[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 157 (Thursday, August 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49403-49405]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89507; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 5.34 (Order and Quote Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk
Controls) in Connection With Sell Market Orders in No-Bid Series

August 7, 2020.
    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 August 5, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 5.34 (Order and Quote Price Protection Mechanisms and
Risk Controls) in connection with sell market orders in no-bid series.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.34(a)(1) in connection with
the System's handling of a sell market orders in no-bid series.
Specifically, if the System receives a sell market order in a series
after it is open for trading with a national best bid (``NBB'') of
zero, current Rule 5.34(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that if the NBO in the
series is greater than $0.50, then the System cancels or rejects the
market order. The proposed rule change adds to Rule 5.34(a)(1)(A)(ii)
that if the NBO in the series is greater than $0.50, then the System
cancels or rejects the market order or routes the market order to PAR
for manual handling, subject to a User's instructions. This proposed
handling in consistent with order instructions a User may choose to
apply to an order wherein, if the order is not eligible for electronic
handling, the order routes to PAR for manual handling.\5\ Current Rule
5.34(a)(1)(A)(ii), as written, does not specifically consider the case
in which a User's order instructions would route an order to PAR when
such order is not eligible for electronic processing because the NBO in
the series is greater than $0.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g. Rule 5.6(c), a ``Default'' order is an order a User
designates for electronic processing, and which order (or unexecuted
portion) routes to PAR for manual handling if not eligible for
electronic processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The System, however, currently handles orders under these
circumstances in accordance with the User instruction to route such an
order for manual handling.\6\ The proposed rule change codifies this
behavior. The Exchange notes that Rule 5.34 was recently revised in
connection with a technology migration. The rule filing that revised
Rule 5.34 consolidated all order and quote price protection mechanisms
and risk controls provisions from the pre-migration Exchange Rulebook
into one single rule (current Rule 5.34) as well as harmonized Rule
5.34 with the corresponding rules of the Exchange's affiliated
exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2'').\7\ The Exchange's former rule provision
regarding market orders in no-bid (offer) series provided that if the
Exchange's best offer (i.e., NBO) was greater than $0.50, the order
would route to PAR if so instructed by the submitting firm.\8\ The
Exchange inadvertently omitted this specific handling process when it
amended current Rule 5.34 in connection with the technology migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe U.S. Options FIX Specification (July 13, 2020) at
12, available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/US_Options_FIX_Specification.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 86923 (September 10,
2019), 84 FR 48664 (September 16, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-057).
    \8\ Former Rule 6.13(b)(vi)(B) provided that if the Exchange
best offer in a no-bid series is greater than $0.50, then the order
entry firm has the discretion to have the market order to sell via
the order handling system pursuant to Rule 6.12 (which permitted a
submitting firm to opt to route orders not eligible for electronic
processing to a designated order management terminal or PAR
Workstation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section

