[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32427-32430]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75095; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 980NY(e), Electronic Complex Order
Auction Process Removing the Limitation on Who Can Respond to a COA and
Provide a Response Time Interval of at Least 500 Milliseconds; and
Amend Rule 935NY, Order Exposure Requirements To Add Use of the COA for
a User To Satisfy the Order Exposure Requirement in Rule 935NY and
Delete the Reference in Rule 980NY(e) to the Order Exposure
Requirements Being Separate From the Duration of the COA Response Time
Interval

June 2, 2015
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on May 21, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule 980NY(e) (Electronic
Complex Order Auction (``COA'') Process) to remove the limitation on
who can respond to a COA and to provide a Response Time Interval of at
least 500 milliseconds; and (2) amend Rule 935NY (Order Exposure
Requirements) to add use of the COA as a means for a User to satisfy
the Order Exposure Requirement in Rule 935NY and delete the reference
in Rule 980NY(e) to the Order Exposure Requirements being separate from
the duration of the COA Response Time Interval. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.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
Participation in and Minimum Response Time Interval for the COA
    The Exchange operates COA, which allows an entering ATP Holder to
initiate an auction for eligible Electronic Complex Orders (``COA-
eligible orders'').\4\ Upon receiving a COA-eligible order, and the
direction from the entering ATP Holder that an auction be initiated,
the Exchange sends an automated request for response message (``RFR'')
to all ATP Holders who subscribe to RFR messages.\5\ ATP Holders that
are eligible to participate in a COA may respond to an RFR message
(``RFR Responses'') indicating the price and the number of contracts
they would be willing trade in the COA. RFR Responses must be submitted
during the Response Time Interval (``RTI''), the duration of which is
determined by the Exchange, but may not exceed one (1) second.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange may determine, on a class by class basis, which
Electronic Complex Orders are eligible for a COA based on
marketability (defined as a number of ticks from the current
market), size, and Complex Order origin type. See Rule 980NY(e)(1).
    \5\ RFR messages identify the component series, size and side of
the market of the order and any contingencies. See Rule 980NY(e)(2).
    \6\ See Rule 980NY(e)(3) (stating, in part,''[t]he Exchange will
determine the length of the Response Time Interval; provided,
however, that the duration shall not exceed one (1) second.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 980NY(e)(4) currently provides that each Market Maker with an
appointment in the relevant option

