[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5707-5710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01695]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0186; Amendment Nos. 121-362]
RIN 2120-AK14

Lavatory Oxygen Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action adds termination criteria and an expiration date
to Special Federal Aviation Regulation 111, which temporarily
authorizes variances from existing standards related to the
provisioning of supplemental oxygen inside lavatories. This action is
necessitated by the publication of Airworthiness Directive 2012-11-09,
which mandates actions that restore supplemental oxygen to lavatories.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas
Anderson, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause

    The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this final rule are
unnecessary, since this amendment is a conforming change in light of
the rulemaking activity that led to AD 2012-11-09.\1\ Interested
parties have been offered an opportunity to comment on the issues
covered by this SFAR, and the FAA has considered all comments. See
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-11-09; 77 FR 38000, June 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AD 2012-11-09, Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport
Category Airplanes (Docket No. FAA-2012-0102), 77 FR 38000, June 26,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft;
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it revises the
safety standards for design and operation of transport category
airplanes.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    The FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 111 to
address the noncompliance with the regulations created by compliance
with AD 2011-04-09.\2\ Because no solution was available at that time
that would both comply with the AD and provide oxygen to occupants of
lavatories, the SFAR was intended to be in effect until superseded by
further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AD 2011-04-09, Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport
Category Airplanes Equipped with Chemical Oxygen Generators
Installed in a Lavatory (Docket No. FAA-2011-0157). 76 FR 12556,
March 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preambles to the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) \3\ and final rule adopting AD 2012-11-09, the FAA chartered an
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to identify methods of restoring
oxygen in lavatories without creating security vulnerabilities. The FAA
is in the process of developing rulemaking to adopt new standards for
chemical oxygen generator system installations, based on the ARC
recommendations, and has issued Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-04, Chemical
Oxygen Generator Installations. Applicants may use the guidance in that
policy statement for approval of chemical oxygen generator systems.
Further, the FAA has issued AD 2012-11-09, which mandates installation
of a supplemental oxygen system in all airplanes affected by AD 2011-
04-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is now establishing an expiration date for SFAR 111 that
coincides with the compliance date of AD 2012-11-09. While we fully
expect that the compliance time specified in the AD is sufficient to
enable all affected operators to comply within that time, it is
possible there will be circumstances beyond an operator's control under
which the operator's compliance will be delayed. If the delay is
adequately justified, per Sec.  39.19, the FAA may approve an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or extension of compliance
time. To avoid having to initiate additional rulemaking or to grant a
separate exemption from the regulations referenced in SFAR 111,
paragraph (e) would allow for an extension of the expiration of the
SFAR corresponding to the duration of any such extension of compliance
time.

Provisions of SFAR 111

    The applicability of the SFAR has been amended to conform to AD
2012-11-09. The amended SFAR applies to persons required to comply with
AD 2012-11-09, but only for airplanes on which the actions required by
the AD have not yet been accomplished. The effect of this limitation is
that, once those actions are accomplished on an airplane, it is no
longer eligible for the relief or subject to the requirements provided
by this SFAR, and the operator

is again required to comply with the applicable rules specified in
paragraph (b) of the SFAR.
    Until compliance with AD 2012-11-09 is accomplished, the amended
SFAR allows all air carriers that were required to comply with AD 2011-
04-09 to continue to operate without complying with specific
regulations pertaining to supplemental oxygen systems. The amended SFAR
also permits manufacturers and modifiers of transport category
airplanes to deliver or return to service airplanes affected by the FAA
directive with the same relief. In addition, the amended SFAR requires
certain procedural and configuration enhancements to reduce the safety
risk to passengers in the unlikely event that they should need oxygen
while in a lavatory. Paragraph (c) of the amended SFAR requires that
when a person described in paragraph (a) of this section has modified
airplanes as required by Airworthiness Directive 2011-04-09, the
affected airplanes must be returned to service with a note in the
airplane maintenance records that the modification was done under the
provisions of this SFAR.
    Paragraph (h) of AD 2011-04-09 also contains a provision for
regulatory relief that is in effect until superseded by other
rulemaking. AD 2012-11-09 superseded AD 2011-04-09 and contains a
similar provision for superseding future rulemaking to allow for the
progressive retrofit of the affected fleet. As such, the amended SFAR
is only needed to allow for deliveries, modifications and other entries
into service that might otherwise not be allowed due to noncompliance
with supplemental oxygen requirements, until the compliance date of AD
2012-11-09.

II. Background

    On March 8, 2011, the FAA published an interim final rule, request
for comments (Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-133, 121-354, 129-50; SFAR 111),
on security considerations for lavatory oxygen systems in the Federal
Register (76 FR 12550). The FAA had become aware of security
vulnerability with certain types of oxygen systems installed inside the
lavatories of most transport category airplanes. As a result, the FAA
mandated that these oxygen systems be rendered inoperative until the
vulnerability could be eliminated. However, by rendering the oxygen
systems inoperative to comply with that mandatory action, operators
were out of compliance with the requirements of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1447, 121.329, and 121.333.
    In addition to the fleet of in-service airplanes, newly
manufactured airplanes and airplanes undergoing other modification also
needed to render the oxygen systems in the lavatories inoperative. SFAR
111 was needed so the affected airplanes could continue operating until
the issue was resolved.
    The FAA then chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to
make recommendations regarding new standards for the oxygen system
installation, as well as how to implement those standards. The ARC
submitted its recommendations to the FAA, and the FAA intends to use
those recommendations as the basis for new standards and new
installation approvals.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    The FAA received comments from ten commenters regarding SFAR 111.
Those commenters were: Aerox Aviation Oxygen Systems, Inc., The Boeing
Company, and eight individual commenters. The FAA's disposition of
those comments was published in the Federal Register on February 27,
2012 (77 FR 11385.) The FAA determined that no revisions to SFAR 111
were necessary based off comments received.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. Department of
Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected
cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this
determination follows:
    This final rule adds an expiration date to SFAR 111 that coincides
with the compliance date for AD 2012-11-09.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The costs to small airline operators to install lavatory oxygen
generating

