[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58802-58804]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25341]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84600; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2018-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent Exchange Rule 11.24, Which Sets
Forth the Exchange's Pilot Retail Price Improvement Program

November 15, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On July 30, 2018, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make permanent Exchange Rule 11.24, which sets
forth the Exchange's pilot Retail Price Improvement Program. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 17, 2018.\3\ On September 27, 2018, the Commission extended
to November 15, 2018, the time period in which to approve, disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83831 (August 13,
2018), 83 FR 41128 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84297, 83 FR 49959
(October 3, 2018).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.24 to make
permanent the Retail Price Improvement Program (the ``Program''), which
sets forth the rules and procedures governing the program and is
currently offered on a pilot basis.\6\ The pilot is scheduled to expire
upon the earlier of the approval of this proposed rule change or
December 31, 2018.\7\ According to the Exchange, the Program is
designed to attract retail order flow and allow such order flow to
receive potential price improvement.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In November 2012, the Commission approved the Program on a
pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November
27, 2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (``RPI Approval Order'')
(SR-BYX-2012-019).
    \7\ The Exchange implemented the Program on January 11, 2013,
and has extended the pilot period five times. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 71249 (January 7, 2014), 79 FR 2229
(January 13, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-001); 74111 (January 22, 2015), 80
FR 4598 (January 28, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-05); 76965 (January 22,
2016), 81 FR 4682 (January 27, 2016) (SR-BYX-2016-01); 78180 (June
28, 2016), 81 FR 43306 (July 1, 2016) (SR-BYX-2016-15); and 81368
(August 10, 2017), 82 FR 38960 (August 16, 2017) (SR-BYX-2017-18).
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 41128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Program, a class of market participant called a Retail
Member Organization (``RMO'') is eligible to submit certain retail
order flow (``Retail Orders'') to the Exchange. A User \9\ is permitted
to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders \10\ by
submitting Retail Price Improvement (``RPI'') Orders, which are non-
displayed orders that are priced at least $0.001 better than the best
protected bid (``PBB'') or best protected offer (``PBO'') (``PBBO''),
as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS, and that is identified as
such.\11\ After an RPI Order is submitted, the Exchange disseminates an
indicator through its proprietary data feeds or through the
Consolidated Tape Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan for Tape A
and Tape B securities

and the Nasdaq UTP Plan for Tape C securities, known as the Retail
Liquidity Identifier, indicating that such interest exists.\12\ The
Retail Liquidity Identifier reflects the symbol for the particular
security and the side (buy or sell) of the RPI interest, but does not
include the price or size of the RPI interest.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``User'' is defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc) as any member
or sponsored participant of the Exchange who is authorized to obtain
access to the System.
    \10\ A ``Retail Order'' is defined in Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2)
as an agency order or riskless principal that meets the criteria of
FINRA Rule 53250.03 that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by a RMO, provided that no change is made
to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market
and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any
computerized methodology. See Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 41128. As more fully set forth
in the Notice, RPI Orders may be submitted with an explicit limit
price, or an offset. RPI Orders submitted with an offset are similar
to other peg orders in that the order is tied or ``pegged'' to a
certain price, and would have its price automatically set and
adjusted upon changes to the Protected NBBO. The offset is a
predetermined amount by which the User is willing to improve the
Protected NBBO, subject to a ceiling or floor price. The ceiling or
floor price is the amount above or below which the User does not
wish to trade. RPI Orders in their entirety (the buy or sell
interest, the offset, and the ceiling or floor) will remain non-
displayed.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 41130.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as an RMO, a member organization must conduct a retail
business or route retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.\14\
A member organization must submit the following to the Exchange for
approval: (i) An application form, (ii) supporting documentation, and
(iii) an attestation that substantially all orders submitted as retail
orders will qualify as such. The Program provides for an appeal process
for a disapproved applicant, and a withdraw process for RMOs. RMOs must
have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that
they will only designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of
a Retail Order are met. RMOs could be disqualified if they submit
Retail Orders that do not meet the requirements of Retail Orders. If
disqualified, RMOs may appeal and reapply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Program, there are two types of Retail Orders. A Type 1
Retail Order will interact with only available contra-side RPI Orders
and other price improving contra-side interest.\15\ A Type 1 Retail
Order will not interact with other available contra-side interest or
route to away markets. The unexecuted portion of a Type 1 Retail Order
will be immediately cancelled. A Type 2 Retail Order will interact
first with available contra-side RPI Orders and price-improving
liquidity, and then any remaining portion will be executed as an
immediate-or-cancel order.\16\ A Type 2-desiganted Retail Order can
either be submitted as a BYX Only Order or an order eligible for
routing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id. at 41130-31.
    \17\ See id. at 41131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program provides that RPI Orders will be ranked and allocated
according to price-time priority. Executions occur in price time
priority. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest remains available to
interact with other incoming Retail Orders if such interest is at an
eligible price.
    A more detailed description of how the program operates, including
but not limited to how a member organization may qualify an apply to
become a RMO; the different types of Retail Orders; and priority and
order allocation of RPI Orders is more fully set forth in the
Notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the RPI Approval Order, the Exchange agreed to provide
the Commission with a significant amount of data to assist the
Commission's evaluation of the Program.\19\ Specifically, the Exchange
represented that it would ``produce data throughout the pilot, which
will include statistics about participation, the frequency and level of
price improvement provided by the Program, and any effects on the
broader market structure.'' \20\ The Commission expected the Exchange
to monitor the scope and operation of the Program and study the data
produced during that time with respect to such issues.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See RPI Order, supra note 7, at 71657.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange states that it believes that it has
achieved its goal of attracting retail order flow to the Exchange.\22\
The Exchange further states that its analysis of the data collected
demonstrates that ``there has been consistent retail investor interest
in the Program, which has provided tangible price improvement to those
retail investors through a competitive pricing process over the course
of the pilot.'' \23\ The Exchange also concluded that the data shows
that the Program ``had an overall negligible impact on broader market
quality outside of the Program.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 41131.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \25\ to determine whether the proposal should be
approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at
this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the
proposal. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that
the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\26\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\27\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and which prohibits the rules of an
exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and with Section 6(b)(8) of
the Act, which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program was intended to create additional price improvement
opportunities for retail investors by segmenting retail order flow on
the Exchange.\29\ When the Commission initially approved the Program on
a pilot basis, it explained that it would monitor the Program
throughout the pilot period for its potential effects on public price
discovery and on the broader market structure.\30\ The Commission
expressed its view that the Program should not cause a major shift in
market structure, but instead, it would closely replicate the trading
dynamics that exist in the over-the-counter markets to present another
competitive venue for retail order flow execution.\31\ As explained
above, the Exchange provides an analysis of what it considers to be the
economic benefits for retail investors and the marketplace flowing from
operation of the Program.\32\ The Exchange also concludes, among other
things, that the relatively modest volume in the Program limits the
potential impact of the Program on the broader market quality on the
Exchange, and that Program has not had any significant impact on
broader market quality.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 13, at 71655
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id. at 71656.
    \32\ See supra notes 20--22, and Notice, supra note 3, at 41131-
38.
    \33\ See id. at 413332; 41337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . .

