[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75911-75913]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 225

[FRA-2008-0136, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-ZA04

Adjustment of Monetary Threshold for Reporting Rail Equipment
Accidents/Incidents for Calendar Year 2011

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule increases the rail equipment accident/incident
reporting threshold from $9,200 to $9,400 for certain railroad
accidents/incidents involving property damage that occur during
calendar year 2011. This action is needed to ensure that FRA's
reporting requirements reflect cost increases that have occurred since
the reporting threshold was last computed in December of 2009.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnel B. Rivera, Staff Director, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Safety Analysis, RRS-22, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, Room
W33-306, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone
202-493-1331); or Gahan Christenson, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-204,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-
1381).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A ``rail equipment accident/incident'' is a collision, derailment,
fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of
railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving) that results in
damages to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track
structures, or roadbed, including labor costs and the costs for
acquiring new equipment and material, greater than the reporting
threshold for the year in which the event occurs. 49 CFR 225.19(c).
Each rail equipment accident/incident must be reported to FRA using the
Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54). 49 CFR
225.19(b) and (c). As revised, effective in 1997, paragraphs (c) and
(e) of 49 CFR 225.19 provide that the dollar figure that constitutes
the reporting threshold for rail equipment accidents/incidents will be
adjusted, if necessary, every year in accordance with the procedures
outlined in appendix B to part 225 to reflect any cost increases or
decreases.

New Reporting Threshold

    Approximately one year has passed since the rail equipment
accident/incident reporting threshold was revised. 74 FR 65458
(December 10, 2009). Consequently, FRA has recalculated the threshold,
as required by Sec.  225.19(c), based on increased costs for labor and
increased costs for equipment. FRA has determined that the current
reporting threshold of $9,200, which applies to rail equipment
accidents/incidents that occur during calendar year 2010, should
increase by $200 to $9,400 for equipment accidents/incidents occurring
during calendar year 2011, effective January 1, 2011. The specific
inputs to the equation set forth in appendix B (i.e., Tnew = Tprior *
[1 + 0.4(Wnew-Wprior)/Wprior + 0.6(Enew-Eprior)/100]) to part 225 are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tprior                  Wnew                  Wprior                  Enew                 Eprior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             $9,200              $24.73606              $24.04379              184.56666              182.03333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where: Tnew = New threshold; Tprior = Prior threshold (with
reference to the threshold, ``prior'' refers to the previous threshold
rounded to the nearest $100, as reported in the Federal Register); Wnew
= New average hourly wage rate, in dollars; Wprior = Prior average
hourly wage rate, in dollars; Enew = New equipment average PPI value;
Eprior = Prior equipment average PPI value. Using the above figures,
the calculated new threshold, (Tnew) is $9,445.80, which is rounded to
the nearest $100 for a final new reporting threshold of $9,400.

