[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50773-50774]
[DOCID:fr17au10-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0783]

Invocation of Sunken Military Craft Act

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing that a C-130 aircraft which
crashed off the coast of California is a sunken military craft. It is
therefore prohibited for any person to engage or attempt to engage the
aircraft or its contents in any way that disturbs, removes, or injures
the aircraft or its contents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
contact LCDR Kevin Smith, Office of Aviation Forces, telephone 202-372-
2211.
    If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On the evening of October 29, 2009, the
Coast Guard Air Station Sacramento C-130 aircraft CG 1705 collided with
a Marine Corps AH-1W attack helicopter while conducting a search and
rescue operation. All seven crewmembers aboard CG 1705 and both
crewmembers of the Marine Corps helicopter were killed in the
collision. CG 1705 was never recovered and currently rests in
approximately 2450 ft of water near position: 32-58.0 N 118-10.10 W.
This location now serves as the gravesite and final resting place for
the U.S. Coast Guard personnel killed in the crash.
    Both the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps undertook independent

administrative investigations of the incident. The Coast Guard issued a
Final Action on August 3, 2010, announcing the result of its
investigation and ordering actions to prevent similar accidents in the
future.
    In this notice, the Coast Guard is announcing that the wreckage of
CG 1705 is a sunken military craft, and is therefore protected under
the Sunken Military Craft Act (10 U.S.C. 113 note; Pub. L. 108-375,
Sections 1401-1408) (``the Act''). Pursuant to the Act, no person may
engage in or attempt to engage in activity directed at the wreckage of
CG 1705 that disturbs, removes, or injures the wreckage or its
associated contents. These include the remains and personal effects of
the crew of CG 1705.
    Pursuant to Section 1404 of the Act, persons found in violation of
the Act may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $100,000.

    Dated: August 11, 2010.
Michael Emerson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of Aviation Forces.
[FR Doc. 2010-20388 Filed 8-13-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 26295]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-699-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel and LU Annual Update and
OPS Report 2023 to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20230421-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.
    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: April 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09039 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53440]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12851-002; Project No. 14082-000]

Free Flow Power Corporation; Northland Power Mississippi River
LLC; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

    Free Flow Power Corporation (Free Flow) and Northland Power
Mississippi River LLC (Northland) filed preliminary permit
applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of developing hydropower projects
hydropower on the Mississippi River, near the town of New Orleans, in
Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana. Both applications were filed
electronically and given the filing date of February 1, 2011, at 8:30
AM. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed projects are described as follows:

    Free Flow's hydrokinetic Project, Project No. 12851-002 would
consist of: (1) Up to 2,250 SmartTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 90,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of
197,100,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Northland's hydrokinetic Project, Project No. 14082-000 would
consist of: (1) Up to 150 TREK generating units installed in a
matrix on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 38,000 kilowatts; (3) shielded
underwater cables would convey each matrix power to a substation;
and (4) a transmission line would interconnect with the power grid.
The proposed project would have an average annual generation of
329,000,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicants Contact: For Free Flow: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow
Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone
(978) 283-2822. For Northland: Tim Richardson, 30 St. Clair Avenue
West 17th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text-only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12851-002, or P-14082-000) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: August 19, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21813 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41987-41989]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1017]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of Oregon and
Washington; Amendment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making a change to the Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA) covering the Umpqua River Bar in Oregon so that it does not
include those waters between ``Navigation Aid Number 8'' and
``Navigation Aid Number 6'' on the Umpqua River. The change has been
requested by a number of individuals and organizations that believe
they are able to safely use those waters when the bar is restricted or
closed.

DATES: This rule is effective August 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-1017 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-1017 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail LT Kion Evans, Thirteenth Coast Guard District
Prevention Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 12, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of
Oregon and Washington; Amendment'' in the Federal Register (75 FR
18449). We received one comment on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested and none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    On November 17, 2009, the Coast Guard published a Final Rule
entitled ``Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of Oregon
and Washington'' in the Federal Register (74 FR 59098), which
established Regulated Navigation Areas (RNA) covering each of the
coastal bars in Oregon and Washington. Following implementation of the
rule, as codified at 33 CFR 165.1325, on December 17, 2009, the Coast
Guard began receiving feedback from a number of individuals and
organizations that use the waters near the Umpqua River Bar in Oregon
indicating that the RNA covering that bar, as defined in 33 CFR
165.1325(a)(12), is too large in that they believe they are able to
safely use the area between ``Navigation Aid Number 8'' and
``Navigation Aid Number 6'' in the Umpqua River when the bar is
restricted or closed.
    In light of the public desires expressed, the possible economic
impact on the local community, and the Coast Guard's assessment that
mariners are, in most circumstances, able to safely operate between
``Navigation Aid Number 8'' and ``Navigation Aid Number 6'' on the
Umpqua River when the bar is restricted or closed, the Coast Guard is
changing the Umpqua River Bar RNA as defined in 33 CFR 165.1325(a)(12)
to allow such use without obtaining permission of the Captain of the
Port or his/her designated representatives.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The one comment received on the proposed rule expressed concern
that the location of the RNA as described in the regulatory text did
not align with the description given in the preamble, specifically with
regards to ``Navigation Aid Number 6.'' The rule was changed to correct
that inconsistency.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard has made this
determination based on the fact that this rule simply reduces the size
of an established Regulated Navigation Area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and

governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect those small entities that use the
waters near the Umpqua River Bar. The rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however,
because it simply reduces the size of an established Regulated
Navigation Area.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the reduction in size of a
Regulated Navigation Area. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.1325 by revising paragraph (a)(12) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.1325  Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of
Oregon and Washington.

    (a) * * *

    (12) Umpqua River Bar, Oreg.: From a point on the shoreline at
43[deg]41'20'' N., 124[deg]11'58'' W. thence westward to 43[deg]41'20''
N., 124[deg]13'32'' W thence southward to 43[deg]38'35'' N.,
124[deg]14'25'' W. thence eastward to a point on the shoreline at
43[deg]38'35'' N., 124[deg]12'35'' W. thence northward along the
shoreline to the navigational light ``6'' located on the jetty at
43[deg]40'11'' N., 124[deg]11'56'' W. thence northward to a point on
the north bank of the entrance channel at 43[deg]40'33'' N.,
124[deg]11'56'' W. thence southwestward along the north bank of the
entrance channel thence northward along the seaward shoreline to the
beginning.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 7, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-17665 Filed 7-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82575-82576]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0173]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Netradyne, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Netradyne, Inc's. (Netradyne)
application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow its Driveri[supreg]
Dash Cam to be mounted lower in the windshield on commercial motor
vehicles (CMV) than is currently permitted. The Agency has determined
that lower placement of the Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam would not have an
adverse impact on safety and that adherence to the terms and conditions
of the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: This exemption is effective December 18, 2020. The exemption
expires December 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jos[eacute] R. Cestero, Vehicle
and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and
Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request. The Agency reviews safety analyses and public
comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR
381.305).
    The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting
the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of
persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from
which the exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the
effective period (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and conditions
of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Netradyne's Application for Exemption

    Netradyne applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to
allow its Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam to be mounted lower in the
windshield than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations to
utilize a mounting location that allows optimal functionality of the
advance safety system supported by the device. A copy of the
application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of
this notice. Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits
obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top
of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted
more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and
must be outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs
and signals. However, Sec.  393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle
safety technologies, as defined in Sec.  390.5, that include ``a fleet
related incident management system, performance or behavior management
system, speed management system, forward collision warning or
mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.''
    Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle safety
technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below
the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not
more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by
the windshield wipers, and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals.
    Netradyne states that the functionality of its Driveri[supreg] Dash
Cam includes the ability to capture and analyze distracted driving
events along with providing in-cab audio alerts, following distance
management, and detection of stop signs and traffic signals. Netradyne
states that the proposed exemption will increase safety by providing
these advance safety features on its customers' CMVs. Netradyne notes
that it conducted pilot tests of the devices' functionality and found
that there was no noticeable obstruction to the driver's normal
sightlines to the road ahead, highway signs and, signals, or any
mirrors.
    The Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam, four-camera version housing, is
approximately 190 mm (7.4 inches) wide by 118 mm (4.6 inches) tall and
the two-camera version housing is 126 mm (4.9 inches) wide by 71 mm
(2.8 inches) tall. The devices will be mounted in the approximate
center of the top of the windshield such that the bottom edge of the
camera housing is approximately 204 mm (8 inches) below the upper edge
of the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's and passenger's
normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and
all mirrors. This location will allow for optimal functionality of the
advanced safety systems supported by the device. Without the proposed
exemption, Netradyne states that its customers will not be able to
install these devices in an optimal location on the windshield to

maximize the effectiveness of the safety features of the technology.
The exemption would apply to all CMVs equipped with Netradyne's
Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam mounted on the windshield. Netradyne believes
that mounting the system as described will maintain a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved
without the exemption.