class, and each ATP Holder acting as agent for orders resting at the
top of the Consolidated Book in the relevant options series may submit
RFR Responses during an RTI. The Exchange proposed to amend Rule
980NY(e)(4) to provide that any ATP Holder may submit RFR Responses
during the RTI. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment may
increase participation in COAs, which would foster greater competition
and provide additional price improvement opportunities for COA-eligible
orders exposed during the COA. In addition, the Exchange believes the
proposed amendment is fair and reasonable and would benefit market
participants because it would enable the Exchange to better compete
with option exchanges that permit all members to participate in
electronic auctions for crossing transactions that are similar to the
COA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 723(a) (Price Improvement Orders may be
entered by all Members for their own account or for the account of a
Public Customer in one-cent increments at the same price as the
Crossing Transaction or at an improved price for the Agency Order,
and for any size up to the size of the Agency Order). The Exchange
also notes that it places no restriction on the ATP Holders that may
participate in a Customer Best Execution (``CUBE'') Auction for
single-legged transactions on the Exchange. See Rule 971.1(c)(2)(C).
The Exchange believes that although ISE Rule 723(a) and Rule 971.1NY
relate to electronic crossing transactions and provide for a
guaranteed execution, these electronic auction mechanisms are
analogous to the COA as they are designed to attract liquidity to
the exchange and provide opportunities for price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the duration of a COA is determined by the
Exchange, but may not exceed one (1) second. Currently, the Exchange
has not established a minimum duration for the RTI. The Exchange
believes it is important to establish a minimum duration for the RTI to
ensure that orders entered into a COA are exposed for a sufficient time
period to allow the opportunity for participating ATP Holders to
provide RFR Responses. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to
establish a minimum of 500 milliseconds as the length of time the
Exchange may determine for the RTI, with the maximum length of time
continuing to be one (1) second.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 980NY(e)(3) (providing that ``the that the
duration [of the RTI] shall not be less than 500 milliseconds and
shall not exceed one (1) second.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a minimum of 500 milliseconds is a
sufficient time to submit RFR Responses and would encourage competition
among participants, thereby enhancing the potential for price
improvement for orders in the COA.\9\ The proposed 500 millisecond
minimum for the RTI is comparable to the response time interval in the
Exchange's Customer Best Execution (``CUBE'') Auction for single-leg
orders, which disseminates an RFR message for an auction lasting a
random period of time of between 500 and 750 milliseconds.\10\ In
addition, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'')'s Complex Order Price
Improvement Period (``COPIP''), like the Exchange's COA, is designed to
offer price improvement to complex orders, and is only 100 milliseconds
in length.\11\ Although both the CUBE and the COPIP relate to
electronic crossing transactions and provide for a guaranteed
execution, the Exchange believes the CUBE and COPIP are analogous to
the COA as they are designed to attract liquidity and provide
opportunities for price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In May 2015, to determine whether the proposed RTI would
provide sufficient time to respond to a COA, the Exchange conducted
a survey of ATP Holders to determine whether their firms ``could
respond to an auction lasting 100 milliseconds.'' Of the ATP Holders
that have electronic access to the Exchange and are able to submit
responses to a COA (the ``Relevant ATP Holders''), thirteen (13)
responded the survey. Of the thirteen (13) Relevant ATP Holders, ten
(10)--or 77%--said that they could respond to an auction lasting 100
milliseconds. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed RTI
duration of at least 500 milliseconds would provide a meaningful
opportunity for participants on the Exchange to respond to a COA
while at the same time facilitating the prompt execution of orders.
    \10\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(B).
    \11\ See Box Rule 7245(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment To Order Exposure Requirements
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 935NY by adding
that use of the COA is a means for a User to satisfy the Order Exposure
Requirement in Rule 935NY. Exchange Rule 935NY prohibits Users (i.e.,
ATP Holders) \12\ from trading as principal with orders they represent
as agent unless the order exposure requirements under the rule are met.
The order exposure requirements are designed to enhance opportunities
for competition among market participants.\13\ Specifically, a User may
only trade as principal with an order it represents as agent if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``User'' is ``any ATP Holder that is authorized to obtain
access to the System pursuant to Rule 902.1NY.''
    \13\ See Rule 935NY Commentary .01 (``Rule 935NY prevents a User
from executing agency orders to increase its economic gain from
trading against the order without first giving other trading
interest on the Exchange an opportunity to either trade with the
agency order or to trade at the execution price when the User was
already bidding or offering on the book.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The agency order is first exposed on the Exchange for at
least one (1) second;
     The User has been bidding or offering on the Exchange for
at least one (1) second prior to receiving an agency order that is
executable against such bid or offer; or
     The User utilizes the Customer Best Execution Auction
(``CUBE Auction'') pursuant to Rule 971.1NY.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 935NY to also permit a User who
utilizes the COA pursuant to Rule 980NY(e) to submit a principal order
during the RTI to trade against an order it represents as agent.\14\ As
described above, the Exchange is proposing a minimum duration for the
RTI of 500 milliseconds. RTIs would thus last for at least 500
milliseconds and no more than one (1) second, as determined by the
Exchange.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 935NY(iv). The Exchange also proposes to
add semi-colons to separate the subparts of Rule 935NY, in lieu of
``or'', which the Exchange believes would simplify the rule.
    \15\ See proposed Rule 980NY(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange believes that a COA with an RTI of at
least 500 milliseconds is a sufficient length of time to permit ATP
Holders to respond to a RFR and enhance opportunities for competition
among participants, increasing the likelihood for price improvement for
the COA-eligible order in the COA. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 935NY to state that a User may execute as principal an
order that the User represents as agent if the User avails itself of
COA pursuant to Rule 980NY(e). Thus, an Electronic Complex Order
subject to a COA would not be subject to the one-second order exposure
requirement of Rule 935NY. This exclusion from the one-second order
exposure requirement is consistent with the treatment of orders in the
CUBE Auction, which has a minimum duration of 500 milliseconds, as is
proposed for COA.\16\ This proposed exception is also consistent with
the treatment of similar orders entered in the BOX Complex Order Price
Improvement Period.\17\ Consistent with Rule 935NY Commentary .01, ATP
Holders shall only use COA where there is a genuine intention to
execute bona fide transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 935NY(iii). See also supra n. 10.
    \17\ See BOX IM-7140-2; see also Box Rule 7245(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete rule text from Rule
980NY(e)(3), which provides that ``[t]he obligations of Rule 935NY,
Order Exposure Requirements, are separate from the duration of the
Response Time Interval.'' The Exchange is proposing to delete this text
because it would no longer be accurate with the