 is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \34\ The description
of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\35\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\36\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the
Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations without
sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission questions whether the information and analysis
provided by the Exchange support the Exchange's conclusions that the
Program has achieved its goals, including whether the Program has not
had a significant impact on broader market quality. The Commission
seeks additional information and analysis concerning the Program's
impact on the broader market; for example, additional information to
support the view that the Program has not had a material adverse impact
on market quality. The Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment
on the issues raised herein, any potential response to comments or
supplemental information provided by the Exchange, and any additional
independent analysis by the Commission. The Commission believes that
these issues raise questions as to whether the Exchange has met its
burden to demonstrate, based on the data and analysis provided, that
permanent approval of the Program is consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that the Program be designed to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market
system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly
discriminatory; or not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of
the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by December 12, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
December 26, 2018.
    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBYX-2018-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2018-014. The
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2018-014 and should be submitted
on or before December 12, 2018. Rebuttal comments should be submitted
by December 26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25341 Filed 11-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68097-68099]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26922]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0681, FRL-10003-11-Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Infrastructure SIP for Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006
PM10, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and 2011 Carbon Monoxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the portions of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submittal regarding infrastructure requirements for interstate
transport of pollution with respect to the 2006 particulate matter of
10 microns ([mu]m) or less (PM10), 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and 2011 carbon monoxide (CO) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2018-0681 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kenneth Fradkin, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. General

    The EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the State of New
Jersey's Infrastructure SIP submission, dated October 17, 2014, which
address the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
pertaining to interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006)), the EPA
retained \1\ the primary and secondary 24-hour PM10 standard
of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air ([micro]g/m\3\), as an average
over a 24-hour period, not to be exceeded more than once per year on
average over a 3-year period, that was initially promulgated on June 2,
1987 (52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The PM10 standard was also retained on December
14, 2012 (78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013)), but that is not being
addressed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008)), the EPA
promulgated a revised primary and secondary NAAQS for lead. The 2008
lead NAAQS level is 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, and the averaging time is a
rolling 3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form to be
evaluated over a 3-year period.
    On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010)), the EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.
    On August 12, 2011 (76 FR 54294 (August 31, 2011)), the EPA
retained the existing primary standard for CO of 9 ppm as an 8-hour
average, and 35 ppm as a 1-hour standard average, neither to be
exceeded more than once per year. The EPA initially established a NAAQS
for CO on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186).