Comments

    FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of the exemption
application in the Federal Register on August 20, 2020, and requested
public comment on the application (85 FR 51545).
    The Agency received no comments addressing the exemption
application.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated the Netradyne exemption application. The
Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam, four-camera housing version, is approximately
4.6 inches tall while the two-camera housing version is 2.8 inches
tall. Both camera versions are mounted near the top of the center of
the windshield, with the bottom of the camera housing located
approximately 8 inches below the top of the area swept by the
windshield wipers. The Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam needs to be mounted in
this location for optimal functionality of the advance safety system.
The size of the Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam precludes mounting it (1)
higher in the windshield, and (2) within 4 inches from the top of the
area swept by the windshield wipers to comply with Sec.
393.60(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    The Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow
placement of the Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam lower than currently
permitted by Agency regulations will provide a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption because (1) based on the technical information available,
there is no indication that the Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam would obstruct
drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs and signals surrounding
traffic; (2) generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating
position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver,
and any impairment of available sight lines would be minimal; and (3)
the mounting location 8 inches below the upper edge of the windshield
and out of the driver's normal sightline will be reasonable and
enforceable at roadside. In addition, the Agency believes that use of
Driveri[supreg] Dash Cam by fleets is likely to improve the overall
level of safety for the motoring public. This action is consistent with
previous Agency action permitting the placement of similarly-sized
devices on CMVs outside the driver's sight lines to the road, and
highway signs and signals. FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing
that installation of other vehicle safety technologies mounted on the
interior of the windshield has resulted in any degradation in safety.

James W. Deck,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27967 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 598-603]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30893]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73955; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-094]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for the CBOE Book Depth Data Feed
and for Certain Other CBOE Real-Time Data Feeds

December 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 17, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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
Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') proposes to establish fees for the CBOE Book Depth Data Feed
and amend fees for certain other CBOE real-time data feeds. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to: (1) Amend fees for
the CBOE BBO Data Feed and Complex Order Book (``COB'') Data Feeds; (2)
establish fees for the CBOE Book Depth Data Feed; and (3) establish
fees for distribution of CBOE data via a ``Display Only Service'' (as
defined below). These data feeds are made available by CBOE's affiliate
Market Data Express, LLC (``MDX'').
BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds
    BBO Data Feed: The BBO Data Feed is a real-time, low latency data
feed that includes the following content: (i) Outstanding quotes and
standing orders at the best available price level on each side of the
market, with aggregate size (``BBO data''), and last sale data; \3\
(ii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts at the BBO, (iii)
All-or-None contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO,
(iv) BBO and last sale data for complex strategies (e.g., spreads,
straddles, buy-writes, etc.); (v) expected opening price (``EOP'') and
expected opening size (``EOS'') information that is disseminated prior
to the opening of the market and during trading rotations, (vi) end-of-
day (``EOD'') summary messages that are disseminated after the close of
a trading session that include summary information about trading in
CBOE listed options (i.e., product name, opening price, high and low
price during the trading session and last sale price), (vii) ``recap
messages'' that are disseminated during a trading session any time
there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of a CBOE
listed option, as well as product name and total volume traded in the
product during the trading session; and (viii) product IDs and codes
for all CBOE listed options contracts. The data in the BBO Data Feed is
refreshed periodically during the trading session. The BBO and last
sale data contained in the BBO Data Feed is identical to the data sent
to the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') for redistribution
to the public.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Best bid and offer'' or ``BBO'' data is sometimes referred
to as ``top-of-book'' data. Data with respect to executed trades is
referred to as ``last sale'' data.
    \4\ MDX makes available to Customers the BBO data and last sale
data that is included in the BBO Data Feed no earlier than the time
at which the Exchange sends that data to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Book Depth Data Feed: The Book Depth Data Feed is a real-time, low
latency data feed that includes all data contained in the BBO Data Feed
(as described above) plus outstanding quotes and standing orders up to
the first four price levels on each side of the market, with aggregate
size (``Book Depth''). The Book Depth Data Feed includes market data
for simple options as well as complex strategies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71774 (March 24,
2014), 79 FR 17619 (March 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COB Data Feed: The COB Data Feed is a subset of the Book Depth Data
Feed. It is a real-time data feed that includes data regarding the
Exchange's Complex Order Book and related complex order information.
The COB Data Feed includes BBO, Book Depth and last sale data for all
CBOE-traded complex order strategies and identifies customer orders and
trades.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MDX also offers a real-time Flexible Exchange (``FLEX'')
Options Data Feed that includes BBO and last sale data for FLEX
options traded on the CBOE FLEX Hybrid Trading System, including BBO
and last sale data for FLEX complex strategies. The FLEX Options
Data Feed is currently made available at no charge. The Exchange is
not proposing to establish fees for the FLEX Options Data Feed at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees
    BBO Data Feed Fees: MDX currently charges a ``Data Fee'', payable
by a Customer, of $5,000 per month for internal use and external
redistribution of the BBO Data Feed.\7\ The Data Fee entitles a
Customer to provide the BBO Data Feed to an unlimited number of
internal users and Devices \8\ within the Customer. A Customer
receiving the BBO Data Feed from another Customer is assessed the Data
Fee by MDX pursuant to its own market data agreement with MDX, and is
entitled to use the Data internally and/or distribute it externally.\9\
All Customers have the same rights to utilize the data internally and/
or distribute it externally as long as the Customer has entered into a
written agreement with MDX for the data and pays the Data Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A BBO Data Feed ``Customer'' is currently defined as any
entity that receives the BBO Data Feed either directly from MDX's
system or through a connection to MDX provided by an approved
redistributor (i.e., a market data vendor or an extranet service
provider) and distributes it externally or uses it internally. The
MDX fee schedule for CBOE data is located at https://www.cboe.org/MDX/CSM/OBOOKMain.aspx.
    \8\ A ``Device'' means any computer, workstation or other item
of equipment, fixed or portable, that receives, accesses and/or
displays data in visual, audible or other form.
    \9\ A Customer may choose to receive the data from another
Customer rather than directly from MDX's system because it does not
want to or is not equipped to manage the technology necessary to
establish a direct connection to MDX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee from $5,000 per
month to $6,000 per month. The Exchange also