proposed changes to Rule 935NY described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\18\ which
requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend Rule
980NY(e)(4) to provide that any ATP Holder may submit an RFR Response
during an RTI would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system because it could
result in increased participation in the COA process, which should
increase competition within a COA, potentially offering greater price
improvement opportunities to the COA-eligible order. The Exchange notes
that at least two other options exchanges allow all members to
participate in electronic auctions similar to the COA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed minimum of 500 milliseconds for
a RTI within a COA promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to a free and open market because it allow [sic]
sufficient time for ATP Holders participating in a COA to submit RFR
Responses and would encourage competition among participants, thereby
enhancing the potential for price improvement for orders in the COA to
the benefit of investors and public interest. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because it
establishes a minimum exposure period applicable to COA-eligible
orders, which would be the same for all ATP Holders participating in a
COA. In addition, the proposed minimum of 500 millisecond [sic] is
consistent with CUBE and is comparable to BOX's Complex Order Price
Improvement Period, which similar to the Exchange's COA, is designed to
offer price improvement to complex orders, and is only 100 milliseconds
in length.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra nn. 10, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to allow Users who utilize the
COA to enter an order as principal to potentially execute against an
order it represents as agent promotes just and equitable principles of
trade because the proposed minimum of 500 milliseconds for the RTI
would provide ample time for participants in the COA to respond and
would encourage competition and opportunities for price improvement, to
the benefit of investors and the public interest. In addition,
exempting Electronic Complex Orders subject to a COA from the one-
second order exposure requirement of Rule 935NY is consistent with the
treatment of orders in the CUBE Auction as well as the treatment of
similar orders entered in the BOX Complex Order Price Improvement
Period.\21\ Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed exemption
from Rule 935NY would reduce market risk for ATP Holders responding to
COA-eligible orders by providing timely executions of these orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra nn. 16, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the
proposed change is consistent with the Act.

(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 believes the
proposal to allow all OTP Holders to participate in the COA process
should increase the level of competition within COAs, which will
increase opportunities to trade for all participants on the Exchange
and may increase opportunities for COA-eligible orders to receive price
improvement. The Exchange also believes that this proposed expansion
would enable the Exchange to better compete with other options
exchanges that already offer all participants the ability to
participate in electronic auctions.\22\ The Exchange believes the
proposed 500 millisecond minimum for a RTI is pro-competitive as it
would afford ATP Holders sufficient time to respond to a COA and
enhance opportunities for price improvement while encouraging timely
executions. The Exchange believes that the proposed limited exception
to Rule 935NY would enable the Exchange to better compete with other
options exchanges that already exempt market participants from the one-
second order exposure requirements when utilizing certain price
improvement and auction mechanisms.\23\ Accordingly, the proposed rule
change would also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency,
thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra n. 7.
    \23\ See supra nn. 16, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSEMKT-2015-41 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-NYSEMKT-2015-41. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-41 and should be submitted on or before
June 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13870 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48796-48797]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19472]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72814; File No. SR-EDGX-2014-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