Notice and Comment Procedures and Effective Date

    In this rule, FRA has recalculated the monetary reporting threshold
based on the formula discussed in detail and adopted, after notice and
comment, in the final rule published December 20, 2005, 70 FR 75414.
FRA has found that both the current cost data inserted into this pre-
existing formula and the original cost data that they replace were
obtained from reliable Federal government sources. FRA has found that
this rule imposes no additional burden on any person, but rather
provides a benefit by permitting the valid comparison of accident data
over time. Accordingly, finding that notice and comment procedures are
either impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,
FRA is proceeding directly to the final rule.
    FRA regularly recalculates the monetary reporting threshold using a
pre-existing formula near the end of each calendar year. Therefore, any
person affected by this rule anticipates the on-going adjustment of the
threshold and has reasonable time to make any minor changes necessary
to come into compliance with the regulations. FRA attempts to use the
most recent data available to calculate the updated reporting threshold
prior to the next calendar year. FRA has found that issuing the rule in
December of each calendar year and making the rule effective on January
1, of the next year, allows FRA to use the most up-to-date data when
calculating the reporting threshold and to compile data that accurately
reflects rising wages and equipment costs. As such, FRA has found that
it has good cause to make the effective date January 1, 2011.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034
(Feb. 26, 1979)).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small
entities, unless the Secretary certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to Section 312 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),
FRA has issued a final policy that formally establishes ``small
entities'' as including railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad. 49 CFR part 209, app. C. For
other entities, the same dollar limit in revenues governs whether a
railroad, contractor, or other respondent is a small entity. Id.
    About 721 of the approximately 756 railroads in the United States
are considered small entities by FRA. FRA certifies that this final
rule will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. To the extent that this rule has any impact on small
entities, the impact will be neutral or insignificant. The frequency of
rail equipment accidents/incidents, and therefore also the frequency of
required reporting, is generally proportional to the size of the
railroad. A railroad that employs thousands of employees and operates
trains millions of miles is exposed to greater risks than one whose
operation is substantially smaller. Small railroads may go for months
at a time without having a reportable occurrence of any type, and even
longer without having a rail equipment accident/incident. For example,
current FRA data indicate that 2,995 rail equipment accidents/incidents
were reported in 2006, with small railroads reporting 381 of them. Data
for 2007 show that 2,690 rail equipment accidents/incidents were
reported, with small railroads reporting 376 of them. Data for 2008
show that 2,469 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with
small railroads reporting 302 of them. In 2009, 1,890 rail equipment
accidents/incidents were reported, and small railroads reported 278 of
them. On average for those four calendar years, small railroads
reported about 13% (ranging from 12% to 15%) of the total number of
rail equipment accidents/incidents. FRA notes that these data are
accurate as of the date of issuance of this final rule, and are subject
to minor changes due to additional reporting. Absent this rulemaking
(i.e., any increase in the monetary reporting threshold), the number of
reportable accidents/incidents would increase, as keeping the 2010
threshold in place would not allow it to keep pace with the increasing
dollar amounts of wages and rail equipment repair costs. Therefore,
this rule will be neutral in effect. Increasing the reporting threshold
will slightly decrease the recordkeeping burden for railroads over
time. Any recordkeeping burden will not be significant and will affect
the large railroads more than the small entities, due to the higher
proportion of reportable rail equipment accidents/incidents experienced
by large entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new information collection requirements associated
with this final rule. Therefore, no estimate of a public reporting
burden is required.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, entitled, ``Federalism,'' issued on August
4, 1999, requires that each agency ``in a separately identified portion
of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal
Register, provide[] to the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which consists of a
description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State
and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the
agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a
statement of the extent to which the concerns of the State and local
officials have been met. * * *'' This rulemaking action has been
analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and the
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in the Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, FRA has determined that this
rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism assessment. Accordingly, a federalism assessment has not
been prepared.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28545, 28547 (May 26, 1999). In accordance with section 4(c) and
(e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no
extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this regulation that
might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a
result, FRA finds that this regulation is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of [$140,800,000 or more (as
adjusted for inflation)] in any one year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
The final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$140,800,000 or more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a
statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: That (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13211. FRA has determined that this final rule is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has
determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant energy
action'' within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all our comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 225

    Investigations, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 225 of chapter II,
subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 225--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901-02,
21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.

0
2. Amend Sec.  225.19 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)
and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  225.19  Primary groups of accidents/incidents.

* * * * *
    (c) Group II--Rail equipment. Rail equipment accidents/incidents
are collisions, derailments, fires, explosions, acts of God, and other
events involving the operation of on-track equipment (standing or
moving) that result in damages higher than the current reporting
threshold (i.e., $6,700 for calendar years 2002 through 2005, $7,700
for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for
calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009, $9,200 for calendar
year 2010 and $9,400 for calendar year 2011) to railroad on-track
equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed, including
labor costs and the costs for acquiring new equipment and material. * *
*
* * * * *
    (e) The reporting threshold is $6,700 for calendar years 2002
through 2005, $7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year
2007, $8,500 for calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009,
$9,200 for calendar year 2010 and $9,400 for calendar year 2011. The
procedure for determining the reporting threshold for calendar years
2006 and beyond appears as paragraphs 1-8 of appendix B to part 225.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2010.
Karen J. Hedlund,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-30824 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38046-38047]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2051-000]

SPS Alpaugh 50, 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
SPS Alpaugh 50, 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 July 10, 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 20, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15501 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58004-58007]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22995]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73188; File No. SR-BATS-2014-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.9 of BATS Exchange, Inc.

September 23, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 12, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to provide additional functionality
with respect to Primary Pegged Orders offered by the Exchange pursuant
to Rule 11.9(c)(8).
    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
    Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate BATS Y-Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'') received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of
the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct
Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'') and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'', and together with BZX,
BYX and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated Exchanges'').\5\ In the context of
the Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain
system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the proposals set forth below are
intended to add certain system functionality currently offered by EDGA
and EDGX in order to provide a consistent technology offering for users
of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.