proposes to establish a ``User Fee'', payable by a Customer, of $50 per
month per Device or user ID for use of data in the BBO Data Feed by
``Display Only Service'' users. A ``Display Only Service'' would allow
a natural person end-user to view and manipulate data using a
Customer's computerized service, but not to save, copy, export or
transfer the data or any results of the manipulation to any other
computer hardware, software or media, except for printing it to paper
or other non-magnetic media. User fees would be payable only for
``external'' Display Only Service users (Devices or user IDs of users
who are not employees or natural person independent contractors of the
Customer, the Customer's affiliates or an authorized service
facilitator).
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of a ``Customer'' to
make it uniformly applicable to the BBO Data Feed and the other CBOE
real-time data feeds described above. The term ``Customer'' would mean
any person, company or other entity that, pursuant to a market data
agreement with MDX, is entitled to receive data, either directly from
MDX or through an authorized redistributor (i.e., a Customer or an
extranet service provider), whether that data is distributed externally
or used internally. An entity or person that receives BBO data from a
Customer through a Display Only Service is not a ``Customer'' unless it
has a market data agreement in place with MDX.
    Book Depth Data Feed Fees: The Exchange proposes to amend the MDX
fee schedule to establish fees for the Book Depth Data Feed. MDX would
charge a ``Data Fee'', payable by a Customer (as defined above), of
$6,000 per month for internal use and external redistribution of the
Book Depth Data Feed. The Data Fee for the Book Depth Data Feed would
entitle a Customer to provide the Book Depth Data Feed to an unlimited
number of internal users and Devices within the Customer. A Customer
receiving the Book Depth Data Feed from another Customer would be
assessed the Data Fee by MDX pursuant to its own market data agreement
with MDX, and would be entitled to use the Data internally and/or
distribute it externally. All Customers would have the same rights to
utilize the Book Depth data internally and/or distribute it externally
as long as the Customer has entered into a written agreement with MDX
for the data and pays the Data Fee. BBO Data Feed Customers could
upgrade to become Book Depth Data Feed Customers without paying any
additional Data Fee.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Such Customers would still be subject to Display Only
Service User Fees as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDX would also charge a Book Depth Data Feed Customer a User Fee of
$50 per month per Device or user ID for use of the data in the Book
Depth Data Feed by Display Only Service users (as defined above). User
Fees would be payable only for ``external'' Display Only Service Users
(as defined above). An entity or person that receives Book Depth data
from a Customer through a Display Only Service is not a ``Customer''
unless it has a market data agreement in place with MDX.
    COB Data Feed Fees: MDX currently charges Customers of the COB Data
Feed a Data Fee of $3,000 per month plus applicable User Fees.\11\ The
Data Fee for the COB Data Feed is waived for Customers of the BBO Data
Feed.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A COB Data Feed Customer is currently defined as any entity
that receives the COB Data Feed, either directly from MDX's system
or through a connection to MDX provided by an approved redistributor
(i.e., a market data vendor or an extranet service provider), and
distributes it externally or uses it internally, except that an
entity or person that receives the COB Data Feed from a Customer and
only uses it internally is not a ``Customer'' if it receives the COB
Data Feed from a Customer subject to a form of ``Subscriber
Agreement'' that has been approved by MDX.
    \12\ Such COB Data Feed Customers are still subject to User Fees
as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDX currently charges a Customer User Fees of $25 per month per
Device or user ID for receipt of the data by ``Professional Users''
\13\ and $1 per month for receipt of the data by ``Non-Professional
Users.'' \14\ User Fees are subject to a cap of $2,000 per month (i.e.,
a Customer pays no more than $2,000 in User Fees for a given month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A ``Professional User'' is any natural person recipient of
Data who is not a Non-Professional User. User Fees for Professional
Users are payable for both ``internal'' Professional Users (Devices
or user IDs of employees of a Customer) and ``external''
Professional Users (Devices or user IDs of Professional Users who
receive the Data from a Customer and are not employed by the
Customer). (Non-Professional Users must be external since a person
who uses the COB Data Feed for a commercial purpose cannot be a Non-
Professional User.)
    \14\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is a natural person who uses
the COB Data Feed only for personal purposes and not for any
commercial purpose and who, if he or she works in the United States,
is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (ii) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term
is defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940
(whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii)
employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration
under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that
would require registration or qualification if such functions were
performed for an organization not so exempt; or, if he or she works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
someone who would qualify as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the Data Fee from $3,000 per month
to $100 per month. The Data Fee would be waived for Customers of the
Book Depth Data Feed. The Exchange proposes to reduce the User Fee for
Non-Professional Users from $1 per month to zero.\15\ For the purpose
of consistency, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of a COB
Data Feed Customer so that it is the same definition that is applicable
to the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``Non-
Professional User'' so that it is consistent with the definition of
``Non-Professional User'' used by OPRA. See OPRA Addendum for
Nonprofessionals, which is part of Attachments B-1 and B-2 to OPRA's
Vendor Agreement. A ``Non-Professional User'' would mean a natural
person or qualifying trust that uses Data only for personal purposes
and not for any commercial purpose and, for a natural person who
works in the United States, is not: (i) Registered or qualified in
any capacity with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency,
any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or
futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged as an
``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of
the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or
qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other
organization exempt from registration under federal or state
securities laws to perform functions that would require registration
or qualification if such functions were performed for an
organization not so exempt; or, for a natural person who works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
would disqualify such person as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.
    \16\ For the same reason, the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of a FLEX Options Data Feed Customer so that it is the
same definition that is applicable to the BBO, Book Depth and COB
Data Feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Systems Fees: MDX currently charges a Port Fee of $500 per data
port per month for receipt of a data feed through a connection to MDX.
The Exchange proposes to amend the MDX Fee Schedule to clarify how the
Port Fee is assessed. First, the Exchange proposes to clarify that the
Port Fee applies to the receipt of any data feed through a connection
to MDX, not only for the receipt of the BBO Data Feed. Second, the
Exchange proposes to amend the description of the fee to clarify that
it is payable by any Customer that receives data through a direct
connection to MDX or through a connection to MDX provided by an
extranet service provider. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify
that the port fee applies to receipt of any data feed but is only
assessed once per data port. For example, if a Customer receives two
data feeds over the same port, the Port Fee is only assessed once for
that port.

