[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 989]
[FR Doc No: 2016-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76820; File No. SR-BATS-2015-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Amend BATS Rule 14.11(i) To Adopt Generic Listing Standards
for Managed Fund Shares

January 4, 2016.
    On November 18, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 amend BATS Rule
14.11(i) and to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund
Shares. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 25, 2015.\3\ The Commission has not
received any comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76478 (Nov. 19,
2015), 80 FR 73841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 9, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
February 23, 2016, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BATS-2015-100)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-105 Filed 1-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 61277]
[DOCID:fr21oc05-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-23-000]

Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 17, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2005, Viking Gas Transmission
Company (Viking) tendered for filing to become part of Viking's FERC
Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 143, to
become effective November 10, 2005.
    Vikings states that the purpose of this filing is to revise
Viking's Tariff to update the telephone and facsimile numbers for the
Electronic Communication Agreement.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5805 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 94954-94956]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3929; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-031-AD;
Amendment 39-18746; AD 2016-25-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each bi-
directional suspension cross-bar (cross-bar). This AD was prompted by
two reports of cracks in a cross-bar. These actions are intended to
prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    You may review the referenced service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3929; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 11, 2016, at 81 FR 21284, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Model EC130B4, EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA,
AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and
AS355NP helicopters with a cross-bar part number (P/N) 350A38-1040-20
or P/N 350A38-1040-00 installed. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitively inspecting each cross-bar for a crack and replacing any
cracked cross-bar before further flight. The proposed requirements were
intended to detect cracks in a cross-bar and prevent failure of the
cross-bar and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0094, dated May 29, 2015,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent

for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. EASA advises that
two cases of cracks in a cross-bar were reported on AS350B3
helicopters. The cracks were found at the transmission deck attachment
fitting holes in helicopters equipped with a cargo hook that had
completed missions with a significant number of torque cycles. Because
of common design features, cracks may also occur on other Model AS350-
series, AS355-series, and EC130-series helicopters. EASA advises that
crack growth may lead to failure of one of the four yokes and
significantly increase stress loads on the remaining yokes. This
condition, if not detected or corrected, could lead to cracks on the
remaining yokes and increased load on the cross-bar, possibly resulting
in cross-bar failure and consequently loss of the helicopter. To
correct this condition, EASA AD No. 2015-0094 requires repetitive
cross-bar inspections and, depending on the findings, replacing the
cross-bar.

Comments

    One commenter submitted comments supporting the NPRM (81 FR 21284,
April 11, 2016).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350BB
helicopters. This AD does not apply to the Model AS350BB because it
does not have an FAA type certificate. However, this AD applies to
Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters, while the EASA AD does not. The
EASA AD requires a florescent dye-penetrant inspection if the visual
inspection of the bi-directional suspension cross-bar causes doubts.
This AD does not require a florescent dye-penetrant inspection. The
EASA AD requires returning the damaged bi-directional suspension cross-
bar to Airbus Helicopters, and this AD does not.

Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
EC130-05A021 for Model EC130B4 helicopters; ASB No. EC130-05A022 for
Model EC130T2 helicopters; ASB No. AS350-05.00.84 for Model AS350B,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350D, and military Model
AS350L1 helicopters; and ASB No. 355-05.00.73 for Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355 NP helicopters (ASBs). All of the
ASBs are Revision 0 and dated May 21, 2015. The ASBs specify visually
inspecting the cross-bar. If there is any doubt after the visual
inspection, the ASBs call for a dye-penetrant inspection to make sure
there are no cracks. If a crack is detected, the ASBs call for
replacing the cross-bar before further flight and sending the damaged
cross-bar to Airbus Helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,132 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates,
we expect the following costs:
     Visually inspecting the cross-bar requires 16.5 work-hours
for a labor cost of about $1,403. No parts are needed so that the cost
for the U.S. fleet totals $1,588,196 per inspection cycle.
     Replacing the cross-bar costs $1,630 for parts. No
additional labor costs are needed.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2016-25-20 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-18746; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3929; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-031-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2,
AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1,
AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters
with a bi-directional suspension cross-bar (cross-bar) part number
(P/N) 350A38-1040-20 or P/N 350A38-1040-00 installed, certificated
in any category.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a bi-
directional cross-bar, which could result in failure of a cross-bar
and loss of control of the helicopter.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 31, 2017.