The functionality is also similar to functionality offered by the
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc.\6\ The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to provide Users of the Exchange with
additional options with respect to Primary Pegged Orders (as defined
below) offered by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(8). The
Exchange notes that EDGA and EDGX offer additional functionality for
Pegged Orders that the Exchange is not proposing to add at this
time.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \6\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(4); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(cc).
    \7\ For instance, EDGA and EDGX currently permit displayed
Market Pegged Orders as well as aggressive offsets for displayed
Primary Pegged Orders (as such terms are defined below). The
Exchange is not proposing to add these features. The Exchange
anticipates EDGA and EDGX will propose to eliminate these features
in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently allows Users to submit two types of limit
orders to the Exchange that are pegged to and priced based on the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') and automatically adjusted by the
Exchange's System.\8\ First, a ``Primary Pegged Order,'' which is
pegged to a price inferior to or equal to the inside quote on the same
side of the market (i.e., for a bid, pegged to the NBB or for an offer,
pegged to the NBO) by an amount set by the User. Second, a ``Market
Pegged Order,'' which is pegged to a price that offsets the inside
quote on the other side of the market (i.e., for a bid, pegged to the
NBO or for an offer, pegged to the NBB) by an amount set by the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in Rule 1.5(aa), the System is the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the outset, the Exchange notes that it proposes to modify the
definition of Primary Pegged Order to make it more understandable and
consistent with the definition of Market Pegged Order by adding a
definition of ``Primary Offset Amount'', which would mean the amount of
the offset selected by the User for a Primary Pegged Order. The
Exchange proposes to retain the definition of ``Offset Amount'', which
would mean the amount of the offset selected by the User for a Market
Pegged Order. The Exchange also proposes two substantive changes to
Primary Pegged Orders, as described below.
    First, pursuant to current Rule 11.9(c)(8), neither type of Pegged
Order is eligible to be displayed on the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes to maintain this restriction for Market Pegged Orders but to
permit Primary Pegged Orders to be displayed on the Exchange provided
that they cannot be more aggressive than the NBB or NBO to which they
are pegged, as described below.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the offset that a User can
select for a Primary Pegged Order by specifying that such amount is an
offset, rather than requiring that the order be inferior to or equal to
the inside quote on the same side of the market. This change to Primary
Pegged Orders, therefore, would allow Users to select a Primary Offset
Amount that would make a Primary Pegged Order more aggressive than the
NBB or NBO to which it is pegged (i.e., for a bid, willing to pay a
higher price or for an offer, willing to sell for a lower price).
However, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to restrict the
designation of a Primary Offset Amount that would price a Primary
Pegged Order higher than the NBB for a bid or lower than the NBO for an
offer to non-displayed Primary Pegged Orders. Thus, as proposed, the
Primary Offset Amount for a displayed Primary Pegged Order must result
in the price of such order being inferior to or equal to the inside
quote on the same side of the market. The Exchange is not proposing to
accept displayed Primary Pegged Orders with an aggressive offset at
this time because such orders would add functionality to the Exchange
that would effectively set the NBBO through a Pegged Order and the
Exchange believes that this could potentially add complexity to its
System.
    As an example of an order with a Primary Pegged Order that a User
has designated for display, assume the Exchange receives a display-
eligible Primary Pegged Order to buy 300 shares of a security with a
Primary Pegged Offset to price the order at $0.01 below the NBB. Assume
further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10 when the order is received.
The Exchange will post and display the order on the Exchange as a bid
to buy 300 shares at $10.08. If the NBBO moves to $10.10 by $10.11, the
Exchange will adjust to $10.09 the price of the Primary Pegged Order to
buy. If the NBBO then moved to $10.08 by $10.11, the Exchange will
adjust to $10.07 the price of the Primary Pegged Order to buy.
    A User could alternatively submit a display-eligible Primary Pegged
Order to buy with no Primary Pegged Offset, in which case the initial
display price of the order would be $10.09, upon the first adjustment
to the NBBO the display price would be $10.10, and upon the final
adjustment to the NBBO the display price would be $10.08.
    A User could not submit a display-eligible Primary Pegged Order to
buy with a Primary Pegged Offset to price the order at $0.01 above the
NBB, as this would make the order more aggressive than the NBB, and, as
proposed, the Exchange will not accept Primary Pegged Orders that are
both eligible for display and contain an aggressive Primary Pegged
Offset amount. A User could, however, submit a non-display-eligible
Primary Pegged Order to buy with a Primary Pegged Offset to price the
order at $0.01 above the NBB. Thus, using the example above, the
initial ranked price of the order would be $10.10 ($0.01 higher than
the NBB of $10.09), upon the first adjustment to the NBBO the adjusted
ranked price of the order would be $10.11 ($0.01 higher than the NBB of
$10.10), and upon the final adjustment to the NBBO the adjusted ranked
price of the order would be $10.09 ($0.01 higher than the NBB of
$10.08).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the proposed changes are designed to provide Users
with additional control over their orders that are pegged to the NBBO.
The proposal to permit the display of Primary Pegged Orders is
consistent with the Act as this proposal is intended to lead to
additional displayed liquidity available on the Exchange, thus
contributing to the price discovery process. The proposal to permit an
aggressive offset on non-displayed Primary Pegged Orders is similarly
consistent with the Act as this proposal is intended to allow Users
adding liquidity to the Exchange to more aggressively price their
orders, which, in turn, means an enhanced likelihood of price
improvement for incoming orders that execute against such orders. For
instance, by permitting a User to designate a Primary Pegged Order to
buy on the Exchange with an aggressive Primary Pegged Offset, that
means that the Exchange has non-displayed liquidity priced better than
the NBB, which amounts to significant price improvement as compared to
the NBB. For the reasons described above, the proposals are directly
targeted at