    The Exchange also proposes to delete from the MDX Fee Schedule the
statements that MDX will not charge fees for any of the data feeds (or
the port fee) for any calendar month in which Customer commences
receipt of the data after the 15th day of the month (or in the case of
the port fee, establishes the connection after the 15th day of the
month) or discontinues receipt of the data before the 15th day of the
month (or in the case of the port fee, disconnects before the 15th day
of the month). The Exchange believes it would be more appropriate for
billing policies to be located within MDX's written agreement with
Customers.
    All of the proposed fee changes would be effective on January 1,
2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBO Data Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for BBO
data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data
Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other
markets charge for similar products. For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX
charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 per organization
and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per organization for
its ``TOPO Plus Orders'' data feed, which like the BBO Data Feed
includes top-of-book data (including orders, quotes and trades) and
other market data. The International Securities Exchange offers a ``Top
Quote Feed'', which includes top-of-book data, and a separate ``Spread
Feed'', which like the BBO Data Feed includes order and quote data for
complex strategies. ISE charges distributors of its Top Quote Feed a
base monthly fee of $3,000 and distributors of its Spread Feed a base
monthly fee of $3,000. NYSE charges a $3,000 per month Access Fee and
$2,000 per month External Redistribution fee for each of its market
data products entitled ``NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options'' and ``NYSE
ArcaBook for Arca Options'' that include top-of-book and last sale data
similar to the data in the BBO Data Feed.
    The Exchange believes the proposed Display Only Service User Fee
for the BBO Data Feed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply equally to all Customers that distribute data
via a Display Only Service. The Exchange believes the proposed User Fee
is reasonable because it compares favorably to usage fees that other
markets charge for similar products. For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX
charges a $40 per month Professional Subscriber Fee for use of its
market data products by each of internal and external users. The
International Securities Exchange charges a $20 per month Controlled
Device Fee for use of its Top Quote Feed and a separate $25 per month
Controlled Device Fee for use of its Spread Feed. NYSE charges a $50
per month Professional User Fee for use of each of its NYSE ArcaBook
for Amex Options and NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options market data
products that include top-of-book and last sale data similar to the
data in the BBO Data Feed.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge a lower fee for use of BBO data via a Display
Only Service because such use would be limited to display use only. The
Display Only Service would only allow a natural person end-user to view
and manipulate data using the Customer's computerized service, but not
to save, copy, export or transfer the data or any results of the
manipulation to any other computer hardware, software or media, except
for printing it to paper or other non-magnetic media. The Exchange
notes other exchanges charge fees for market data products based on
distinctions between ``display'' and ``non-display'' usage.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69554 (May
10, 2013), 78 FR 28917 (May 16, 2013), (SR-NYSEArca-2013-47);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69553 (May 10, 2013), 78 FR
28926 (May 16, 2013), (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-40); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68576 (January 3, 2013), 78 FR 1886 (January 9, 2013),
(SR-PHLX-2012-145); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64652
(June 13, 2011), 76 FR 35498 (June 17, 2011), (SR-NASDAQ-2011-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Depth Data Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the Book Depth Data
Feed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply equally to all Customers. All Customers would have the same
rights to utilize the data (i.e., use the data internally and/or
distribute it externally) as long as the Customer has entered into a
market data agreement with MDX for the data and pays the Data Fee.
    The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because
it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar
products. For example, BATS BZX Exchange charges a $1,000 per month
Internal Use Access Fee and a $5,000 per month External Distribution
Access Fee for Multicast PITCH, which is its depth of market and last
sale feed. NASDAQ OMX PHLX charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee
of $4,000 and External Distributors a monthly fee of a $4,500 for its
Depth of Market data feed that includes full depth of quotes and orders
and last sale data for options listed on PHLX. NYSE charges a $3,000
per month Access Fee and $2,000 per month External Redistribution fee
for each of its NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options and NYSE ArcaBook for
Arca Options market data products that include top-of-book, last sale
and depth of quote data.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to allow BBO Data Feed Customers