August 12, 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 July 31, 2014, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
\3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee
Schedule'') to harmonize the definitions of Average Daily Trading
Volume (``ADV'') and Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') with those
contained in the BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and BATS-Y Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'') fee schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On January 31, 2014, Direct Edge Holdings LLC (``DE Holdings''),
the former parent company of the Exchange, completed its business
combination with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent company of BATS
and BYX.\4\ As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and
relieve firms that are members of the Exchange, BATS, and BYX of
conflicting or unnecessary regulatory burdens, the Exchange is now
engaged in the process of reviewing and amending certain Exchange,
BATS, and BYX Rules. To conform to comparable BATS and BYX rules for
purposes of its harmonization efforts due to its business combination,
the Exchange proposes to amend the definitions of ADV and TCV to make
each definition similar to those contained in the BATS and BYX fee
schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30,
2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-43). Upon
completion of the combination, DE Holdings and BATS Global Markets,
Inc. each became intermediate holding companies, held under a single
new holding company. The new holding company, formerly named ``BATS
Global Markets Holdings, Inc.,'' changed its name to ``BATS Global
Markets, Inc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that
it will provide to Members based on the Exchange's tiered pricing
structure based on the calculation of ADV,\5\ and/or average daily
TCV.\6\ Like BATS and BYX, the Exchange currently excludes from is
definition of ADV and TCV days where its system experiences a
disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during Regular Trading
Hours,\7\ and the last Friday in June (the ``Russell Reconstitution
Day''). BATS and BYX also exclude from its definitions of ADV and TCV
days with a scheduled early market close.\8\ Similarly, the General
Notes section of the Exchange's Fee Schedule states that trading
activity on days when the market closes early are not counted toward
volume tiers.\9\ To harmonize the definitions of ADV and TCV with BATS
and BYX, the Exchange proposes relocate this exclusion from the General
Notes section of the Fee Schedule and include it the definitions of ADV
and TCV. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any of
the existing rebates or the percentage thresholds at which a Member may
qualify for certain rebates pursuant to the tiered pricing structure.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule
on August 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As provided in the Fee Schedule, ``ADV'' is currently
defined as ``the average daily volume of shares that a Member
executed on the Exchange for the month in which the fees are
calculated. ADV is calculated on a monthly basis, excluding shares
on any day that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that
lasts for more than 60 minutes during Regular Trading Hours
(``Exchange System Disruption'') and on the last Friday in June (the
``Russell Reconstitution Day''). With prior notice to the Exchange,
a Member may aggregate ADV with other Members that control, are
controlled by, or are under common control with such Member (as
evidenced on such Member's Form BD).''
    \6\ As provided in the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' is currently
defined as ``the volume reported by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities to the consolidated transaction reporting plans
for Tapes A, B and C securities for the month in which the fees are
calculated, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption'') or the Russell
Reconstitution Day.''
    \7\ ``Regular Trading Hours'' is defined as ``the time between
9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(y).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72590 (July 10,
2014), 79 FR 41605 (July 16, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-009); and 72589
(July 10, 2014), 79 FR 41618 (July 16, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-025).
    \9\ Days with a scheduled early market close are December 24,
2014, the trading day after Thanksgiving, and the trading day before
July 4th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
provide greater harmonization between similar Exchange, BATS and BYX
rules, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more
consistent standards for common members. As such, the proposed rule
change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities and would

remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange is not proposing to
amend the thresholds a Member must achieve to become eligible for, or
the dollar value associated with, the tiered fees. The Exchange
currently excludes trading activity on days where the market closes
early and is simply proposing to relocate this provision from the
General Notes section of its Fee Schedule to the definitions of ADV and
TCV. Doing so would enable the Exchange to maintain definitions of ADV
and TCV similar to those of BATS and BYX. Lastly, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies
uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but
rather to provide greater harmonization among similar Exchange and BATS
and BYX rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient and
consistent standards for common members. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee
structures to be unreasonable or excessive. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of
Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGX-2014-22 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-EDGX-2014-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-22, and should be
submitted on or before September 8, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19472 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47880-47883]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19280]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0483; FRL-9931-84-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Update to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Solid Fuel Burning
Device Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on July 10, 2015. The SIP
submission contains revisions to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency
(SRCAA) solid fuel burning device regulations to control particulate
matter from residential wood combustion. The updated regulations
reflect the State of Washington's statutory changes setting fine
particulate matter trigger levels for impaired air quality burn bans.
The submission also contains updates to the regulations to improve the
clarity of the language. We are proposing to approve these changes
because they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and strengthen
the Washington SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0483, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0483. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for particulate matter focused
on inhalable coarse particles (PM10) that are 10 micrometers
in diameter or smaller (52 FR 24663). The PM10 standard most
relevant to Washington was the 24-hour (or daily) standard. The EPA set
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at 150 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\), not to be exceeded more than once per year on average
over a three-year period. The Spokane, Washington, area was designated
nonattainment for PM10 and classified as moderate upon
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. Washington submitted
a PM10 attainment plan on December 12, 1994, and the EPA
approved the Plan on January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3800). One element of the
approved PM10 attainment plan was the residential wood smoke
curtailment program contained in SRCAA, Article VIII, Solid Fuel
Burning Device Standards. On July 1, 2005, the EPA redesignated the
Spokane area to attainment for PM10 based on the existing
set of control measures contained in Ecology's original 1994 attainment
plan (70 FR 38029).
    On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the particulate matter standards
to establish the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for
particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller, based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to
PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The EPA's revised 1997 particulate
matter standards included a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ for
PM2.5, based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/
m\3\ based on additional evidence and health studies (71 FR 61144).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On January 27, 1997, the EPA approved Regulation I, Article VIII--
Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards, adopted by SRCAA in 1994 (62 FR
3800). This set of adopted regulations predated the EPA's promulgation
of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and focused on the 1987 PM10
NAAQS for residential woodstove curtailment. More recently, the
Washington State Legislature revised the underlying statutory authority
contained in Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Washington
Clean Air Act (Washington Clean Air Act) regarding residential wood
smoke curtailment programs to focus on the more pressing and
environmentally relevant 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In a SIP
revision approved by the EPA on May 9, 2014, Ecology provided an
analysis covering former PM10 nonattainment areas in both
Western and Eastern Washington to demonstrate that wood smoke
curtailment programs focused on the more stringent 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS will provide continued maintenance of the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS (79 FR 26628). The EPA agreed with Ecology's
analysis and approved revisions to the statewide regulations contained
in Chapter 173-433 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Solid Fuel
Burning Devices to remove outdated PM10 burn ban trigger