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that
it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context
of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA has previously
provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions
through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and
through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\

Unless otherwise noted below, we are following that existing approach
in acting on this submission. In addition, in the context of acting on
such infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's
SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements,
not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA has other
authority to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of
the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on New Jersey's infrastructure SIP submitted on October 17,
2014 that addressed the portion of the submission not germane to
transport to address 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006
PM10 and 2011 CO NAAQS (83 FR 24661(May 30, 2018)).
    \3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. Thomas, 902 F.3d 971
(Aug. 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in one
state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes
with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes
refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly
as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. Further information can
be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking
action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0681.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On October 17, 2014 New Jersey submitted, through the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), a revision to its SIP
to address requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (the
infrastructure requirements) related to the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although not specifically required by 110(a)(1), since neither NAAQS
was new or revised, the October 17, 2014 SIP submittal also included
infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM10 and 2011 CO
NAAQS.
    On May 30, 2018 the EPA addressed the portion of New Jersey's
October 17, 2014 submission not germane to transport, including:
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(E), 110(a)(2)(F),
110(a)(2)(G), 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(J), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L),
and 110(a)(2)(M) for all submitted NAAQS (i.e., 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 PM10 and 2011 CO NAAQS).\4\ In the same action, the EPA
addressed CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Interstate and International
Pollution Abatement, for all NAAQS addressed in the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 83 FR 24661(May 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA acted on CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3
(interstate transport provisions for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) and prong 4 (interstate provisions for visibility) on
September 19, 2016 for all NAAQS addressed in the SIP submittal. In the
September 19, 2016 rulemaking, the EPA disapproved prong 3 and approved
prong 4.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 81 FR 64070 (September 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA acted on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the interstate transport
pollution requirements portion of the New Jersey October 17, 2014
submittal with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, finalizing
approval on August 14, 2018.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 83 FR 40151 (August 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, New Jersey withdrew the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the interstate transport pollution requirements
portion of the October 17, 2014 submission in a letter to the EPA on
March 30, 2016. New Jersey subsequently submitted a SIP revision
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (as well as the
2015 ozone NAAQS) on May 13, 2019. The EPA will address New Jersey's
May 13, 2019 SIP submittal in a separate action at a later date.
    The EPA is not acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for interstate
transport pollution with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and
will address it in another action.
    This proposed rulemaking action addresses the portions of New
Jersey's infrastructure submittal for the 2006 PM10, 2008
lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS that pertain to transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2(D)(i)(I).
    The portions of New Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submittal
addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) set forth New Jersey's position
that it does not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS.
Additionally, New Jersey described in its submittal its existing SIP-
approved control measures, and other federally enforceable control
measures, such as consent decrees and federal rules that apply to 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO sources
within the State.
    In our analysis of New Jersey's SIP submission with respect to the
2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO
NAAQS, the EPA considered ambient air quality data, the proximity of
nearby nonattainment and maintenance areas, and emission trends.
    With respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS, the EPA's evaluation indicates
that there are no violating air quality monitors near New Jersey
borders, or in New Jersey. Ambient air quality data is well below the
NAAQS. There are no nearby nonattainment or maintenance areas in nearby
states. Additionally, there are no significant lead sources in New
Jersey near the State borders.
    Regarding the 2006 PM10 NAAQS, the EPA's evaluation
indicates that there are also no violating air quality monitors near
New Jersey borders, or in New Jersey. Ambient air quality data is well
below the NAAQS. There are no nearby nonattainment and maintenance
areas for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and emissions continue to
trend downward.
    With respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the EPA's evaluation
indicates that there are also no violating air quality monitors near
New Jersey borders, or in New Jersey. Ambient air quality data is well
below the NAAQS. There are no nearby nonattainment and maintenance
areas. New Jersey NO2 emissions continue to trend downward
and are projected by the EPA to further decrease by 2023.
    For the 2011 CO NAAQS, the EPA's evaluation indicates that there
are also no violating air quality monitors near New Jersey borders, or
in New Jersey. Ambient air quality data is well below the NAAQS. There
are no nearby CO nonattainment areas. Nearby maintenance areas in
neighboring states have maintained the NAAQS for close to two decades.
CO emissions continue to trend downward, and additional mobile
emissions reductions are projected by 2030 as a result of Federal Tier
3 standards.
    The EPA therefore proposes to approve New Jersey's infrastructure
SIP submittal for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS.
    A detailed summary and explanation of EPA's review and rationale
for the proposed approval of this SIP revision as meeting the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 PM10,
2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS may be found in the
TSD.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's infrastructure
submittal dated October 17, 2014, addressing interstate transport for
the 2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO
NAAQS as these portions meet the requirements in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New
Jersey's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS is
not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 25, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2019-26922 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63667-63668]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM
and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that
a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having
in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used
by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: The date of April 3, 2020 has been established for the FIRM and,
where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified
flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           New London County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1771
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of North Stonington...............  Old Town Hall, 40 Main Street,
                                          North Stonington, CT 06359.
Town of Stonington.....................  Town Hall, 152 Elm Street,
                                          Stonington, CT 06378.
Town of Voluntown......................  Town Hall, 115 Main Street,
                                          Voluntown, CT 06384.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Allegany County, Maryland and Incorporated Areas
                 Docket No.: FEMA-B-1601 and FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Cumberland.....................  City Hall, 57 North Liberty
                                          Street, Cumberland, MD 21502.
City of Frostburg......................  City Hall, 59 East Main Street,
                                          Frostburg, MD 21532.
Town of Barton.........................  Town Hall, 19018 Legislative
                                          Road SW, Barton, MD 21521.
Town of Lonaconing.....................  Town Hall, 35 East Main Street,
                                          Lonaconing, MD 21539.
Town of Luke...........................  City Building, 510 Grant
                                          Street, Luke, MD 21540.
Town of Midland........................  Town Hall, 19823 Big Lane SW,
                                          Midland, MD 21532.
Town of Westernport....................  City Building, 107 Washington
                                          Street, Westernport, MD 21562.
Unincorporated Areas of Allegany County  Allegany County Office
                                          Building, 701 Kelly Road,
                                          Cumberland, MD 21502.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Essex County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions)
                   Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1471 and B-1800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of North Caldwell..............  Borough Hall, 141 Gould Avenue,
                                          North Caldwell, NJ 07006.
Borough of Roseland....................  Public Works Department, 300
                                          Eagle Rock Avenue, Roseland,
                                          NJ 07068.
Township of Belleville.................  Engineering Office, 152
                                          Washington Avenue, Belleville,
                                          NJ 07109.
Township of Bloomfield.................  Municipal Building, 1 Municipal
                                          Plaza, Bloomfield, NJ 07003.