removing impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system.
    The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles
of Section 11A(a)(1) \11\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. In
particular, the proposed rule changes to modify the Primary Pegged
Order is intended to add system functionality currently offered by EDGA
and EDGX in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in turn,
will simplify the technology implementation, changes and maintenance by
Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BYX, EDGA and/or
EDGX. The functionality is similar to functionality offered by Nasdaq
and NYSE Arca as well. The proposed rule changes would also provide
Users with access to functionality that may result in the efficient
execution of such orders and will provide additional flexibility as
well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users.
The Exchange also believes that the changes to restructure the existing
rule will contribute to the protection of investors and the public
interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
reiterates that the proposed rule change is being proposed in the
context of the technology integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to
permit fair competition among national securities exchanges. In
addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit
Exchange participants in that it is one of several changes necessary to
achieve a consistent technology offering by the BGM Affiliated
Exchanges. The Exchange also believes that Pegged Orders generally
encourage competition by allowing Users to submit orders that
automatically peg to the NBBO consistent with their trading strategy.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may 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 so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that waiver will allow the Exchange to align its re-route functionality
across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges in a timely manner, thereby
simplifying the technology implementation, changes and maintenance by
Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BYX, EDGA and/or
EDGX. The Exchange further believes that waiver will allow the Exchange
to continue to strive towards a complete technology integration of the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges. The Commission believes that waiver of the
operative delay is consistent with investor protection and the public
interest. As a result, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(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-BATS-2014-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2014-041. 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-BATS-2014-041, and should be
submitted on or before October 17, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22995 Filed 9-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74080-74082]
[DOCID:fr05de08-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1275; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-167-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed
and high frequency eddy current inspections to detect cracks of the
backup intercostals and the upper sill of the forward airstair doorway,
and applicable corrective actions. This proposed AD would also provide
for an optional terminating