levels and replace them with PM2.5 trigger levels,
consistent with the changes to Chapter 70.94.473 of the Washington
Clean Air Act.
    In this action, as the Governor's designee for revisions to the
Washington SIP, Ecology requested that the EPA approve changes to
Regulation I, Article VIII--Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards adopted
by SRCAA on July 10, 2014. This proposed SIP revision aligns the SRCAA
solid fuel burning device regulations with the Washington Clean Air Act
statutory changes discussed above, as well as the EPA-approved changes
to Ecology's statewide solid fuel burning device regulations (79 FR
26628, May 9, 2014). SRCAA's regulatory changes generally mirror the
statewide Ecology regulations and update the existing EPA-approved
SRCAA regulations for improved clarity. A document showing, in redline/
strike-out, the changes, is included in the docket for this action.
    As discussed above, the 1994 p.m.10 attainment plan for
the Spokane area included SWCAA Regulation I, Article VIII that
regulates particulate matter emissions from residential solid fuel
burning devices (e.g., woodstoves and fireplaces). These regulations
include several provisions that together provide continuous control of
particulate matter emissions, including an episodic curtailment
program, restrictions concerning materials that can and cannot be
burned, and a limit on visible emissions from residential chimneys.
    The primary element of the solid fuel burning device regulations to
help ensure maintenance of the NAAQS is the episodic curtailment
program which restricts the use of woodstoves and fireplaces on days
that are conducive to the buildup of particulate matter concentrations.
The curtailment program restricts the use of woodstoves and fireplaces
by calling stage 1 and stage 2 burn bans consistent with the changes to
Chapter 70.94.473 of the Washington Clean Air Act.
    In addition to the episodic curtailment program, the regulations
include provisions that impose restrictions on what can be burned in
woodstoves and fireplaces at any time. The regulations require that
seasoned wood (defined as wood with a moisture content of 20% or less)
be burned in woodstoves and fireplaces. The regulations also
specifically prohibit the burning of garbage (and other named
materials) in woodstoves and fireplaces, but does allow the burning of
paper sufficient to start a fire. These provisions control the
particulate matter emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces on a
continuous basis, whereas the episodic curtailment program imposes
additional restrictions on the use of woodstoves and fireplaces only
when necessary to address the potential buildup of particulate matter
concentrations.
    Finally, the regulations establish a 20% opacity limit on smoke
from residential woodstoves and fireplaces. This provision provides a
visual indicator for the proper operation of a woodstove or fireplace,
including the use of properly seasoned wood. The 20% opacity limit
applies at all times except during the starting of a fire and the
refueling of a woodstove or fireplace. However, during those times, the
episodic curtailment program and other restrictions regulating fuel
contained in the provisions described above continue to apply, as
clarified in the June 22, 2015 letter from the Spokane Regional Clean
Air Agency.
    Accordingly, this combination of regulatory provisions constitutes
continuous emission limitations, consistent with Federal Clean Air Act
requirements. Specifically, reliance on the episodic curtailment
program and other provisions regulating fuel described above serves as
an adequate alternative emission limit during the starting and
refueling of fires in residential woodstoves and fireplaces, when use
of the 20% opacity limits would be infeasible. Reliance on those
requirements during starting and refueling periods is limited and
specific to the operation of residential stoves and fireplaces,
minimizes the frequency and duration of those periods, and minimizes
the impact of emissions on ambient air quality during those periods,
while the episodic curtailment program ensures that emission impacts
are avoided during potential worst-case periods. While the EPA's
guidance on alternative emission limits also specifies that the owner
or operator's actions during startup and shutdown periods should be
documented by signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant
evidence, application of this recordkeeping requirement in this case
would be an unreasonable burden for individual home heating situations.
See 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015 [relevant discussion begins on page
33913].