Township of Fairfield..................  Municipal Building, Engineering
                                          Department, 230 Fairfield
                                          Road, Fairfield, NJ 07004.
Township of Livingston.................  Township Hall, Engineering
                                          Department, 357 South
                                          Livingston Avenue, Livingston,
                                          NJ 07039.
Township of Montclair..................  Planning Department, 205
                                          Claremont Avenue, Montclair,
                                          NJ 07042.
Township of Nutley.....................  Township Hall, 1 Kennedy Drive,
                                          Nutley, NJ 07110.
Township of West Caldwell..............  Municipal Building, 30 Clinton
                                          Road, West Caldwell, NJ 07006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Kent County, Rhode Island (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1771
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Coventry.......................  Planning Department, 1675 Flat
                                          River Road, Coventry, RI
                                          02816.
Town of West Greenwich.................  Town Hall Annex South, Building
                                          Official's Office, 302 Victory
                                          Highway, West Greenwich, RI
                                          02817.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Washington County, Rhode Island (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1771
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narragansett Indian Tribe..............  Administration Building, 4533
                                          South County Trail,
                                          Charlestown, RI 02813.
Town of Charlestown....................  Town Hall, Building Department,
                                          4540 South County Trail,
                                          Charlestown, RI 02813.
Town of Exeter.........................  Town Hall, Town Clerk's Office,
                                          675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI
                                          02822.
Town of Hopkinton......................  Town Hall, 1 Town House Road,
                                          Hopkinton, RI 02833.
Town of North Kingstown................  Department of Public Works,
                                          Engineering Department, 2050
                                          Davisville Road, North
                                          Kingstown, RI 02852.
Town of Richmond.......................  Richmond Town Hall, 5 Richmond
                                          Townhouse Road, Wyoming, RI
                                          02898.
Town of South Kingstown................  South Kingstown Town Hall, 180
                                          High Street, Wakefield, RI
                                          02879.
Town of Westerly.......................  Town Hall, 45 Broad Street,
                                          Westerly, RI 02891.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Grand County, Utah and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1860
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Grand County...  Grand County Courthouse, 125
                                          East Center Street, Moab, UT
                                          84532.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-24885 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44123-44124]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6899-000]

Bradish, Robert W.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 29, 2023, Robert W. Bradish submitted for
filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b)
and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to

contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2023.

    Dated: July 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14604 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 199 (Thursday, October 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62142-62145]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76113; File No. SR-BATS-2015-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
an Issuer Incentive Program Applicable to Securities Listed on BATS
Exchange, Inc.

October 8, 2015.
    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 September 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fees applicable to
securities listed on the Exchange, which are set forth in BATS Rule
14.13.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules
applicable to the qualification, listing, and delisting of companies on
the Exchange,\3\ which it modified on February 8, 2012 in order to
adopt pricing for the listing of exchange traded products (``ETPs'')
\4\ on the Exchange,\5\ which it subsequently modified again on June 4,
2014.\6\ On October 16, 2014, the Exchange modified Rule 14.13,
entitled ``Company Listing Fees'' to eliminate the annual fees for ETPs
not participating in the Exchange's Competitive Liquidity