to upgrade to become Book Depth Data Feed Customers without any
additional Data Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply equally to all BBO Data Feed Customers. BBO Data
Feed Customers currently pay MDX $5,000 per month for the right to use
and redistribute the data in the BBO Data Feed. The Book Depth Data
Feed includes all of the data in the BBO Data Feed. The proposed fee
arrangement would allow a Book Depth Data Feed Customer who has
upgraded from a BBO Data Feed to use and redistribute Book Depth data
for no additional charge, thereby incentivizing further redistribution
of the data in the Book Depth Data Feed. The Exchange notes other
exchanges offer similar fee arrangements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For example, the Exchange believes the NASDAQ Options
Market charges only one distributor fee to allow a subscriber access
to its ``NASDAQ ITCH-to-Trade Options'' (ITTO) and ``Best of NASDAQ
Options'' (BONO) products. The Exchange believes NASDAQ OMX BX
charges only one distributor fee to allow a subscriber access to its
``BX Options Depth of Market'' (BX Depth) and ``BX Options Top of
Market'' (BX Top) products. In addition, the Exchange believes the
International Securities Exchange charges no additional fee to
subscribers of its ``Depth of Market'' Feed that also access its Top
Quote Feed.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed Display Only Service User Fee
for the Book Depth Data Feed is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers that
distribute data via a Display Only Service. The Exchange believes the
proposed User Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to usage
fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX charges a $40 per month Professional Subscriber Fee for
use of its market data products by each of internal and external users.
The International Securities Exchange charges a $50 per month
Controlled Device Fee for use of its Depth of Market Feed. NYSE charges
a $50 per month Professional User Fee for use of each of its NYSE
ArcaBook for Amex Options and NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options market
data products.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge a lower fee for use of Book Depth data via a
Display Only Service because such use would be limited to display use
only. The Display Only Service would only allow a natural person end-
user to view and manipulate data using the Customer's computerized
service, but not to save, copy, export or transfer the data or any
results of the manipulation to any other computer hardware, software or
media, except for printing it to paper or other non-magnetic media. As
noted above, other exchanges charge fees for market data products based
on distinctions between ``display'' and ``non-display'' usage.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Supra footnote 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COB Data Fees: The Exchange believes the proposed reductions of the
Data Fee and Non-professional User Fee for the COB Data Feed are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply
equally to all Customers of the COB Data Feed. The Exchange believes
the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to
fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, as
noted above, the International Securities Exchange charges distributors
of its Spread Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000. The proposed lower
Data Fee may permit wider distribution of the COB Data Feed at a lower
cost to Customers, and the reduced User Fee may make it less costly for
Customers to distribute data to Non-professional Users, thereby
benefitting both Customers and Non-professional Users, including public
investors.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to allow Book Depth Data Feed
Customers to become COB Data Feed Customers without any additional Data
Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply
equally to all Book Depth Data Feed Customers. Book Depth Data Feed
Customers would pay MDX $6,000 per month for the right to use and
redistribute the data in the Book Depth Data Feed. The COB Data Feed is
a subset of the Book Depth Data Feed. The proposed fee arrangement
would allow a Book Depth Data Feed Customer to use and redistribute the
COB Data Feed for no additional charge, thereby incentivizing further
redistribution of the data in the COB Data Feed. The Exchange notes
other exchanges offer similar fee arrangements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Supra footnote 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Systems Fees and Billing Policy: The Exchange believes the proposed
changes to the description of the Port Fee are equitable, reasonable
and not unfairly discriminatory because they would benefit all
Customers by clarifying how the Port Fee is assessed. The Exchange
believes removing the billing policy from the MDX Fee Schedule is
equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because MDX
believes it would be more appropriate for billing policies to be
located within MDX's written agreement with Customers along with other
policies related to MDX's market data services.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes the proposed
fees for the BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds are equitable,
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Exchange
believes that no substantial countervailing basis exists to support a
finding that the proposed fees for the BBO, Book Depth and COB Data
Feeds fail to meet the requirements of the Act.