6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system, as well as protect investors, because it will allow the System
to handle orders in a manner that is consistent with the intent of a
User's order instruction to route orders to PAR for manual handling
that are not eligible for electronic processing, including when the NBO
is greater than $0.50 in a no-bid (offer) series. Manual handling
rather than cancellation of orders in these circumstances may provide
these orders with additional execution opportunities. Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change raises any new
or novel issues for, nor will affect the protection of investors,
because, less than a year ago, the Exchange's effective rules at the
time included the same order handling provision.\12\ The proposed rule
change codifies current functionality in the Rules, which was
inadvertently omitted in a previous rule filing, which additional
transparency benefits investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will allow orders to
route in accordance with a User's intended order instruction, and will
apply equally to all Users' orders that are designated to route to PAR
when ineligible for electronic processing.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues, but
rather conforms the Rules to current System functionality in a manner
that is consistent with order instructions already available to Users.
The Exchange additionally notes that the proposed rule change readopts
rule language that had prior been in the Exchange's Rules up until less
than a year ago.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because the
proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel issue as the
proposed rule is merely restating rule language that had previously
been approved by the Commission in the Exchange Rules up until less
than a year ago.\18\ The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposal does not raise any new issues and
will allow the Exchange to remedy its recent inadvertent omission
without delay. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ See supra note 7.
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2020-077 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-077. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-077 and should be submitted on
or before September 3, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17669 Filed 8-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 700-701]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In September
2013, there were three applications approved. This notice also includes
information on two applications, one approved in June 2011 and the
other approved in March 2012, inadvertently left off the June 2011 and
March 2012 notices, respectively. Additionally, eight approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Birmingham Airport Authority, Birmingham, Alabama.
    Application Number: 11-10-U-00-BHM.
    Application Type: Use PFC Revenue.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved for Use in this Decision: $4,133,110.
    Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2031.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: No change from
previous decision.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use: Terminal demolition.
    Decision Date: June 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Butler, Southern Region Airports
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Maryland Department of Transportation and Maryland
Aviation Administration, Baltimore, Maryland.
    Application Number: 12-09-C-00-BWI.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $132,294,117.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2019.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2021.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use at a $4.50 PFC Level: Terminal B/C connector.
    Determination: Partially approved. A portion of the project was
determined to be for administrative purposes rather than for the
movement of passengers and baggage. Therefore, the percentage of the
project determined to be PFC-eligible was reduced from that requested.
In addition, the emergency power generator component of this project
was determined to be ineligible for PFC funding.
    Decision Date: March 15, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffery Breeden, Washington Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Williamsport Municipal Airport Authority,
Montoursville, Pennsylvania.
    Application Number: 13-03-C-00-IPT.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $225,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: November 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Improve runway 9 safety area, phase 2.
Extend parallel taxiway B to the runway 27 end, phase 1.
Extend parallel taxiway B to the runway 27 end, phase 2.
Extend parallel taxiway b to the runway 27 end, phase 3.
Extend taxiway D, phase 1.
Rehabilitate general aviation apron, phase 1.
Extend taxiway B to runway 27 end, phase 4.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
Extend taxiway D, phase 2.
Rehabilitate general aviation apron, phase 2.
Taxiway A rehabilitation.

    Decision Date: September 5, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Marquette, Gwinn, Michigan.

    Application Number: 13-11-C-00-SAW.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $253,245.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: December 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi
commercial operators engaged in non-scheduled activity that are
operating at Sawyer International Airport (SAW).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at SAW.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Parking lot improvements.
Hangar improvements--402 design and 600-series hangars.
Hangar improvements--402 phase 2, 400 series doors, and 600 series
electrical/insulation.
Hangars 400, 423, 424, 425 interior insulation, electrical and
lighting.
Taxiways E and F pavement design/construction.

    Decision Date: September 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Porter, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Broome, Johnson City, New York.
    Application Number: 13-16-C-00-BGM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $333,625.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2017.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2018.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Greater Binghamton Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

North apron rehabilitation, phase 2 design.
Airport security improvements design.
Hazardous wildlife study.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:

North apron rehabilitation, phase 2 construct.
Airport security improvements construct.

    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use:

Airport safety management system development.

    Determination: Partially approved. The establishment of safety
protocols for users of the airport to manage their own operations was
determined not to be PFC eligible.
    Decision Date: September 23, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Henn, Eastern Region Airports
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
    Amendment No. city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-03-C-01-SBY, Salisbury, MD...        08/29/13        $783,269      $1,081,110        03/01/13        03/01/13
08-04-C-02-CHA, Chattanooga, TN.        09/04/13       2,520,376       2,501,388        10/01/12        10/01/12
08-04-C-01-HVN, New Haven, CT...        09/12/13         352,756         276,202        10/01/11        10/01/11
97-04-C-02-SAW, Gwinn, MI.......        09/12/13         741,542         482,606        08/01/00        08/01/00
09-04-C-02-OAJ, Richlands, NC...        09/16/13         115,842          74,020        11/01/11        11/01/11
00-05-C-02-SAW, Gwinn, MI.......        09/17/13         335,998         405,680        12/01/02        01/01/03
02-06-C-01-SAW, Gwinn, MI.......        09/17/13         227,558         234,256        06/01/04        06/01/04
05-10-C-10-MCO, Orlando, FL.....        09/19/13     749,303,511     749,303,511        12/01/19        12/01/19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2013.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2013-31552 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35373]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1931-000]