Provider Program pursuant to Rule 11.8, Interpretation and Policy .02
(the ``CLP Program'').\7\ On May 22, 2015, the Exchange further
modified Rule 14.13 to eliminate the $5,000 application fee for ETPs,
effectively eliminating any compulsory fees for both new ETP issues and
transfer listings in ETPs on the Exchange.\8\ The Exchange is now
proposing to offer an incentive payment to ETPs that are listed on the
Exchange based on the consolidated average daily volume (the ``CADV'')
of the ETP (the ``Issuer Incentive Program''). The Exchange notes that
the payments would be made payable to the ETP or fund, and not to the
sponsor of the ETP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August 30,
2011), 76 FR 55148 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018).
    \4\ As defined in BATS Rule 11.8(e)(1)(A), the term ``ETP''
means any security listed pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66422 (February 17,
2012), 77 FR 11179 (February 24, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-010).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72377 (June 12,
2014), 79 FR 34822 (June 18, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-024).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73414 (October 23,
2014), 79 FR 64434 (October 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-050).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75085 (June 1,
2015), 80 FR 32190 (June 5, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-39).
    \9\ The sponsor of an ETP is the registered investment adviser
that provides investment management services to such ETP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that the Issuer Incentive
Program would allow the Exchange to provide payments to the fund on a
quarterly basis that would be based on the CADV of the ETP for each
trading day of the preceding calendar quarter that the ETP was listed
on the Exchange, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annualized
                         CADV Range                             payment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000,000-3,000,000 shares..................................      $3,000
3,000,001-5,000,000 shares..................................      10,000
5,000,001-10,000,000 shares.................................      50,000
10,000,001-20,000,000 shares................................     100,000
20,000,001-35,000,000 shares................................     250,000
Greater than 35,000,000 shares..............................     400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the payments would be provided for each trading day, where
an ETP had a CADV of 4,000,000 over the course of a full calendar
quarter that it was listed on the Exchange, the ETP would receive a
payment of $2,500 (.25 * $10,000, the annualized payment for that CADV)
for the quarter. Where the same ETP had a CADV of 4,000,000, but was
only listed on the Exchange for exactly half of the trading days in the
calendar quarter, the ETP would receive a payment of $1,250 ((.25 *
$10,000) * .5).
    The Exchange is proposing the Issuer Incentive Program as a way to
attract both new ETP issues and transfer ETP listings to the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that the Issuer Incentive Program would also be
applicable to ETPs currently listed on the Exchange. Traditionally, ETP
issuers have paid between $5,000 and $55,000 on an annual basis in
order to be listed on an exchange,\10\ a paradigm only recently broken
by BATS implementing free ETP listings on the Exchange, as described
above. If the only revenue source associated with listing these ETPs
was the listing fee, the pay-per-listing model would make sense,
however, the primary listing exchange also earns additional revenue
from trading fees. Such additional trading fees are earned by exchanges
from the outsized share of intraday trading volume that a primary
listed security typically garners for the listing exchange as well as
trading fees for orders participating in the opening and closing
auctions. As the CADV increases for an ETP, so does the additional
trading fee revenue earned by the primary listing exchange. As such,
the Exchange is proposing to adopt the above described tiered payment
structure for ETPs listed on the Exchange, which it believes creates a
more equitable and appropriate relationship between the Exchange and
issuers based on the revenue and expenses associated with listing ETPs
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges
for Exchange Listing Services, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/nyse_arca_e_listing_fees.pdf; see also
NASDAQ Rules 5930 and 5940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed changes described above, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate reference to fees for securities participating in
the CLP Program because such program is no longer operational and has
been replaced by the Supplemental Competitive Liquidity Provider
Program, as described in Rule 11.8, Interpretation and Policy .03 (the
``ETP CLP Program'').
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to Rule
14.13(b)(2)(C) effective October 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\11\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among issuers and it does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the annual
listing fees in Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) to provide payment to ETPs listed
on the Exchange is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees and other charges because it would
create a distribution of fees and other charges applicable to all
issuers that reflect the additional revenue that an ETP listed on the
Exchange creates for the Exchange through executions occurring in the
auctions and additional shares executed on the Exchange. As the market
is currently structured, ETPs typically pay a flat fee to an exchange
for listing services regardless of the amount of additional revenue
that the product will bring to the exchange. The Issuer Incentive
Program, on the other hand, acknowledges the additional revenue brought
to the Exchange by virtue of an ETP listing on the Exchange and is
designed to reward the issuer of an ETP for such additional revenue,
which the Exchange believes creates a more equitable and appropriate
relationship between the Exchange and issuers based on the revenue and
expenses associated with listing ETPs on the Exchange. As such, the
Exchange believes that that it is reasonable, fair and equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and other charges to
provide payment to issuers of ETPs listed on the Exchange.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the
annual listing fees in Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) to provide tiered payments
to issuers of ETPs listed on the Exchange based on the CADV of an ETP
is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
allocation of fees and other charges because it would create a
distribution of fees and other charges applicable to all issuers that
are commensurate with the additional revenue that an ETP listed on the
Exchange creates for the Exchange through executions occurring in the
auctions and additional shares executed on the Exchange. As described
above, where the CADV of an ETP increases, so does the additional
trading fee revenue earned by the primary listing exchange.
Accordingly, the tiers within the Issuer Incentive Program are designed
to reward the issuer of an ETP on the basis of the additional revenue
potential that the ETP brings to the Exchange. Further to this point,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory because, as described above, the annualized payments
associated with the various CADV tiers in the Issuer Incentive Program
are designed to account for the approximate additional revenue that the
Exchange