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Washington's SIP revision received
July 10, 2015. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve and
incorporate by reference into the SIP the SRCAA regulations shown in
Table 1. In addition, Ecology and SRCAA submitted Section 8.11,
Regulatory Actions and Penalties to demonstrate adequate enforcement
authority to implement the program. Regulations describing agency
enforcement authority are not generally incorporated by reference into
the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent
authorities. Therefore, the EPA has reviewed and is proposing approval
of Section 8.11 as having adequate enforcement authority, but will not
incorporate this section by reference into the SIP codified in 40 CFR
52.2470(c). Similarly, SRCAA Section 8.04 incorporates by reference the
statewide Ecology solid fuel burning device regulations contained in
WAC 173-433. To the extent that SRCAA's regulations reference WAC 173-
433-130, 173-433-170, and 173-433-200 which contain nuisance, fee, and
enforcement provisions, Washington is not submitting these provisions
for approval, consistent with the EPA's May 9, 2014 final action on the
statewide Ecology regulations. See 79 FR 26628. We have made the
determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the
CAA. The EPA is soliciting public comments which will be considered
before taking final action.

                                                                Table 1--Submitted Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
                  Agency                      Citation                   Title                  effective       Submitted            Explanation
                                              (section)                                           date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Regulation I--Article VIII--Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRCAA....................................            8.01  Purpose.........................        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.02  Applicability...................        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.03  Definitions.....................        09/02/15        07/10/15

SRCAA....................................            8.04  Emission Performance Standards..        09/02/15        07/10/15  Except SRCAA's
                                                                                incorporation by reference
                                                                                of WAC 173-433-130, 173-
                                                                                433-170, and 173-433-200.
SRCAA....................................            8.05  Opacity Standards...............        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.06  Prohibited Fuel Types...........        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.07  Curtailment (Burn Ban)..........        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.08  Exemptions......................        09/02/15        07/10/15
SRCAA....................................            8.09  Procedure to Geographically             09/02/15        07/10/15
                                                            Limit Solid Fuel Burning
                                                            Devices.
SRCAA....................................            8.10  Restrictions on Installation and        09/02/15        07/10/15
                                                            Sales of Solid Fuel Burning
                                                            Devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing
to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)--Table 9
``Additional Regulations Approved for the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency (SRCAA) Jurisdiction'' to reflect the regulations shown in Table
1. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, and Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: July 27, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Adminstrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-19280 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56504]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0774]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Victoria Barge Canal,
Bloomington, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Victoria Barge Canal Railroad
Bridge across Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4, at Bloomington, Victoria
County, Texas. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance on the
bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain temporarily closed-
to-navigation for 12 hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on September
1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0774] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge
Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Victoria County Navigation District/Port
of Victoria in conjunction with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR),
requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the
Victoria Barge Canal Railroad Lift Bridge across Victoria Barge Canal,
mile 29.4, at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas. This deviation was
requested to allow the bridge owner to replace old wire cables utilized
in the raising and lowering of the bridge deck. This bridge is governed
by 33 CFR 117.991.
    This deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed-to-
navigation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, September 1, 2016. The
bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet above high water in the
closed-to-navigation position and 50 feet above high water in the open-
to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of
commercial traffic,-which is primarily vessels and tows providing
services to the Port of Victoria.
    For the duration of the replacement of cables, vessels will not be
allowed to pass through the bridge. Vessels traffic coordination will
be scheduled to avoid unnecessary delays. The bridge will not be able
to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for
vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-19933 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26726-26727]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0271]

Hours of Service of Drivers: RJR Transportation, Inc. (RJR);
Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the application of RJR
Transportation, Inc. (RJR) for an exemption to increase the 100 air-
mile radius in ``short-haul operations'' to 150 air miles for its
drivers. RJR requested the exemption for all its operators of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to enable the drivers not exceeding
the 150 air-mile radius to utilize time records instead of a record of
duty status (RODS) for that day. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption
application and the public comments and has determined that the
exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective June 7, 2019 and expires June 7,
2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