 (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

 (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within the initial inspection times shown in Table 1 to
paragraph (e) of this AD or the next time maintenance of the
helicopter involves removing the main gearbox, whichever comes
first; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed the compliance
times shown in Table 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, inspect each
cross-bar for a crack. For purposes of this AD, a torque cycle is
defined as one landing with or without stopping the rotor or one
external load-carrying operation; an external load-carrying
operation occurs each time a helicopter picks up an external load
and drops it off.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Initial and recurrent
            Helicopter model                   inspection interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2,       4,500 hours time-in-service
 AS350C, AS350D, and AS350D1.             (TIS) or 60,000 torque cycles,
                                          whichever occurs first.
AS350B3, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,        3,300 hours TIS or 60,000
 AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355 NP.           torque cycles, whichever
EC130B4................................   occurs first.
EC130T2................................  3,300 hours TIS or 40,000
                                          torque cycles, whichever
                                          occurs first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the
cross-bar.

 (f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

 (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

 (h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC130-05A021,
No. EC130-05A022, No. AS350-05.00.84, and No. AS355-05.00.73, all
Revision 0 and all dated May 21, 2015, which are not incorporated by
reference, contain additional information about the subject of this
final rule. For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (972) 641-
3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0094, dated May 29, 2015. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2015-3929.

 (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, Main Rotor
Drive System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 6, 2016.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-30048 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13564-13567]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0778; FRL-9907-56-Region 9]

Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Clark County,
Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
disapproval of revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action concerns affirmative
defense provisions applicable to violations related to excess emissions
from sources during equipment startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM)
events. Under authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), this
action identifies deficiencies with these provisions preventing EPA's
approval of them as SIP revisions.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0778 for

this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94015-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415)
942-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74057), EPA proposed to disapprove the
following section of the Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR)
that was amended by the Clark County Board of Commissioners (CCBC) and
submitted to EPA on behalf of the Clark County Department of Air
Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) by the State of Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for incorporation into the
Nevada SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency            Regulation No. and title        Amended                   Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAQEM............................  Section 25: Affirmative   May 18, 2010.......  September 1, 2010.
                                    Defense for Excess
                                    Emissions Due to
                                    Malfunctions, Startups,
                                    and Shutdown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to disapprove this SIP submission because some of the
rule provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part
D of title I of the Act. These provisions include the following:
    1. Sections 25.1 and 25.3 are inconsistent with the requirements
provided in CAA section 110(a) and conflict with the fundamental
enforcement structure provided in CAA sections 113 and 304, because
they create an affirmative defense to monetary penalties for violations
due to excess emissions from sources during startup and shutdown
events. EPA believes that providing an affirmative defense applicable
to avoidable violations, such as those resulting from excess emissions
during planned events such as startups and shutdowns that are within
the source's control, is inconsistent with the requirements provided in
CAA section 110(a) and the fundamental enforcement structure provided
in CAA sections 113 and 304, which provide for potential civil
penalties for violations of SIP requirements.
    2. The criteria for qualifying for an affirmative defense to
monetary penalties for violations due to excess emissions from sources
during malfunction events in CCAQR Section 25.2 are not fully
consistent with CAA requirements. EPA has guidance making
recommendations for criteria appropriate for affirmative defense
provisions applicable in the case of malfunction events that would be
consistent with the CAA. EPA's 1999 SSM Policy \1\ and the February 22,
2013 Proposed SSM SIP Call \2\ lay out these criteria. These criteria
are guidance and states do not need to track EPA's recommended wording
verbatim, but states should have SIP provisions that are consistent
with these recommendations in order to assure that an affirmative
defense for monetary penalties applicable in the case of malfunction
events satisfies EPA's interpretation of CAA requirements. EPA
interprets the CAA to allow only narrowly drawn affirmative defense
provisions. The affirmative defense criteria set forth in Section
25.2.1 are not sufficiently consistent with these recommended criteria
for affirmative defense provisions in SIPs for malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum dated September 20, 1999, from Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, entitled ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown''
(``1999 Policy'').
    \2\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460)
(``February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls''); also EPA's February
4, 2013 Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Context Memorandum for the
February 22, 2013 Proposed SSM SIP Calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submission.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received only one set of comments, from Laurie
Williams, Sierra Club, letter dated January 9, 2014.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Sierra Club supports EPA's proposal because the
affirmative defenses provided in Clark County Section 25 ``conflict
with the CAA and EPA policy.'' In particular, the commenter stated that
EPA should not approve the SIP revision at issue because the Agency is
required to disapprove any SIP revision that does not meet all
applicable CAA requirements or that would interfere with any applicable
CAA requirement.
    Response #1: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support, in part, for
the proposed action. EPA agrees that any SIP revision must be measured
against the applicable substantive requirements of the CAA and the
requirements of section 110(l) in particular. In this action, EPA has
determined that Sections 25.1, 25.2, and 25.3 are inconsistent with the
requirements provided in the CAA for the reasons explained in the
proposed action.
    Comment #2: Sierra Club disagrees with EPA's statements in the
proposal that affirmative defenses for monetary penalties in the case
of violations due to excess emissions during malfunctions may be
consistent with the CAA if appropriately drawn. The commenter asserts
that such affirmative defenses contravene the CAA ``because they limit
courts' discretion to assess penalties for violations and prevent
courts from considering statutory factors.'' The commenter further
argues that such affirmative defense provisions are inconsistent with
the CAA requirement that SIP emission limits be ``continuous'' and that
such provisions ``critically disrupt the fundamental enforcement
structure of the Act.'' The commenter provides additional assertions to
support this position and includes its comments on another EPA proposed
rule related to affirmative defense provisions in Oklahoma.
    Response #2: EPA is disapproving the SIP revision with respect to
CCAQR