will receive from an ETP listed on the Exchange within a particular
CADV tier. The Exchange notes that certain ETPs in the proposed tiers
with higher CADV would receive disproportionately higher rebates than
ETPs in other tiers with lower CADV. The Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide a
disproportionately higher payment to ETPs in higher tiers because such
ETPs would likely bring a disproportionately larger amount of revenue
to the Exchange from the auctions the Exchange would conduct for such
securities and increased trading activity on the Exchange in such
securities. The Exchange believes that the additional revenue it will
generate from ETPs that receive payments through the Issuer Incentive
Program, including ETPs that qualify for the higher tiers, will exceed
the amount of such payments. To the extent the additional revenue
generated by ETPs that receive payments through the Issuer Incentive
Program does not exceed the amount of such payments, the Exchange will
modify the structure of the Issuer Incentive Program such that the
program does generate revenue for the Exchange.
    In addition, the Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly
discriminatory to exclude ETPs with a CADV of less than 1,000,000 from
the Issuer Incentive Program because such ETPs do not typically
generate revenue to the same degree as the higher CADV products. The
Exchange notes that ETPs with a CADV of less than 1,000,000 are
eligible to participate in the ETP CLP Program, which is designed to
incent market makers to provide liquidity in less actively traded
products with the goal of facilitating the growth of such products.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 11.8, Interpretation and Policy .03(n), a
security participating in the ETP CLP Program will no longer be
eligible to participate once such security sustains CADV of
1,000,000 shares or more for three consecutive months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal creates a more equitable
and appropriate relationship between the Exchange and issuers tied
directly to the revenue and expenses associated with listing ETPs on
the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that that it is
reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
allocation of fees and other charges to offer payments to issuers of
ETPs listed on the Exchange that are tiered on the basis of the CADV of
the ETP.
    The Exchange is not currently proposing to extend the Issuer
Incentive Program to corporate securities despite the fact that it
currently maintains rules and fees necessary to support the listing of
a corporate security on the Exchange.\14\ The Exchange believes it is
reasonable and equitable to limit the Issuer Incentive Program to ETPs
and not to extend such proposal to corporate listings because the
economic structure of operating a listings program for ETPs is
significantly different than operating a listings program for
corporates. A primary distinction between ETPs and corporate listings
is that the regulation and oversight of ETPs is scalable, such that
while each new ETP requires surveillance and results in additional
regulatory burden on the Exchange, such burden is rarely related to the
governance structure of the fund as many funds are often issued through
the same governance structure (e.g., a trust). In contrast, each
corporate issuance is typically distinct from any other issuance, and
thus, the regulatory burden does not as easily scale as the number of
listings increases. In addition, corporate listings often demand
additional oversight with respect to governance and services that are
typically not provided for ETPs, including investor relations services,
public relations, sales and marketing. These services often demand a
large capital commitment from the listings exchange. Thus, while the
Exchange believes that it can adopt a competitive and profitable
program for ETPs that includes the Issuer Incentive Program as
proposed, the Exchange would have to further analyze whether such a
program could be applied to corporate securities and remain profitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that it does not currently list any
corporate securities and would consider applicable fees and
incentives in the future if the Exchange is to list one or more
corporate securities, particularly if the Exchange was seeking to
operate a competitive corporate listing business. To the extent the
Exchange did propose to extend the Issuer Incentive Program to
corporate securities it would file a separate proposal pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed
amendment to Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) to implement the Issuer Incentive
Program is a reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory allocation
of fees to issuers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. With
respect to the proposed new pricing for the listing of ETPs, the
Exchange does not believe that the changes burden competition, but
instead, enhance competition, as it is intended to increase the
competitiveness of the Exchange's listings program by allowing the
Exchange to provide ETPs with quarterly payments based on the CADV of
the ETP, which the Exchange believes will be directly related to the
amount of additional revenue that the Exchange receives from additional
transactions in the ETP. As such, the proposal is a competitive
proposal that is intended to attract additional ETP listings, which
will, in turn, benefit the Exchange and all other BATS-listed ETPs.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 \15\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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 proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-80 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-80. 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
such filing will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-80 and should be submitted on or before November
5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26150 Filed 10-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23632]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-5, SEC File No. 270-195, OMB Control No. 3235-0198.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-5 (17 CFR 240.15c2-
5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c2-5 prohibits a broker-dealer from arranging or extending
certain loans to persons in connection with the offer or sale of
securities unless, before any element of the transaction is entered
into, the broker-dealer: (1) Delivers to the person a written statement
containing the exact nature and extent of the person's obligations
under the loan arrangement; the risks and disadvantages of the loan
arrangement; and all commissions, discounts, and other remuneration
received and to be received in connection with the transaction by the
broker-dealer or certain related persons (unless the person receives
certain materials from the lender or broker-dealer which contain the
required information); and (2) obtains from the person information on
the person's financial situation and needs, reasonably determines that
the transaction is suitable for the person, and retains on file and
makes available to the person on request a written statement setting
forth the broker-dealer's basis for determining that the transaction
was suitable. The collection of information required by Rule 15c2-5 is
necessary to execute the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to
prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices by
broker-dealers.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 50
respondents that require an aggregate total of 600 hours to comply with
Rule 15c2-5. Each of these approximately 50 registered broker-dealers
makes an estimated six annual responses, for an aggregate total of 300
responses per year. Each response takes approximately two hours to
complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 600 burden
hours. The approximate cost per hour is $50.00 for clerical labor,
resulting in a total compliance cost of $30,000 (600 hours @ $50.00 per
hour). These reflect internal labor costs; there are no external labor,
capital, or start-up costs.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that
does not display a valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 20, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10107 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60694-60697]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21217]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9951-82-OAR]