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

    CBOE 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 data feed products
is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale
of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and
(3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
    The Existence of Actual Competition. The Exchange believes
competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees
that the Exchange, through MDX, has the ability and the incentive to
charge. CBOE has a compelling need to attract order flow from market
participants in order to maintain its share of trading volume. This
compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant pressure on
CBOE to act reasonably in setting its fees for market data,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom CBOE must attract
order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers that
control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high data fees
would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose orders it
depends for competitive survival. CBOE currently competes with eleven
options exchanges (including CBOE's affiliate, C2 Options Exchange) for
order flow.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74
FR 25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) (order approving ISE's
proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market data
offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the market data 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. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will
enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer the BBO, Book
Depth or COB Data Feeds unless these products will help them maintain
current users or attract new ones. For example, a broker-dealer will
not choose to offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds to its retail
customers unless the broker-dealer believes that the retail customers
will use and value the data and the provision of such data will help
the broker-dealer maintain the customer relationship, which allows the
broker-dealer to generate profits for itself. Professional users will
not request any of these feeds from Customers unless they can use the
data for profit-generating purposes in their businesses. All of these
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, market data
and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with
joint costs. The decision 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 quality, and price
and distribution of their data products. The more trade executions a
platform does, the more valuable its market data products become. 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 transaction execution
platform 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 view the costs of transaction executions and market
data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    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. Thus, because it
is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, system costs 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.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 12 options self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as
well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and
electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). 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
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. 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.
    The Existence of Alternatives. CBOE is constrained in pricing the
BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds by the availability to market
participants of alternatives to purchasing these products. CBOE must
consider the extent to which market participants would choose one or
more alternatives instead of purchasing the exchange's data. Other
options exchanges can and have produced their own top-of-book, book
depth and complex strategies market data products, and thus are sources
of potential competition for MDX. For example, as noted above, BATS,
ISE, NASDAQ OMX PHLX and NYSE offer market data products that compete
with the BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds. The large number of SROs,
BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently
capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for
proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and BD is currently permitted
to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do. In
addition, the OPRA data feed is a significant competitive alternative
to the BBO and last sale data included in the BBO and Book Depth Data
Feeds.
    Further, data products are valuable to professional users only if
they can be used for profit-generating purposes in their businesses and
valuable to non-professional users only insofar as they provide
information that such users expect will assist them in tracking prices
and market trends and making trading decisions.
    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 its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2014-094 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-CBOE-2014-094. 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 also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. 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-CBOE-2014-094 and should be submitted on or before
January 27, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30893 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5310-5313]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1080; Product Identifier 2020-NM-002-AD; Amendment
39-19823; AD 2020-01-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes;
Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a loud bang was
heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one emergency escape
slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure, due to a burst
rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir, which was probably
caused by a manufacturing defect. This AD requires repetitive checks of
the pressure gauges on the inflation reservoir of each emergency escape
slide/raft to determine the amount of pressure and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, as specified
in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 14,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-1080.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1080; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0316, dated December 23, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0316'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-
111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N and -273N airplanes; and Model A321
series airplanes. Model A319-153N and A320-215 airplanes are not
certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate
data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the
applicability.
    This AD was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a
loud bang was heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one
emergency escape slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure, due
to a burst rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir, which was
probably caused by a manufacturing defect. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address insufficient reservoir pressure in an emergency escape
slide/raft, which would prevent the deployment of the emergency escape
slide/raft during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the
occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0316 describes procedures for repetitive checks of the
pressure gauge on the inflation reservoir of each emergency escape
slide/slide raft to determine the amount of pressure, and applicable
corrective actions. The corrective actions include, among other things,
replacement of any affected emergency escape slide/raft or inflation
reservoir.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated
all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2019-0316 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0316
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD,
therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2019-0316 in its entirety,
through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that
are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does
not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For
example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and
compliance times,'' compliance with