action, which would eliminate the need for repetitive inspections. This
proposed AD results from a report indicating that cracks were found in
the backup intercostals and upper sill web of the forward airstair
doorway. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the backup intercostals and upper sill web of the forward
airstair doorway, which could result in a rapid loss of cabin pressure.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 20,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6430; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-1275;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-167-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that cracks were found in the
backup intercostals and upper sill web of the forward airstair doorway
on a Boeing Model 737-200 series airplane. The cracks were found in the
upper sill web at the stop fitting at station (STA) 312 and in the two
backup intercostals of the stop support structure at STA 322.7 and STA
333.3. Investigation revealed the cracks are due to fatigue caused by
cyclic loads acting on the upper sill web, which is stabilized by the
backup intercostals. Fatigue cracking of the backup intercostals and
upper sill web of the forward airstair doorway, if not detected and
corrected, could result in a rapid loss of cabin pressure.
    The configuration of the subject area on certain Boeing Model 737-
100, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes is almost identical
to that on the affected Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes.
Therefore, those Boeing Model 737-100, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the
Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1269, dated
May 17, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive
detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections to detect fatigue
cracking of the backup intercostals and the upper sill web of the
forward airstair doorway, and applicable corrective actions. The
service bulletin also describes procedures for an optional terminating
action, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
    The corrective and optional terminating actions include doing a
repair/preventive modification to install new backup intercostals with
radius fillers, installing the preventive modification filler and
doubler plate, and repairing any cracked upper sill web.
    The service information also specifies the following compliance
times:
     For the initial inspections: The threshold is prior to
45,000 or 49,500 total flight cycles depending on the flight cycles on
the airplane. The grace period is 1,000 or 4,500 flight cycles
depending on the flight cycles on the airplane.
     For the applicable repetitive inspections: The compliance
time is at intervals of 4,500 flight cycles.
     For the applicable corrective actions: The compliance time
is before further flight.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing certain actions specified in the
service information described previously. The proposed AD also provides
for an optional terminating action, as specified in the service
bulletin, for the repetitive inspection requirements.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,712 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 509 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed inspections would take about 2 work hours
per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators
would be $81,440, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The optional terminating action, if done, would take about 9 work
hours, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
would cost between $533 and $566 per airplane, depending on the
airplane configuration. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of
the optional terminating action would range between $1,253 and $1,286
per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration.

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 products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-1275; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
167-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,
-400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1269, dated May
17, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report indicating that cracks were
found in the backup intercostals and upper sill web of the forward
airstair doorway. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the backup intercostals and upper sill web of
the forward airstair doorway, which could result in a rapid loss of
cabin pressure.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspections

    (f) At the applicable compliance times and repeat intervals
listed in the tables of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1269, dated May 17, 2007 (hereafter
``the service bulletin''), except as provided by paragraphs (f)(1),
(f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD: Do repetitive detailed and high
frequency eddy current inspections to detect cracks of the backup
intercostals and the upper sill of the forward airstair doorway, and
applicable corrective actions by accomplishing all the applicable
actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin. Do the applicable corrective actions before further
flight.
    (1) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time from
the release date of the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where the columns identified as ``Airplane Flight Cycles''
in the tables of the service bulletin specify less than 45,000 total
flight cycles for certain actions, this AD affects airplanes having
less than or equal to 45,000 total flight cycles.
    (3) Where the columns identified as ``Repeat Interval'' in the
tables of the service bulletin specify an interval of 4,500 flight
cycles for all conditions, this AD requires repetitive inspections
only if no crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (g) Accomplishing the backup intercostal repair/preventative
modification and/or the upper door sill web repair, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1269, dated May 17, 2007, ends all the corresponding
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-
120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on November 26, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-28819 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

OMB-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION

A.	JUSTIFICATION

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

a.	Title:  Reformulated Gasoline Commingling Provisions

EPA Number:  2228.02

b. Short characterization:

	With this information collection request (ICR), the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) is seeking permission to accept notifications from
gasoline retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers related to
commingling of ethanol  blended and non-ethanol-blended reformulated
gasoline (RFG) under §1513 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and
40 CFR § 80.78(a)(8)(ii)(B); and to provide for a compliance option
whereby a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer may demonstrate
compliance via test results under § 80.78(a)(8)(iii)(A). These
provisions are designed to grant compliance flexibility.  Parties were
subject to optional recordkeeping and reporting on June 1, 2006.  We are
requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the
renewal of this ICR and that it remain in effect 3 years from the
approval date. A more detailed discussion of EPAct § 513 and 40 CFR
§§ 80.78(a)(8)(ii)(B) and (iii)(A) follows.

	Section 1513 of the EPAct addresses the combining of ethanol-blended
RFG with non-ethanol-blended RFG.  This provision amended the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to add a new § 211(s) providing retail outlets two ten-day
opportunities during a single VOC-control season to blend batches of
ethanol-blended and non-ethanol- blended RFG.  Under this new section,
retail outlets are allowed to sell non-ethanol-blended RFG which has
been combined with ethanol blended RFG under certain conditions:

First, each batch of gasoline to be blended must have been
“individually certified as in compliance with subsections (h) and (k)
[of CAA § 211] prior to being blended.”