Alternative Method for Calculating Off-cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From
BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and
Volkswagen Group of America

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting
comment on applications from BMW of North American (BMW), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), General Motors Corporation (GM), and Volkswagen Group
of America (VW) for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits
under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards.
``Off-cycle'' emission reductions can be achieved by employing
technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where that benefit
is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by manufacturers
to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's light-duty
vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits by giving
automobile manufacturers several options for generating ``off-cycle''
carbon dioxide (CO2) credits. Under the regulations, a
manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for off-cycle
technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these cases, a
manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. These four manufacturers
have submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining
off-cycle credits. The off-cycle technologies vary by manufacturer and
include active aerodynamics systems, active cabin ventilation, active
seat ventilation, solar reflective glass/glazing, solar reflective
surface coating (paint), active engine warmup, active transmission
warmup, engine idle stop-start systems, and high efficiency lighting.
Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is making descriptions of each
manufacturer's off-cycle credit calculation methodologies available for
public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0503, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, as long as the technologies meet EPA regulatory
definitions. In cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu
but additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a
second pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission
tests (known as ``5-cycle'' testing because the

methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate and
justify off-cycle CO2 credits.\2\ The additional emission
tests allow emission benefits to be demonstrated over some elements of
real-world driving not adequately captured by the GHG compliance tests,
including high speeds, hard accelerations, and cold temperatures. These
first two methodologies were completely defined through notice and
comment rulemaking and therefore no additional process is necessary for
manufacturers to use these methods. The third and last pathway allows
manufacturers to seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology
for determining the off-cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is
only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be adequately
demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use
this option for model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle
CO2 reductions for technologies that are on the
predetermined list, or to demonstrate reductions that exceed those
available via use of the predetermined list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described above) must describe a methodology that meets the
following criteria:
     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.
     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications

A. BMW of North America

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, BMW of
North America (BMW) is applying for credits for model years prior to
2014, and thus prior to when the list of default credits became
available. BMW has applied for off-cycle credits using the alternative
demonstration methodology pathway for the following technologies: high
efficiency exterior lighting, solar reflective glass/glazing, active
seat ventilation, active cabin ventilation, and active engine warmup.
With the exception of active cabin ventilation, EPA has already
approved credits for these technologies for model years prior to
2014.\5\ BMW's request is consistent with previously approved
methodologies and credits. The application covers 2009-2013 model year
vehicles. All of these technologies are described in the predetermined
list of credits available in the 2014 and later model years. The
methodologies described by BMW are consistent with those used by EPA to
establish the predetermined list of credits in the regulations, and
would result in the same credit values as described in the regulations.
The magnitude of these credits is determined by specification or
calculations in the regulations based on vehicle-specific measurements
(e.g., the area of glass or the lighting locations using the specified
technologies), but would be no higher than the following established
regulatory values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Off-cycle         Off-cycle
             Technology                 credit--cars     credit--trucks
                                        (grams/mile)      (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High efficiency lighting............               1.0               1.0
Solar reflective glass/glazing......               2.9               3.9
Active seat ventilation.............               1.0               1.3
Active cabin ventilation............               2.1               2.8
Active engine warmup................               1.5               3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Ford Motor Company