III. Request for Exemption

    RJR Transportation, Inc. (RJR) requested an exemption to increase
the 100 air-mile radius in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) to 150 air miles for its
drivers. This would enable RJR's drivers not exceeding the 150 air-mile
radius to utilize time records instead of a record of duty status
(RODS) for that day. If granted, this exemption would spare RJR from
having to install electronic logging devices (ELDs) on all its CMVs.
RJR is a local trucking operation based in Northern California
operating on dedicated routes, with more than 98 percent of its trips
within a 100 air-mile radius.
    Most of RJR's drivers qualify for and operate under the 100 air-
mile radius exemption in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1); on a weekly or monthly
basis, fewer than 5 percent of its drivers may exceed the 100 air-mile
radius but none go beyond a 150 air-mile radius. Specifically, RJR
services three areas outside the 100 air-mile radius which are all
between 100 and 140 air miles from the normal work reporting location.
RJR states that it will be forced to make a substantial investment in
ELDs for just this short extension of the 100 air-mile radius.
    RJR has five drivers who maintain paper RODS, but without this
exemption all 60 of its CMVs will need to be equipped with ELDs to give
the company the flexibility to put any driver in any vehicle, as it
currently does. This represents a substantial and ongoing financial
commitment not justified by the infrequent trips beyond the 100-air
mile radius.
    RJR states that it will continue to utilize automatic event
recorders, which capture among other things speed, global positioning
system location, hard braking events, and sudden turns. RJR therefore
believes that granting the exemption will achieve a level of safety
equivalent to the level that would be achieved absent the proposed
exemption.
    A copy of RJR's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On October 18, 2018, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comment (83 FR 52875). The Agency received three
comments, two opposed to the RJR exemption request. One comment was
non-substantive. One of the commenters opposed to the exemption stated,
``The number of requests for consideration for the FMCSA to increase
the parameters of Part 395.1, i.e., increase the 100 air-mile radius to
150 air-mile radius and increase the 12 hours to 14 hours are directly
related to Part 395.1 and exclusions from Part 395.8's ELD
requirements. Again, if the FMCSA approves the request it will open the
flood gates for more exceptions from other carriers desiring the same
consideration. Once the FMCSA approves the request it will be difficult
to refuse other applicants request for the same consideration. In my
opinion the FMCSA should deny the request and look at Part 395.1 to see
if there's any safety analysis to support expanding Part 395.1's
exception from the ELD.''
    FMCSA is obligated to review all exemption requests and to compare
the standards set forth in the existing regulation to the requested
exemption. If the applicant for the exemption provides alternatives
that likely will

achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation, then FMCSA will
approve the exemption request. RJR's application explained an
infrequent use of the granted exemption and provided alternatives to
ensure a level of safety equivalent to or greater than would be
achieved. The terms and conditions outlined in this notice are intended
to ensure uniformed enforcement on RJR drivers.

V. FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated RJR's application and the public comments and
decided to grant the exemption. The Agency believes that the drivers of
RJR's CMVs who are exempt will likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption [49 CFR 381.305(a)]. The exemption will allow RJRs
drivers not exceeding the 150 air-mile radius to utilize time records
instead of a record of duty status (RODS) for that day. The commenter's
``flood gates'' argument is not persuasive because exemptions are
specific to the circumstances of the applicant. One exemption decision
does not set a precedent for a different exemption application.

VI. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

     Drivers must have a copy of this notice or signed FMCSA
exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms
of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law
enforcement officials upon request.
     Vehicles operated under the exemption must be equipped
with automatic event recorders that capture speed, global positioning
system location, hard breaking events, and sudden turns.
     Drivers may not travel beyond the 150 air-mile radius to
be exempted from having to complete a record of duty status (RODS) for
that day.
     Drivers must return to the work reporting location at the
end of their shift.
     Drivers must have at least 10 consecutive hours off duty.
     This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR
395.1(e)(1)(i). These drivers must comply will all other applicable
provisions of the FMCSRs.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is
inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person
operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within
5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving
any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this
exemption. The notification must include the following information:
    (a) Identity of the exemption: ``RJR''
    (b) Name of operating motor carrier,
    (c) Date of the accident,
    (d) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    (e) Driver's name and license number,
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number,
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    (h) Number of fatalities,
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    (k) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that this motor carrier is not achieving the
requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA.
    The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and, if safety
is being compromised or if the continuation of this exemption is
inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA will
immediately take steps to revoke the exemption of the company and
drivers in question.