Pacific Wind Lessee, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Pacific Wind Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

    Dated: June 7, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14359 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Results of Section 610 Review of Fuel and Fuel Additive Registration Regulations On June 27, 1994 ( 59 FR 33042), EPA promulgated a rulemaking laying out the requirements for registering fuel and fuel additives under Section 211 of the Clean Air Act. These requirements are codifed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 79. Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has reviewed this rule to determine if it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities. EPA considered, and solicited comments on, the following factors: ( 1) The continued need for the rule; ( 2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; ( 3) the complexity of the rule; ( 4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and ( 5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. The results of EPA's review are summarized here.

Background Pursuant to regulations at 40 CFR 79, promulgated under sections 211( a) and ( b) of the Clean Air Act, manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle gasoline, motor vehicle diesel fuel, and additives to those fuels, are required to have those products registered by the Environmental Protection Agency prior to their introduction into commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the fuel or additive, and certain technical, marketing, and health effects information. In certain cases health effects testing is required. However, a small business is generally exempt from this testing. Only if a small business has a product with unusual chemistry, must if perform some testing. However, this testing is considerably less burdensome than for a large manufacturer. The information is used to screen for any fuels or additives whose evaporative or combustion emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to public health, thus meriting further investigation under provisions in the regulations. The information is also used to insure that these fuels and additives do not contain components that could damage emission controls, such as catalytic converters and oxygen sensors.

Discussion of Five Factors 1. Continued need for the rule.

One of the factors that must be considered in a section 610 review is the continued need for the rule under review. The Agency finds that there is a continued need for the rule, which is required by the Clean Air Act. The Agency registers about 500 new fuel additives, and 50 new gasoline and diesel fuels, each year. Without these regulations, new fuels and additives could enter commerce without any health effects screening, with the potential for subjecting the public to harmful emissions. 2. Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule.

No comments were received.

3. Complexity of the rule.

The Agency must also consider the complexity of the rule under review. The rule is inherently complex in that it requires an advanced knowledge of emissions and animal exposure testing in order to comply with the registration requirements. However, in the highly competitive fuel and additive industry, such knowledge is necessary in order to be successful. Nevertheless, the regulations exempt or significantly reduce these burdens for small businesses to the extent possible within the scope of the Clean Air Act mandate authorizing the rule.

4. Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules.

The Agency must also consider the extent to which this rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules. The Agency has no evidence to suggest that this rule would duplicate or conflict with any other rule.

5. The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

Finally, the Agency must consider the length of time since the rule in question has been evaluated, or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule under review. There have been no changes in technology, economic conditions, or other factors that would warrant revision of the rule.

Conclusion New gasoline and diesel fuels, and new fuel additives, are continually being developed. This rule continues to serve as a very important gatekeeper to protect the public from potentially harmful emissions from motor vehicles, while providing significant relief to small businesses. EPA has considered the potential effects on small business continually as this rule was developed and as it continues to be implemented. Via exemptions and other burden reductions, we have mitigated any burdens for small businesses to the extent possible within the scope of the Clean Air Act mandate authorizing the rule.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54725-54726]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0099]

Notice of Buy America Waiver

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

ACTION: Notice of Buy America waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides NHTSA's finding that a waiver of the Buy
America requirements is appropriate for the purchase of Can-Am Spyder
motorcycles by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT),
using Federal grant funds, for use as training vehicles in its
Motorcycle Safety Program. NHTSA has determined that a waiver is
appropriate because there are no comparable three-wheeled ``trike''
motorcycles produced domestically that use the same wheel configuration
as the Spyder.