Section 25 for the reasons set forth in the proposal and summarized
above. The commenter argues that EPA should identify additional reasons
for disapproval, including an argument that CAA section 113
unequivocally precludes such affirmative defenses. As explained in the
proposal, EPA interprets the CAA to allow appropriately drawn
affirmative defenses in SIP provisions in the case of violations due to
excess emissions during malfunction events, if the affirmative defense
is consistent with guidance recommendations for such provisions.
However, EPA notes that it is not necessary to respond to the substance
of this comment because our action would not change were we to include
additional reasons for disapproval. EPA has concluded that the
affirmative defense provisions both for malfunction events and for
startup and shutdown events embodied in CCAQR Section 25 are not
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA for such provisions for
the reasons articulated in the proposal, regardless of the additional
theories advanced by the commenter in this comment.
    In the event that DAQEM elects to respond to our disapproval action
by revising and resubmitting CCAQR Section 25 to address the
deficiencies we have identified in the current provisions, the
commenter will then have an opportunity to pursue its argument that
there are additional reasons for disapproval of the revised affirmative
defense provisions. If that occurs in the future, EPA will evaluate the
substance of the new SIP submission in light of the laws, policies, and
other relevant circumstances in effect at that time.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of CCAQR
Section 25 as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a
disapproval of Section 25 as submitted. Affirmative defenses for excess
emissions and other elements of Section 25 are not required by the Act,
and the absence of affirmative defenses for excess emissions does not
make a SIP deficient. Therefore, there are no sanction implications as
described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31, and no Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) implications as described in CAA section
110(c) as a result of this disapproval. Note that the submitted Section
25 has been adopted locally by the DAQEM, and EPA's final disapproval
does not prevent sources from asserting an affirmative defense in state
court. The state law affirmative defenses will not, however, be
effective in the event of any action to enforce the requirements of the
SIP pursuant to CAA section 304 or section 113.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP disapprovals under section 110 and
title I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements
but simply disapprove requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because EPA's disapproval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that
the disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate
that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This Federal action disapproves pre-existing requirements under
State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely disapproves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective April 10, 2014.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 12, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 24, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. Section 52.1483 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1483  Malfunction regulations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Section 25, ``Affirmative Defense for Excess Emissions Due to
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' submitted by the Governor on
September 1, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2014-05106 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32815-32816]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0146; Notice 1]

BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC, (BMW) a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014 BMW 7
series and 6 series vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.1
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and
Displays. BMW has filed an appropriate report dated December 5, 2013
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BMW's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), BMW submitted a petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of BMW's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 5,806 of the following MY 2014 BMW
vehicles:

2014 BMW 7 Series manufactured between July 1, 2013 and November 4,
2013,
2014 BMW 6 Series Coupe M Sport Edition manufactured between May 15,
2013 and October 29, 2013,
2014 BMW 6 Series Grand Coupe M Sport Edition manufactured between May
15, 2013 and July 30, 2013,
2014 BMW 6 Series Convertible M Sport Edition manufactured between
April 2, 2013 and October 29, 2013.