Second, the retailer must notify EPA prior to combining the gasolines
and identify the exact location of the retail outlet and specific tank
in which the gasoline is to be combined.  [The notifications create a
new information collection burden and are estimated in this information
collection request.]

Third, the retailer must retain, and, upon request by EPA, make
available for inspection, certifications accounting for all gasoline at
the retail outlet.  [This information is normally kept in the normal
course of business and we believe retaining it is a customary business
practice (CBP).]

Fourth, retailers are prohibited from combining VOC-controlled gasoline
with non-VOC-controlled gasoline between June 1 and September 15.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To provide assurance that gasoline is in
compliance with the downstream VOC standard after the ten-day period,
EPA issued a direct final rule that amended 40 CFR Part 80 to address
commingling (71 FR 8973, February 22, 2006).  There are two options
available for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers.  Under the
first option, the retailer may add both ethanol-blended RFG and
non-ethanol-blended RFG to the same tank an unlimited number of times
during the ten-day period, but must test the gasoline in the tank at the
end of the ten-day period to make sure that the RFG is in compliance
with the VOC standard.  Under the second option, the retailer must draw
the tank down as much as practicable at the start of the ten-day period,
before RFG of another type is added to the tank, and add only RFG of one
type to the tank during the ten-day period.  Because there is a
recordkeeping requirement associated with retail station test results
under the first option, we have calculated an estimated burden for that
activity.  We do not anticipate that many retail stations (5% or fewer)
will choose to test under option one.

	Retailers are also limited in the frequency with which batches of
non-ethanol RFG may be combined with ethanol RFG.  Retailers may combine
such batches of RFG a maximum of two periods between May 1 and September
15. Each period may be no more than ten consecutive calendar days.

2.  Need For, and Use of, the Collection

Authority for the Collection

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Sections 114 and 208 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§
7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting
regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA.  The
relevant regulations are in 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives. See §§ 80.78(a)(8)(ii)(B) and (iii)(A).

	b.	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this regulation will
allow EPA to monitor compliance with the commingling requirements of CAA
§ 211(s), as added by § 1531 of the EPAct.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria

	a. 	Non-duplication

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication
in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements
from various organizations within the Agency have been combined to
minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats.
The information in this collection will not be available from another
source.

	b. 	Public Notice

	EPA will provide opportunity for notice and comment regarding this ICR.

	c. 	Consultations

	We have drawn upon our experience with similar fuels regulations and
have utilized information available from National Petroleum News to
develop these estimates.

	d. 	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

	We believe that the largest number of reports will be collected under
the notification option in 2006 and anticipate a drop-off in responses
after the first year.  We very likely have over-estimated the burden
because we have used a conservative approach that assumes all parties
may respond twice annually.  With regard to the testing option and
retention of those records, we anticipate that 5% or fewer of
respondents will be affected annually.  Less frequent collection of data
would make it impossible to carry out the provisions of the CAA and
EPAct.

	e. 	General Guidelines

	This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines.

	f.. 	Confidentiality

	We inform respondents that they may assert claims of business
confidentiality (CBI) for any or all of the information they submit. We
do not believe that most respondents would characterize the information
they submit to us under this information collection as CBI.  Because of
this, we are permitting reporting via e-mail.  However, any information
claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2
and established Agency procedures.  Information that is received without
a claim of confidentiality may be made available to the public without
further notice to the submitter under 40 CFR § 2.203.

g.	Sensitive Information

	This information collection does not require submission of any
sensitive information.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

	a.	Respondents/SIC Codes

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The respondents to this information collection
are:

	-Retailers (including wholesale purchaser-consumers)

	Recordkeeping and reporting may be required by the following
industries, with 2002 NAICS Code indicated in parentheses:

Gasoline stations (447)

Gasoline stations with convenience stores (447110)

Gasoline stations without convenience stores (447190)

	b.	Information Requested

		A)	Reporting:  Respondents who use the notification option will be
sending a very simple report that could take the form of a short e-mail
or similar communication.  No form is to be developed, although we may
consider developing a simple web based reporting interface for
submission of the information, if that option is desired by the
respondent community.

		B)	Recordkeeping:  Under the testing option, respondents must retain
underlying records related to results of any tests they perform for five
years. We anticipate that 5% or fewer respondents will choose the
testing option. The burden of retaining the testing results record is
small.