    Issued on: May 30, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-11919 Filed 6-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21270-21272]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0324; Product Identifier 2019-NM-031-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks on certain nose landing
gear (NLG) turning tubes resulting from incorrectly applied repairs.
This proposed AD would require removing the affected parts and
replacing them with serviceable parts. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Fokker service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Safran service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Safran Landing Systems, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY
41094; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.safran-landing-systems.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0324; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0324;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-031-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2019-0037, dated February 19, 2019 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark
0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences have been reported of finding cracks on certain NLG
turning tubes. The subsequent investigation results revealed that
the cracks initiated from an area that is sensitive to fatigue
cracking, which had been subject to incorrectly applied repairs.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to NLG
turning tube failure, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane
and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services
published the SB [service bulletin] to provide replacement
instructions, referring to SLS [Safran Landing Systems] SB F100-32-
117 for in-shop inspection.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal
from service of the affected part and replacement with a serviceable
part.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0324.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-
171, dated November 27, 2018. This service information describes
procedures for removing and replacing affected NLG turning tubes.
    Safran has issued Service Bulletin F100-32-117, dated July 30,
2018. This service information describes procedures for a magnetic
particle or eddy current inspection of NLG turning tubes.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765...........................          $1,282           $2,047           $8,188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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 this 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0324; Product Identifier
2019-NM-031-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 28, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on certain nose
landing gear (NLG) turning tubes resulting from incorrectly applied
repairs. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of NLG turning
tubes, which could lead to NLG turning tube failure, possibly
resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) An affected part is an NLG turning tube assembly having part
number (P/N) 201456200, 201071202, 201071240, or 201071241;
installed on an NLG unit having a P/N identified in Safran Service
Bulletin F100-32-117, dated July 30, 2018.
    (2) A serviceable part is an affected part that is new or that,
before installation, has passed an inspection (no cracks found,
having the correct radius) in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Safran Service Bulletin F100-32-117, dated July 30,
2018.

(h) Replacement

    Within 22,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD:
Replace the affected parts, with serviceable parts, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-32-171, dated November 27, 2018.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an affected part, unless it is a serviceable part.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Safran Service Bulletin F100-32-117, dated July 30,
2018, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2019-0037, dated February 19, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0324.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For Fokker service information identified in this AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box
1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-
350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Safran service
information identified in this AD, contact Safran Landing Systems,
One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(859) 485-8827; internet https://www.safran-landing-systems.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 3, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09644 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24668]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR06-15-000]

Overland Trail Transmission, LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

April 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Overland Trail Transmission,
LLC (OTTCO) filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA section 311
maximum transportation rates, pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the
Commission's regulations. OTTCO request an effective date for its new
section 311 as of April 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time April 28, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6235 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24480-24481]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0338]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Marine Events; Annual Bayview Mackinac
Race, Lake Huron, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for
the annual Bayview Yacht Club Port Huron to Mackinac Race. This special
local regulation is necessary to safely control vessel movements in the
vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating
public and commercial shipping. During this enforcement

period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without the
permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.902 will be enforced from 10 a.m.
through 3 p.m. on July 15, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Tracy Girard, Waterway Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliott Street,
Detroit, MI at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation in 33 CFR 100.902 for the Annual Bayview Mackinac Race
from 10 a.m. through 3 p.m. on July 15, 2023. This notice of
enforcement is necessary to safely control vessel movements in the
vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating
public and commercial shipping. This notice of enforcement applies to
all U.S. navigable waters of the Black River, St. Clair River, and
lower Lake Huron, bound by a line starting at latitude 042[deg]58'47''
N, longitude 082[deg]26'0'' W; then easterly to latitude
042[deg]58'24'' N, longitude 082[deg]24'47'' W; then northward along
the International Boundary to latitude 043[deg]02'48'' N, longitude
082[deg]23'47'' W; then westerly to the shoreline at approximate
location latitude 043[deg]02'48'' N, longitude 082[deg]26'48'' W; then
southward along the U.S. shoreline to latitude 042[deg]58'54'' N,
longitude 082[deg]26'01'' W; then back to the beginning [DATUM: NAD
83].
    In order to ensure the safety of spectators and participating
vessels, the Coast Guard will patrol the race area under the direction
of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). Vessels desiring
to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the
PATCOM and when so directed by that officer. The PATCOM may be
contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign ``Coast Guard
Patrol Commander.'' Vessels permitted to transit the regulated area
will operate at no wake speed and in a manner which will not endanger
participants in the event or any other craft. The rules contained above
shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol
operating in the performance of their assigned duties.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR
100.902 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the District Commander, Captain of the
Port or PATCOM determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: April 17 2023.
Brad W. Kelly,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2023-08453 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P