III. Noncompliance

    BMW explains that while using in-vehicle controls and displays,
there is a possibility for the vehicle operator or front seat passenger
to enable the speedometer to display vehicle speed in units of miles-
per-hour (mph) or kilometers-per-hour (km/h). Since all vehicles sold
in the U.S. must display vehicle speeds in mph, or mph and km/h these
vehicles fail to fully meet the requirements set forth in paragraph
S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.2.1 Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control,
telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or
Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column
2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table
1 or Table 2 . . .

V. Summary of BMW's Analyses

    BMW stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. BMW states that the indicated vehicle speed in km/h is 1.6 times
greater than speed in mph. BMW believes that if a vehicle operator
changes the display to indicate km/h and later forgets that the change
had been made, the operator will clearly recognize that the vehicle is
moving at a lower speed than intended and adjust the vehicle speed to
match road and traffic conditions. Thus, signaling the operator (at the
next appropriate opportunity) to perform the necessary steps to adjust
the speedometer.
    2. BMW also states that the vehicle's Owner Manual contains
information pertaining to the use of the iDrive controller to change
the units displayed within the ``Settings'' menu. Therefore, if a
vehicle operator needs to reconfigure the display to indicate mph,
instructions are available.
    3. BMW further states that the vehicle's Owner Manual and Service
and Warranty Book contain the toll-free telephone number for BMW
Customer Relations. Additionally, the in-vehicle iDrive system offers
the vehicle operator a BMW Customer Relations menu option to directly
contact BMW Customer Relations via the embedded wireless communications
module. Therefore, if a vehicle operator notices that the speed is
incorrectly displayed in km/h and does not know how to reset the speed
to display in mph, e.g., as set by a prior operator, the vehicle
operator can easily contact BMW Customer Relations for assistance.
    5. BMW is not aware of any contacts from vehicle operators
regarding this issue.
    6. BMW is also not aware of any accidents or injuries that have
occurred as a result of this issue.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 101.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve BMW
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after
BMW notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-13181 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21916-21918]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0071]

Hours of Service of Drivers: McKee Foods Transportation, LLC,
Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew McKee Foods
Transportation, LLC's (MFT) exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS)
regulation pertaining to the use of a sleeper berth. Current HOS rules
require that all sleeper-berth rest regimens include, in part, the
regular use of a sleeper-berth period for at least 8 hours--combined
with a separate period of at least 2 hours, either in the sleeper
berth, off duty, or some combination of both--to gain the equivalent of
at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. The exemption enables MFT team
drivers to take the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty by
splitting sleeper-berth time into two periods totaling 10 hours,
provided neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours. FMCSA has
analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has
determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions
imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective April 20, 2020 and expires April 20,
2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0071, in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the

information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses
that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity
for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's
decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b))
with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if
granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. MFT's Request for a Renewal

