be restored and
returned to previous use, while about 25 acres would be maintained for
a new compressor station and other new aboveground facilities. Land
ownership of the approximately 235 miles of permanent pipeline
operational easement is approximately 162 miles private land, 40 miles
BLM, 31 miles Forest Service, and 2 miles Reclamation.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of LNG
facilities under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and pipeline
facilities under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires
the Commission to discover and address concerns the public may have
about proposals. This process is commonly referred to as scoping. The
main goal of the scoping process is to identify the important
environmental issues the Commission's staff should focus on in the EIS.
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of
issues to be addressed in the EIS. The FERC and the Cooperating
Agencies will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EIS.
    The EIS will discuss the impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
     protected species;
     land use;
     socioeconomics;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety and reliability; and
     cumulative impacts.
    The FERC and the Cooperating Agencies will also evaluate reasonable
alternatives to the planned project or portions thereof; and make
recommendations on how to avoid or minimize impacts on the various
resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed with FERC, FERC has
already initiated a review of the project under the Commission's pre-
filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage
early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and
resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of its
pre-filing review, FERC has begun to contact interested federal and
state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and
the preparation of the EIS.
    As stated previously, the FERC will be the lead federal agency for
the

preparation of the EIS. The USACE, BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service
all have NEPA responsibilities related to their respective permitting
actions, and can adopt the EIS for their own agency's purposes. The
BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service intend to adopt this EIS to
evaluate the effects of the pipeline portion of the Project on lands
and facilities managed by each respective agency, and to support
decision-making regarding the issuance of and concurrence with the
right-of-way grant and the associated plan amendments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ BLM land management plans are called ``Resource Management
Plans'' or RMPs. Forest Service land management plans are called
``Land and Resource Management Plans'' or LRMPs. The term ``land
management plan'' is generic and may apply to either an RMP or LRMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EIS will present the FERC's and the Cooperating Agencies'
independent analysis of the issues. The FERC will publish and
distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period,
the FERC and the Cooperating Agencies will consider all timely comments
and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To
ensure the FERC and the Cooperating Agencies have the opportunity to
consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section.
    With this notice, the FERC is asking agencies with jurisdiction by
law and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided in the Public Participation section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, this notice initiates consultation with Oregon's
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and solicits its views and
those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the
public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.\4\
The project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) will be defined in
consultation with the SHPO as the Project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include LNG terminal site, pipeline
construction work area, contractor/equipment storage yards, and access
roads). The EIS for this Project will document the findings on the
impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The Commission's environmental staff has already identified several
issues that merit attention based on a preliminary review of the
planned facilities, the environmental information provided by the
applicants, analysis conducted previously, and early comments filed
with FERC. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your
comments and further analysis. Preliminary issues include:
     Reliability and safety of LNG carrier traffic in Coos Bay,
the LNG terminal, and natural gas pipeline;
     impacts on aquatic resources from dredging the LNG
terminal access channel and slip, and from multiple pipeline crossings
of surface waters;
     potential impacts on the LNG Terminal resulting from an
earthquake or tsunami;
     impacts of pipeline construction on federally listed
threatened and endangered species, including salmon, marbled murrelet,
and northern spotted owl; and
     impacts of pipeline construction on private landowners,
including use of eminent domain to obtain right-of-way.

Preliminary Planning Criteria Identified by the BLM

    The BLM Preliminary Planning Criteria for its proposed land
management plan amendments include:
     Impacts to stand function for listed species, specifically
northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in BLM-managed Late
Successional Reserves (LSR); and
     consent by the Federal surface managing agencies, Forest
Service and Reclamation.

Preliminary Issues and Planning Criteria Identified by the Forest
Service

    The Forest Service has identified preliminary issues for its
proposed land and resource management plan (LRMP) amendments. The
issues include:
     Effects of proposed amendments on Survey and Manage
species and their habitat;
     effects of the proposed amendments on LSRs; and
     effects of the proposed amendments on Riparian Reserves,
detrimental soil conditions, and Visual Quality Objectives.

Planning Rule Requirements for LRMP Amendments

    The Forest Service seeks public input on issues and planning rule
requirements on proposed amendments of their Forest land management
plans related to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project. Additional
information regarding the proposed amendments is included at the end of
this NOI.

Proposed Actions of the BLM

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to
respond to a right-of-way grant application originally submitted by
Pacific Connector L.P. to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually
decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities
administered by the BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service. In addition,
there is a need for the BLM to consider amending affected District land
management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-
way. Additional detail on proposed actions by the BLM is provided at
the end of this NOI.

Proposed Actions of the Forest Service

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the Forest
Service is to consider amending affected National Forest land
management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-
way. The Responsible Official for amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is
the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. If the Forest
Service adopts the FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project
(in FERC Docket No. PF17-4-000), the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua
National Forest will make the following decisions and determinations:
     Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue
River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an
alternative.
    Additional detail on proposed actions by the Forest Service is
provided at the end of this NOI.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other

interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations), whose property may be used temporarily for project
purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground
facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. The FERC
will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that the information related to this environmental review is
sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
    Copies of the draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing
list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a
paper copy of the document instead of a compact disc or would like to
remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached
Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once JCEP and PCGP file applications with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a
formal application for the project.

BLM Administrative Remedy Process

    Under the provisions of 43 CFR 1610.5-2, proposed decision(s) of
the BLM to amend land management plans are subject to protest with the
Director of the BLM following publication of the Final EIS. In
accordance with 43 CFR, Part 4, the BLM's decision on the application
for a right-of-way grant will be subject to appeal to the Interior
Board of Land Appeals.

Administrative Review of Forest Service Decisions To Amend Land
Management Plans

    The proposed Forest Service plan amendments are being developed in
accordance with the planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 (2012).
Decisions by the Forest Service to approve ``plan level'' amendments to
Land Management Plans (proposed amendments UNF-4 and RRNF-7 in this
Notice) are subject to the Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process
Regulations at 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. The term ``plan level'' refers to
plan amendments that would apply to future management actions.
    Decisions by the Forest Service to approve ``project-specific''
plan amendments (proposed amendments UNF-1 thru 3, RRNF-2 thru 6, and
WNF-1 thru 5 in this Notice) are subject to the Administrative Review
Process of 36 CFR 218 Subpart A and B, in accordance with 36 CFR 219.59
(b). The term ``project specific'' refers to amendments that would only
apply to the proposed project and would not apply to any future
management actions.
    The Forest Service concurrence to BLM to issue a right-of-way grant
would not be a decision subject to the NEPA and, therefore, would not
be subject to the Forest Service administrative review procedures.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF17-
4). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12393 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37882]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-11]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Honeywell
Aerospace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0472
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.W. Pendergrass<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, July 27, 2018.
Dale Bouffiou,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0472.
    Petitioner: Honeywell Aerospace.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  21.303(b)(3).
    Description of Relief Sought: Honeywell Aerospace (Honeywell)
petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration for an exemption from
Sec.  21.303(b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Honeywell to add articles
from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), approved
supplemental type certificate to its existing parts manufacture
approval issued by the Federal Aviation Administration under 14 CFR
Subpart K.

[FR Doc. 2018-16554 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P