DATES: The effective date of this waiver is October 7, 2013. Written
comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be
received on or before: September 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this waiver
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, contact Barbara
Sauers, Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico,
Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail
to these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice provides NHTSA's finding that a
waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (WisDOT) to purchase Can-Am Spyder model
motorcycles (Spyders) using grant funds, authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402
(Section 402). See 23 U.S.C. 313. Section 2010 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of
Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized NHTSA to award grant funds to States that
implement programs to reduce the number of crashes involving
motorcyclists. Public Law 109-54, 119 Stat. 1535 (23 U.S.C. 402 note,
repealed by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub.
L. 112-141, Div. C, Title I, Sec.  31109(g), 126 Stat. 757 (2012),
recodified as amended at 23 U.S.C. 405(f)). Awarded funds must be used
for the purpose of implementing and improving motorcyclist safety
training and awareness programs, which includes, among other things,
the procurement of practice motorcycles. Id.
    The Buy America Act provides that NHTSA ``shall not obligate any
funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or Title 23 and
administered by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron,
and manufactured products used in such project are produced in the
United States.'' 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those
requirements

if (1) Their application would be inconsistent with the public
interest; (2) such materials and products are not produced in the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of
a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will
increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25
percent. 23 U.S.C. 313(b). In this instance, NHTSA has determined that
a waiver is appropriate for the purchase of Can-Am Spyder three-wheeled
motorcycles because there are no comparable trike motorcycles produced
domestically that use the same wheel configuration as the Spyder.
    The Can-Am Spyder is a three-wheeled motorcycle, commonly referred
to as a ``trike.'' Unlike a traditional trike motorcycle, however, the
Spyder does not utilize two rear wheels. Rather, the Spyder uses a
chassis similar to an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with two front wheels
and one wheel in the rear. A typical Spyder RS model has 100 horse
power @ 7500 RPM with a 5-speed transmission and a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 798 lbs. It is equipped with traction and stability
control, anti-lock braking, and power steering. The starting purchase
price for a Spyder RS model ranges from $16,699 (for a 5-speed RS model
with manual transmission) to $19,999 (for an RS-S model with semi-
automatic transition). Can-Am Spyders are considered a manufactured
product under the Buy America Act and are assembled by Bombardier
Recreational Products, Inc. (BRP) in Valcourt, Quebec, Canada.
    WisDOT seeks a waiver to purchase Spyder model motorcycles for use
as training vehicles in the Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program. WisDOT
states that three-wheeled vehicles are becoming an increasingly popular
style of motorcycle and WisDOT believes it is important to provide
rider training on vehicles that reflect this particular configuration.
According to WisDOT, the unique configuration of the Spyder vehicles,
with two front wheels and one rear wheel, will offer riders a different
configuration than the existing three-wheeled bikes in Wisconsin's
training program, all of which have two wheels in the rear. Thus,
adding the Spyder to WisDOT's existing training vehicles will provide
riders with a wider variety of training options and help meet the needs
of changing motorcycle rider demographics. WisDOT intends to purchase
up to four Spyder trikes for this program at approximately $20,000 per
unit, for a total cost of $80,000.
    NHTSA is not aware of a trike with a comparable wheel configuration
that is produced in the United States. In the trike market, Harley-
Davidson, a domestic manufacturer, produces a three-wheeled motorcycle
called the Tri-Glide. However, the Tri-Glide is distinguishable from
the Spyder because of its wheel configuration with one wheel in front
and two in the rear. WisDOT has already purchased two Tri-Glide trikes
for its training program and is seeking the addition of the Spyder
models to provide a distinctive training opportunity on an increasingly
popular motorcycle configuration. The Spyder is the only full-sized
three-wheel motorcycle configuration with two wheels in the front and
one driver wheel at the rear. Accordingly, NHTSA's review has
determined that there is no comparable, domestically produced three-
wheeled motorcycle that fits the needs of WisDOT's Motorcycle Safety
Program. However, the Agency invites public comment on the availability
of domestically-produced models with similar wheel configurations to
the Can-Am Spyder.
    In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
313(b)(2), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from
the Buy America requirements to WisDOT in order to purchase Can-Am
Spyder model motorcycles. In accordance with the provisions of Section
117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this notice as its finding
that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate. Written
comments on this finding may be submitted through any of the methods
discussed above.

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.

    Issued on: September 5, 2013.
O. Kevin Vincent,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-21519 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P