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Ford
Motor Company (Ford) is applying for credits for model years prior to
2014, and thus prior to when the list of default credits became
available. Ford has applied for off-cycle credits using the alternative
demonstration methodology pathway for the following technologies: high
efficiency exterior lighting, active seat ventilation, active
aerodynamics, active transmission warmup, active engine warmup, and
engine idle stop-start systems. EPA has already approved credits for
these technologies for the 2012 and 2013 model years for Ford, and for
some of these technologies for Fiat Chrysler for the 2009-2013 model
years.\6\ Ford's request is consistent with

previously approved methodologies and credits. The application covers
the 2009-2011 model year vehicles, model years which were inadvertently
omitted from Ford's previous request. All of these technologies are
described in the predetermined list of credits available in the 2014
and later model years. The methodologies described by Ford are
consistent with those used by EPA to establish the predetermined list
of credits in the regulations, and would result in the same credit
values as described in the regulations. The magnitude of these credits
is determined by specification or calculations in the regulations based
on vehicle-specific measurements (e.g., the area of glass or the
lighting locations using the specified technologies), but would be no
higher than the following established regulatory values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Off-cycle         Off-cycle
             Technology                 credit--cars     credit--trucks
                                        (grams/mile)      (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
high efficiency lighting............               1.0               1.0
Active seat ventilation.............               1.0               1.3
                                     -----------------------------------
Active aerodynamics.................  Based on measured reduction in the
                                             coefficient of drag.
                                     -----------------------------------
Active transmission warm-up.........               1.5               3.2
Active engine warm-up...............               1.5               3.2
Engine idle start-stop..............               2.5               4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. General Motors Corporation

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, General
Motors Corporation (GM) is applying for credits for model years prior
to 2014, and thus prior to when the list of default credits became
available. GM has applied for off-cycle credits using the alternative
demonstration methodology pathway for the following technologies: high
efficiency exterior lighting, solar reflective glass/glazing, solar
reflective paint, active seat ventilation, active aerodynamics, active
engine warmup, and engine idle stop-start systems. EPA has already
approved credits for these technologies for model years prior to
2014.\7\ GM's request is consistent with previously approved
methodologies and credits. The application covers the 2009-2013 model
year vehicles. All of these technologies are described in the
predetermined list of credits available in the 2014 and later model
years. The methodologies described by GM are consistent with those used
by EPA to establish the predetermined list of credits in the
regulations, and would result in the same credit values as described in
the regulations. The magnitude of these credits is determined by
specification or calculations in the regulations based on vehicle-
specific measurements (e.g., the area of glass or the lighting
locations using the specified technologies), but would be no higher
than the following established regulatory values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Off-cycle         Off-cycle
             Technology                 credit--cars     credit--trucks
                                        (grams/mile)      (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High efficiency lighting............               1.0               1.0
Solar reflective glass/glazing......               2.9               3.9
Solar reflective paint..............               0.4               0.5
Active seat ventilation.............               1.0               1.3
                                     -----------------------------------
Active aerodynamics.................  Based on measured reduction in the
                                             coefficient of drag.
                                     -----------------------------------
Active engine warm-up...............               1.5               3.2
Engine idle start-stop..............               2.5               4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Volkswagen of America

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above,
Volkswagen of America (VW) is applying for credits for model years
prior to 2014, and thus prior to when the list of default credits
became available. VW has applied for off-cycle credits using the
alternative demonstration methodology pathway for the following
technologies: Active aerodynamics systems, active seat ventilation,
solar reflective glass/glazing, solar reflective surface coating
(paint), active engine warmup, active transmission warmup, engine idle
stop-start systems, and high efficiency lighting. EPA has already
approved credits for these technologies for model years prior to
2014.\8\ VW's request is consistent with previously approved
methodologies and credits. The application covers the 2012-2013 model
year vehicles. All of these technologies are described in the
predetermined list of credits available in the 2014 and later model
years. The methodologies described by VW are consistent with those used
by EPA to establish the predetermined list of credits in the
regulations, and would result in the same credit values as described in
the regulations. The magnitude of these

credits is determined by specification or calculations in the
regulations based on vehicle-specific measurements (e.g., the area of
glass or the lighting locations using the specified technologies), but
would be no higher than the following established regulatory values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Off-cycle         Off-cycle
             Technology                 credit--cars     credit--trucks
                                        (grams/mile)      (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High efficiency lighting............               1.0               1.0
Solar reflective glass/glazing......               2.9               3.9
Solar reflective paint..............               0.4               0.5
Active seat ventilation.............               1.0               1.3
                                     -----------------------------------
Active aerodynamics.................  Based on measured reduction in the
                                             coefficient of drag.
                                     -----------------------------------
Active engine warm-up...............               1.5               3.2
Active transmission warm-up.........               1.5               3.2
Engine idle start-stop..............               2.5               4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now
making the applications available for public review and comment as
required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications
submitted by BMW, Ford, GM, and VW (with confidential business
information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see
ADDRESSES section above) and on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm. EPA is providing a 30-day
comment period on the applications for off-cycle credits described in
this notice, as specified by the regulations. The manufacturers may
submit a written rebuttal of comments for EPA's consideration, or may
revise an application in response to comments. After reviewing any
public comments and any rebuttal of comments submitted by
manufacturers, EPA will make a final decision regarding the credit
requests. EPA will make its decision available to the public by placing
a decision document (or multiple decision documents) in the docket and
on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm. While the broad methodologies used by these manufacturers
could potentially be used for other vehicles and by other
manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed to demonstrate the off-
cycle emissions reductions would likely be different. In such cases, a
new application would be required, including an opportunity for public
comment.

    Dated: August 26, 2016.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016-21217 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P