    MFT requested a renewal of its exemption from the sleeper berth
provision in 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1-2). The exemption renewal
would allow MFT team drivers to continue to take the equivalent of 10
consecutive hours off duty by splitting sleeper berth time into two
periods totaling 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less
than 3 hours. The application for a renewal is available for review in
the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    FMCSA granted MFT a one-year exemption on March 27, 2015 [80 FR
16503]. On April 20, 2016 [81 FR 23349] the Agency extended its
expiration date to March 27, 2020, in response to Section 5206(b)(2)(A)
of the ``Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act'' (FAST Act). The
statute extended the expiration date of hours-of-service (HOS)
exemptions in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act to 5
years from the date of issuance of the exemptions.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    MFT states that it is committed to maintaining its outstanding
safety record by focusing on continuous improvement, promoting
technologies to enhance safety, conducting thorough inspections and
having well-communicated policies in place to address both safety and
compliance-related topics. To ensure an equivalent level of safety, MFT
offers the following safeguards: (1) Every week, all transportation
operations shut down one hour prior to sundown on Friday until one hour
after sundown on Saturday, resulting in an automatic minimum 26-hour
off-duty home time for all drivers each weekend. This is in addition to
home time during the week; (2) All tractors are equipped with speed
limiters; (3) Drivers will continue using electronic logging devices
(ELDs) to track their duty time and HOS compliance; (4) Drive time is
reduced from 11 hours to 10 hours. Team drivers are limited to 10 hours
of driving prior to completing their required 10 hours total in the
sleeper berth; and (5) Behavior-based event data is monitored from the
ELD to enhance safety measures to help reduce the probability of
accidents on the road.
    MFT believes that by allowing its drivers to exercise flexibility
in their sleeper-berth requirements, the drivers experience more
quality rest. MFT notes that during the last five years it has
witnessed an improved physical state upon completion of drivers' trips.
The short sleep-berth periods have allowed for more flexible work
patterns, allowing them the opportunity for rest periods when they need
it.

V. Public Comments

    On January 30, 2020, FMCSA published notice of MFT's application
and requested public comment [85 FR 5532]. The Agency received eight
comments. The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and six other
individual commenters filed in support of MFT's request for renewal.
TCA supported the exemption request, writing ``time and again, our
drivers have iterated the importance of stopping the 14-hour clock so
that they can take a break or nap when they are tired. Giving fatigued
drivers the confidence to stop driving, by providing them the option to
stop their on-duty clock, will lead to safer and more alert operations
of commercial trucks . . . . McKee Foods has been operating safely
under its exemption for the past 5 years, showing that this split-sleep
configuration has allowed for drivers to obtain adequate rest and has
provided for a safer environment on the roadways.'' Other commenters
supported granting the same sleeper-berth provisions to all other
trucking companies' team drivers. Another supporting commenter added
that MFT was recognized as a safe operation for repeat safety awards
they had received from their State trucking association the past two
years. A one opposing commenter said that MFT should operate under the
same HOS rules as everyone else--referencing the upcoming HOS final
rule which includes revised sleeper-berth provisions allowed for HOS
compliance.

VI. FMCSA Response and Decision

    The FMCSA has determined that granting MFT's its exemption renewal
will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption [49 CRR
381.305(a)]. The FMCSA reviewed the MFT's application, comments to the
docket, and MFT's safety record from March 2015- March 2020. The safety
record reflects 47 reportable accidents; of which only 15 reported
injuries with no fatalities. The original exemption granted to MFT has
not had an adverse effect on the applicant's Hours of Service or Crash
Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores. The applicants SMS scores
reflect 0.07 for the HOS violation rate and 0.08 for Crash.

VII. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

Extent of the Exemption

    The team drivers employed by MFT are provided a limited exemption
from the sleeper-berth requirements of 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1-2)
to allow these drivers to split sleeper-berth time into two periods
totaling at least 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less
than 3 hours in length. While operating under the granted exemption,
MFT team drivers are subject to the following terms and conditions:
     Every week, all transportation operations will shut down
one hour prior to sundown on Friday until one hour after sundown on
Saturday;
     All tractors are equipped with speed limiters;
     Drivers will use ELDs to track their duty time and HOS
compliance;
     Drivers are limited to 10 hours of driving;
     MFT will monitor behavior-based event data via ELD; and
     MFT drivers must have a copy of this notice in their
possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. This
notice serves as the exemption document and must be presented to law
enforcement officials upon request.
    The carriers and drivers must comply with all other requirements of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399).

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that

conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    MFT must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accidents (as
defined by 49 CFR 390.5), involving the operation of any of its CMVs
while utilizing this exemption. The notification must include the
following information:
    (a) Date of the accident;
    (b) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene;
    (c) Driver's name and license number;
    (d) Vehicle number and State license number;
    (e) Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
    (f) Number of fatalities;
    (g) The police-reported cause of the accident;
    (h) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
or motor carrier safety regulations; and
    (k) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time of the
CMV driver at the time of the accident.

Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to [email protected]

VIII. Termination

    The FMCSA does not believe the team drivers covered by the
exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record.
However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to
protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with
its terms and conditions.

James A. Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-08207 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36182-36183]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-52-000]

APL SouthTex Transmission Company LP, Formerly TEAK Texana
Transmission Company, LP; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 7, 2013, APL SouthTex Transmission Company
LP (APL SouthTex) filed to notify the Commission of its name change
from TEAK Texana Transmission Company, LP. In addition, APL SouthTex
filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions reflecting the name
change and certain housekeeping revisions, as more fully described in
the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 21, 2013.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14275 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54777-54778]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP14-554-000; CP15-16-000; CP15-17-000]

Florida Southeast Connection, LLC; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC; Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Southeast Market Pipelines Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Hillabee Expansion, Sabal Trail, and Florida Southeast
Connection (FSC) Projects as proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail),
and Florida Southeast Connection, LLC (FSC), respectively, in the
above-referenced dockets. These are separate, but connected, natural
gas transmission pipeline projects collectively referred to as the
Southeast Market Pipelines (SMP) Project. The applicants request
authorization to construct and operate a total of about 685.5 miles of
natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities, six new
natural gas-fired compressor stations, and modify existing compressor
stations in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The SMP Project would
provide about 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to meet
growing demands by the electric generation, distribution, and end use
markets in Florida and the southeast United States.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the SMP Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the SMP Project would have some
adverse environmental impacts; however, these impacts would be reduced
to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the
applicants' proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended
in the draft EIS.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participated as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the draft EIS. The USACE has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposals and is participating in the NEPA
analysis. The USACE has jurisdictional authority pursuant to section
404 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States; section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, which regulates any work or structures that
potentially affect the navigable capacity of navigable waters of the
United States; and section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act which
regulates the temporary occupation of water-related structures
constructed by the United States. The USACE may adopt and use the EIS
to support its review of the SMP Project. Although the cooperating
agency provides input to the conclusions and recommendations presented
in the draft EIS, the agency will present its own conclusions and
recommendations in its Record of Decision for the project. A copy of
the USACE's public notice of its receipt of applications from Transco,
Sabal Trail, and FSC is enclosed with our draft EIS.
    The draft EIS of the SMP Project addresses the potential
environmental effects of the construction and operation of the
following project facilities:
    The Hillabee Expansion Project would include:
     Approximately 43.5 miles of new 42- and 48-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline loop \1\ in Alabama;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A loop is a segment of pipe that is installed adjacent to an
existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. A loop generally
allows more gas to move through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     one new compressor station in Choctaw County, Alabama and
modifications to three existing compressor stations in Dallas, Chilton,
and Coosa Counties, Alabama; and
     installation of pig \2\ launchers/receivers and mainline
valves (MLVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sabal Trail Project would include:
     Approximately 515.5 miles of new natural gas pipeline in
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, including:
    [cir] 480.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter mainline pipeline in Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida;
    [cir] the 21.5-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter Citrus County Line in
Florida; and
    [cir] the 13.1-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Hunters Creek Line in
Florida;
     five new compressor stations in Tallapoosa County,
Alabama; Dougherty County, Georgia; and Suwannee, Marion, and Osceola
Counties, Florida;
     subsequent modifications to two of the new compressor
stations in Dougherty County, Georgia and Suwannee County, Florida; and
     installation of pig launchers/receivers, MLVs, and meter
and regulating stations.
    The FSC Project would include:
     Approximately 126.4 miles of new 30- and 36-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline in Florida; and
     installation of pig launchers/receivers, MLVs, and meter
and regulating stations.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this draft EIS were mailed to
those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version.
In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the
FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies are available for distribution and public inspection
at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First
Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure
consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is
important that the Commission receive your comments by October 26,
2015.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
appropriate docket numbers (CP14-554-000 for the FSC Project; CP15-16-
000 for the Hillabee Expansion Project; or CP15-17-000 for the Sabal
Trail Project) with your submission. The Commission encourages
electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist
you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow
these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file