this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required
Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information
specified in EASA AD 2019-0316 that is required for compliance with
EASA AD 2019-0316 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1080 after the FAA final rule is published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because if a rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir of an
emergency escape slide/slide raft burst it would result in a sudden
loss of reservoir pressure and prevent the deployment of the emergency
escape slide/raft during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to
the occupants. Due to the severity of this problem, the emergency
escape slide/slide raft must be inspected to ensure proper deployment
using a shorter compliance interval than is practical through the
notice and comment rulemaking process. Therefore, the FAA finds good
cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data,
views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-1080;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-002-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this AD.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking at that time.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,553 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85         $132,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-01-17 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19823; Docket No. FAA-2019-1080;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-002-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -
151N and -171N airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -
252N, -253N,
    -271N, -272N and -273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -252N,
    -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, 271NX, and -272NX
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a
loud bang was heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one
emergency escape slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure,
due to a burst rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir,
which was probably caused by a manufacturing defect. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address insufficient reservoir pressure in an
emergency escape slide/raft, which would prevent the deployment of
the emergency escape slide/raft during an emergency, possibly
resulting in injury to the occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0316, dated December 23, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0316'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0316

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0316 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0316 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2019-0316 specifies to comply with ``the
instructions of the AOT,'' this AD requires compliance with the
procedures marked as required for compliance (RC) in the Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT).

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0316 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0316,
dated December 23, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0316, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-1080.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 21, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01634 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47941-47942]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Railworthiness Directive for Tank Cars Owned by Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corporation Rail Services, LLC and Equipped With Rubber Linings
Owned by Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Rail Services, LLC; RWD
No. 2023-01

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of issuance and availability of railworthiness
directive.

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

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2023, FRA issued a Railworthiness Directive
(Directive or RWD) to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Rail
Services, LLC (SMBC). This document announces FRA's issuance of the
RWD, RWD No. 2023-01, and its availability on FRA's website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Keltz, Manager of Tank Car
Safety Programs, Motive Power & Equipment Division, Office of Railroad
Infrastructure & Mechanical, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA issued this Directive, RWD No. 2023-01,
under 49 CFR 180.509(b)(4) to SMBC based on its finding that as a
result of non-conforming qualification practices, SMBC-owned DOT-111
tank cars, equipped with SMBC-owned rubber linings, may be in an unsafe
operating condition that could result in the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. As a result of the identified non-
conforming qualification practices, these cars may have substantial
rubber lining defects, potentially affecting each tank car's ability to
retain its contents during transportation.
    FRA issued the Directive to ensure public safety, ensure compliance
with the applicable Federal regulations governing the safe movement of
hazardous materials by rail, and ensure the railworthiness of the tank
cars. The full text of the Directive is available on

FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-15723 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P