5.  The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

a.	Agency Activities

All notifications will be reviewed by EPA.  (Test results will be shown
to EPA field compliance and enforcement personnel upon request.)

Notifications will be stored by EPA.

b. 	Collection Methodology and Management

	Data will be collected by industry and reported to EPA in the form of a
simple e-mail or record that identifies the service station and its
address and identifies the tank where commingling will occur. As
mentioned above, we do not anticipate that this information will come in
under a CBI claim; however, that is a possibility and we will treat all
such information in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency
procedures for handling CBI.  Information claimed as CBI will be stored
in appropriately controlled areas.

c.	Small Entity Flexibility

	This collection will not adversely affect small entities. The whole
purpose of the commingling provision of the EPAct is to provide
flexibility.  The actual estimated annual burden for a typical
respondent who submits up to two notifications per year is estimated to
be $35.50 (0.50 hours) annually.

d.	Collection Schedule

	We anticipate that notifications will be submitted no more than twice
per year and that the number of notifications we receive will drop off
significantly after 2006.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection

(a)	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same
entities to develop estimates of the burden associated with this
collection.  We consulted the National Petroleum News to assist us in
estimating the total number of retail stations. Since that publication
contained a nationwide estimate, we assumed 30% of that number for
stations in RFG areas (since 30% of the gasoline market nationwide is
RFG).  Although imperfect, we believe this is a reasonable estimate, and
have applied similar logic in estimating the number of wholesale
purchaser-consumers.  We have estimated that there are 54,000
respondents.

(b) 	Estimating the Respondent Burden and Cost

	Three labor categories are involved:  managerial (includes legal and
professional review), technical, and clerical. The estimates use the
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from "Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation - Table 12 - Private Industry, Manufacturing, and
Non-Manufacturing Industries by Occupational Group” (December 2003),
with a 3% inflation factor applied to bring the values to 2006.  Using
this method, the following wages and benefits apply by category:

Wages and Benefits

Managerial 		$53.87 per hour

Technical		$35.29 per hour

Clerical		$24.56 per hour

Doubling for company overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for
convenience, rounding up to the dollar, gives the following rates for
this ICR:

Total Employer Cost

Managerial		$108 per hour

Technical		$71 per hour

Clerical		$49 per hour

The labor mix for the activities estimated will be about the same for
each and is consistent with prior ICRs in this series.  It is assumed
that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1 hour
managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical.  This gives an
average labor cost of $71 per hour, which will be used in this ICR.

There are no purchased services or start-up/maintenance costs associated
with this ICR.Respondent Burden Hours & Costs

(Including Capital & Maintenance - O&M)

Collection Activity	Number of

Respondents	Number of

Responses

per

Respondent	Total Number of Responses	Hours per Response

& Cost per

Response	Total Hours

&

Total Cost

@ $71/hour	Total O&M

Prepare and Submit

Notification	54,000	2	108,000	0.25

-----

$17.75	27,000

hours

------

$1,917,000

	0

Maintain

Test

Results

Documents

(assumes

5% of

respondents test)	2,700	1	  2,700	0.25

-----

$17.75	675 hours

------

$47,925	0

Total	56,700

respondents

-----------	110,700

responses

-----------	27,675

hours

------

$1,964,925	0

  c. 	Estimating the Agency Burden and Cost

	No response is required to notifications unless a potential violation
is noted.  Responses will be routinely reviewed and filed as part of our
existing reporting system for fuels and fuel additives.  This activity
will present no significant, quantifiable burden to the Agency.
However, we may develop a web based format for reporting for the
convenience of respondents and estimate such development would cost the
Agency $50,000.

d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We were able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon
experience regulating the same entities and through the use of an
industry publication.

e.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	From the Table on page 7 we estimate the following:

TOTAL NO. OF REPORTS:   110,700

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS:   27,675

TOTAL LABOR COSTS: $ 1,964,925

TOTAL NON-POSTAGE COSTS (for PURCHASED SERVICES):  -0-

f.	Reason for Change in Burden

	The change in burden is due to regulations that effect the EPAct
provision on commingling.  As discussed above, these provisions are
designed to grant flexibility to retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers and we estimate that an average respondent who
submits two notifications (responses) per year will have an annual
burden of $35.50 (0.50 hours).

g.	Burden Statement

	The average respondent burden in hours per response for this ICR is
estimated at 0.25 hours.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Send comments on the Agency’s need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through
the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC; and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management of Budget,
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention, Desk Officer for
EPA. Be sure to include the EPA ICR number (2228.02) in correspondence.