with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by
clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular
project, please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket numbers
(CP14-554-000, CP15-16-000, and CP15-17-000) with your submission:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public meetings its staff
will conduct in the SMP Project area to receive comments on the draft
EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and
present oral comments on the draft EIS. The meetings are scheduled as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, September 28, 2015,    Albany Civic Center--Meeting Room, 100
 6:00-8:00 p.m. Eastern         West Oglethorpe, Albany, GA 31701.
 Daylight Time (EDT).
Tuesday, September 29, 2015,   Colquitt County High School (Old High
 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.            School), Withers Auditorium, 1800 Park
                                Avenue, Moultrie, GA 31776.
Wednesday, September 30,       Holiday Inn Valdosta, Conference Center,
 2015, 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.      Magnolia Ballroom, 1805 West Hill Ave.,
                                Valdosta, GA 31601.
Thursday, October 1, 2015,     Columbia High School--Auditorium, 469 SE
 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.            Fighting Tiger Drive, Lake City, FL
                                32025.
Monday, October 5, 2015, 6:00- Central Alabama Community College, Betty
 8:00 p.m. Central Daylight     Carol Graham Technology Center--Multi
 Time (CDT).                    Purpose Room, 1675 Cherokee Road,
                                Alexander City, AL 35010.
Monday, October 5, 2015, 6:00- Indian River State College, Williamson
 8:00 p.m. EDT.                 Conference Center Auditorium, 2229
                                Northwest 9th Avenue, Okeechobee, FL
                                34972.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015,      South Girard School Auditorium, 521
 6:00-8:00 p.m. CDT.            Fontaine Road, Phenix City, AL 36869.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015,      Dunnellon Middle School Auditorium, 21005
 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.            Chestnut Street, Dunnellon, FL 34431.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015,    Davenport School of the Arts Cafeteria,
 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.            4751 County Road 547, (Lee Jackson
                                Highway), Davenport, FL 33837.
Thursday, October 8, 2015,     Bell High School Auditorium, 930 South
 6:00-8:00 p.m. EDT.            Main Street, Bell, FL 32619.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will begin our sign up of speakers at 5:30 p.m. The comment
meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. with a presentation by Commission
staff on our environmental review process, after which speakers will be
called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their
comments or at 8:00 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that there
may be a time limit of 3 minutes to present comments, and speakers
should structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are
implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many
individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. The
meetings are recorded by a stenographer to ensure comments are
accurately recorded. Transcripts will be entered into the formal record
of the Commission proceeding. It is important to note that verbal
comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted
comments.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors have
the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The
Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental
concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other
party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments
will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions?

    Additional information about the SMP Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
554, CP15-16, and CP15-17). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: September 4, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22914 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35116-35117]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4597-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4597-DR), dated April 28,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued April 28, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 28, 2021, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Jersey resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of January 31 to February 2, 2021, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act'').
    Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the
State of New Jersey.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You

are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate
to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Claude Hyacinthe, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cape May, Morris, Ocean, Sussex, and Warren Counties for Public
Assistance.
    Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties for snow assistance under
the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period
during or proximate the incident period.
    All areas within the State of New Jersey are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-14094 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37868-37870]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69794; File No. SR-BYX-2013-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

June 18, 2013.
    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 June 13, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify the Exchange's
fee schedule effective June 13, 2013, in order to amend the way that
the Exchange calculates rebates for removing liquidity from the
Exchange.

Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend the methodology by
which it determines the rebate that it will provide to Members for
removing liquidity from the Exchange by excluding the last Friday of
June from the calculation of both ADV \6\ and average daily TCV.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As provided in the fee schedule, ``ADV'' means average daily
volume calculated as the number of shares added or removed,
combined, per day on a monthly basis; routed shares are not included
in ADV calculation.
    \7\ As provided in the fee schedule ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers a tiered structure for determining
the rebates that Members receive for executions that remove liquidity
from the Exchange.\8\ Under the tiered pricing structure, the Exchange
provides different rebates to Members based on a Member's ADV as a
percentage of average daily TCV. The Exchange notes that it is not
proposing to modify any of the existing rebates or the percentage
thresholds at which a Member may qualify for certain rebates. Rather,
as mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to modify its fee
schedule in order to exclude trading activity occurring on the last
Friday of June from the calculation of ADV and average daily TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64429 (May 6, 2011),
76 FR 27694 (May 12, 2011) (Notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change related to fees for use of
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., which established tiered rebates based on ADV
as a percentage of average daily TCV) (SR-BYX-2011-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to exclude the last Friday of June from
the definition of ADV and TCV because the last Friday of June is the
day that Russell Investments reconstitutes its family of indexes
(``Russell Rebalance''), resulting in particularly high trading
volumes, much of which the Exchange believes derives from market
participants who are not generally as active entering the market to
rebalance their holdings in-line with the Russell Rebalance. The
Exchange believes that trading occurring as a result of the Russell
Rebalance can significantly skew the calculation of ADV and TCV. For
example, since 2008, on the last Friday in June, the TCV has exceeded
the average daily TCV for the preceding trading days in June by
approximately 42% on average. The chart below reflects the TCV on the
last Friday of June for each year dating to 2008 and compares it to the
average daily TCV for the preceding trading days in the month of June.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               MTD Average TCV
             Russell reconstitution date (RCD)                 TCV on RCD     as of day before    % Difference
                                                                                RCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/29/2012.................................................     7,924,340,355     6,833,486,672             15.96
6/24/2011.................................................    10,472,502,657     7,237,593,514             44.70
6/25/2010.................................................    14,482,717,113     8,981,067,278             61.26
6/26/2009.................................................    13,024,518,377     9,597,498,903             35.71
6/27/2008.................................................    12,010,692,402     7,835,813,201             53.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the extremely high volume numbers and abnormally
distributed daily volume as a percentage of the TCV on this day, it
stands that the ADV as a percentage of average daily TCV can be
significantly impacted.
    As such, the Exchange believes that eliminating the last Friday of
June from the definition of ADV and TCV and thereby eliminating that
day from the calculation as it relates to rebates for removing
liquidity from the Exchange, will help to eliminate significant
uncertainty faced by Members as to their monthly ADV as a percentage of
average daily TCV and the rebates that this percentage will qualify
for, providing Members with an increased certainty as to their monthly
cost for trades executed on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes
that removing this uncertainty will encourage Members to participate in
trading on the Exchange during the remaining trading days in June in a
manner intended to be incented by the Exchange's fee schedule.
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.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures at a
particular venue to be unreasonable and/or excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to the tiered pricing
structure for removing liquidity from the Exchange, the Exchange
believes that its proposal is reasonable because, as explained above,
it will help provide Members with a greater level of certainty as to
their level of rebates for trading in the month of June. The Exchange
also believes that its proposal is reasonable because it is not
changing the thresholds to become eligible or the dollar value
associated with the rebates and, moreover, by eliminating the inclusion
of a trading day that would almost certainly lower a Member's ADV as a
percentage of average daily TCV, it will make the majority of Members
more likely to meet the minimum or higher tier thresholds, which will
provide additional incentive to Members to increase their participation
on the Exchange in order to meet the next tier. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes to fees are equitably
allocated among Exchange constituents as the methodology for
calculating ADV and TCV will apply equally to all Members. While,
although unlikely, certain Members may have a higher ADV as a
percentage of average daily TCV with the day included, the proposal
will make June trading rebates more similar to other months as well as
to make all Members' cost of trading on the Exchange more predictable,
regardless of how the proposal affects their ADV as a percentage of
average daily TCV.
    Volume-based tiers such as the liquidity removing tiers maintained
by the Exchange have been widely adopted in the equities markets, and
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to
all members on an equal basis and

provide rebates that are reasonably related to the value to an
exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction
of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery
process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. Further,
the Exchange believes that a tiered pricing model not significantly
altered by a single known day of atypical trading behavior which allows
Members to predictably calculate what their costs associated with
trading activity on the Exchange will be is reasonable, fair and
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory as it is uniform in
application amongst Members and should enable such participants to
operate their business without concern of unpredictable and potentially
significant changes in expenses.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will help
the Exchange to continue to incentivize higher levels of liquidity at a
tighter spread while providing more stable and predictable costs to its
Members. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be
unreasonable or excessive.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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 \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2013-021 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2013-021. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2013-021 and should be
submitted on or before July 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14965 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P