	 The National Petroleum News (Market Facts - July 2005) counts 168,987
retail stations in 2005.  This number was multiplied by 0.30 to yield
50,696 and rounded up to 51,000 for ease of use.  In our ICR for diesel
fuel, “Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Fuel Quality
Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; for Tax-exempt
(Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; and for Nonroad Locomotive and Marine Diesel
Fuel” (EPA ICR 1718.06), we estimated that there were 10,000 wholesale
purchaser-consumer facilities handling petroleum product.  For purposes
of this ICR, we are multiplying this number by 0.30 to yield 3,000.
Adding our estimate of the number of retailers (51,000) and the number
of wholesale purchaser-consumers (3,000) yields 54,000 respondents.  We
believe this number to be on the high side in estimating actual
respondents, but it does provide a reasonable benchmark.

 The average respondent burden is the total number of hours divided by
the total number of reports from the Table, rounded up for simplicity.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 74464]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26330]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34766; File No. 812-15361]

Varagon Capital Corporation, et al.

November 29, 2022.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or
``SEC'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-1
under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited
by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to supersede a
previous order granted by the Commission that permits certain business
development companies and closed-end management investment companies to
co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain
affiliated investment entities.

Applicants: Varagon Capital Corporation, VCC Advisors, LLC, Varagon
Capital Partners, L.P., VCC Equity Holdings, LLC, VCC Funding, LLC,
Varagon Structured Notes Issuer, LLC, VIVA Fund I, L.P., VCP Holding I,
L.P., VCP Holding II, L.P., VCAP Cayman (L), L.P., VCAP Cayman (L) SPV-
1, L.P., and VCAP Cayman (U), L.P.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 28, 2022 and amended on
September 29, 2022 and November 14, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December
21, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Varagon Capital Corporation, [email protected]; Anne G. Oberndorf,
sutherland.com">[email protected]sutherland.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended
and restated application, dated November 14, 2022, which may be
obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number
at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name
search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be
searched at, http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under
delegated authority.

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26330 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6855-6856]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2012--0014]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management,
Room W12-140, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590 by any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; US Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am
and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 1-
800 647-5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the street address listed above. The internet
access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mr. Hisham
Mohamed, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Room W43-437,
NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590.
    Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify
the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control
Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    Title: 49 CFR 575--Consumer Information Regulations (sections 103
and 105).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0049.
    Form Number: None.
    Affected Public: Motor vehicle manufacturers of light trucks and
utility vehicles.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: NHTSA must ensure that motor vehicle manufacturers comply
with 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulation part 575.103,
Truck-camper loading and Part 575.105 Utility Vehicles. Part 575.103
requires that manufacturers of light trucks that are capable of
accommodating slide-in campers provide information on the cargo weight
rating and the longitudinal limits within which the center of gravity
for the cargo weight rating should be located. Part 575.105 requires
that manufacturers of utility vehicles affix a sticker in a prominent
location alerting drivers that the particular handling and maneuvering
characteristics of utility vehicles require special driving practices
when these vehicles are operated.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 300 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 15.
    Based on prior years' manufacturer submissions, the agency
estimates that 15 responses will be submitted annually. Currently 12
light truck manufacturers comply with 49 CFR part 575. These
manufacturers file one response annually and submit a additional
response when they introduce a new model. Changes are rarely filed with
the agency, but we estimate that at least three manufacturers will
alter their information because of model changes. The light truck
manufacturers gather only pre-existing data for the purposes of this
regulation. Based on previous years' manufacturer information, the
agency estimates that light truck manufacturers use a total of 20 hours
to gather and arrange the data in its proper format (9 hours), to
distribute the information to its dealerships and attach labels to
light trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers (4
hours), and to print the labels and

utility vehicle information in the owner's manual or a separate
document included with the owner's manual (7 hours). The estimated
annual burden hour is 300 hours. This number reflects the total
responses (15) times the total hours (20). Prior years' manufacturer
information indicates that it takes an average of $35.00 per hour for
professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print
material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the cost associated with
the burden hours is $10,500 ($35.00 per hour x 300 burden hours).
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-3012 Filed 2-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P