systems have been addressed in the economic analysis associated with
the rulemaking for AD-2012-11-09. This final rule ensures that the
expiration date of SFAR 111 will coincide with the compliance date of
AD-2012-11-09, but also allows for an extension of compliance time if
the delay is adequately justified.
    Therefore as the FAA Acting Administrator, I certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
responds to a domestic safety objective and is not considered an
unnecessary obstacle to international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's 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.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101,
44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901,
44903-44904, 44912, 46105.

Subpart DD--Special Federal Aviation Regulations

0
2. Revise Sec.  121.1500 to read as follows:

Sec.  121.1500  SFAR No. 111--Lavatory Oxygen Systems.

    (a) Applicability. This SFAR applies to the following persons:
    (1) All operators of transport category airplanes that are required
to comply with AD 2012-11-09, but only for airplanes on which the
actions required by that AD have not been accomplished.
    (2) Applicants for airworthiness certificates.
    (3) Holders of production certificates.
    (4) Applicants for type certificates, including changes to type
certificates.
    (b) Regulatory relief. Except as noted in paragraph (d) of this
section and contrary provisions of 14 CFR part 21, and 14 CFR 25.1447,
119.51, 121.329, 121.333 and 129.13, notwithstanding, for the duration
of this SFAR:
    (1) A person described in paragraph (a) of this section may conduct
flight operations and add airplanes to operations specifications with
disabled lavatory oxygen systems, modified in accordance with FAA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-04-09, subject to the following
limitations:
    (i) This relief is limited to regulatory compliance of lavatory
oxygen systems.
    (ii) Within 30 days of March 29, 2013, all oxygen masks must be
removed from affected lavatories, and the mask stowage location must be
reclosed.
    (iii) Within 60 days of March 29, 2013 each affected operator must
verify that crew emergency procedures specifically include a visual
check of the lavatory as a priority when checking the cabin following
any event where oxygen masks were deployed in the cabin.
    (2) An applicant for an airworthiness certificate may obtain an
airworthiness certificate for airplanes to be operated by a person
described in paragraph (a) of this section, although the airplane
lavatory oxygen system is disabled.
    (3) A holder of a production certificate may apply for an
airworthiness certificate or approval for airplanes to be operated by a
person described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (4) An applicant for a type certificate or change to a type
certificate may obtain a design approval without showing compliance
with Sec.  25.1447(c)(1) of this chapter for lavatory oxygen systems,
in accordance with this SFAR.
    (5) Each person covered by paragraph (a) of this section may inform
passengers that the lavatories are not equipped with supplemental
oxygen.
    (c) Return to service documentation. When a person described in
paragraph (a) of this section has modified airplanes as required by
Airworthiness Directive 2011-04-09, the affected airplanes must be
returned to service with a note in the airplane maintenance records
that the modification was done under the provisions of this SFAR.
    (d) Expiration. This SFAR expires on September 10, 2015, except
this SFAR will continue to apply to any airplane for which the FAA
approves an extension of the AD compliance time for the duration of the
extension.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18, 2013.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-01695 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28059-28060]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR16-13-000]

Saddlehorn Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Amended Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 29, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015),

Saddlehorn Pipeline Company, LLC (``Saddlehorn''), filed an amended
petition for a declaratory order concerning clarifying language to its
rules and regulations tariff governing line fill, to accommodate the
restructuring of the original Saddlehorn project into an undivided
joint interest pipeline with Grand Mesa Pipeline, LLC, all as more
fully explained in the petition, as amended.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 11, 2016.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10787 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74068-74070]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30103]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0747; FRL-9937-04-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS13

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: This action requests information related to hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions from sources in the oil and natural gas
production and natural gas transmission and storage segments of the oil
and natural gas sector. In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) revised the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities
and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities major source
categories. This action requests additional data and information that
was not available at that time. In particular, we are requesting data
on storage vessels without potential flash emissions (PFE) and data on
HAP emissions from regulated small glycol dehydrators. With regard to
the small glycol dehydrators we are particularly interested in data
regarding any emissions of HAP other than benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), information on available control
options for any such HAP and information regarding a potential
compliance demonstration issue with respect to the 2012 standards for
small glycol dehydration units, as they apply to units with very low
emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0747, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
action, contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number: (919) 541-
3740; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information
on the EPA's oil and natural gas sector regulatory program, contact Mr.
Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-5460; facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For additional contact information, see the
following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:

      TABLE 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          211111  Crude Petroleum and
                                                  Natural Gas
                                                  Extraction.
                                         211112  Natural Gas Liquid
                                                  Extraction.
                                         221210  Natural Gas
                                                  Distribution.
                                         486110  Pipeline Distribution
                                                  of Crude Oil.
                                         486210  Pipeline Transportation
                                                  of Natural Gas.
Federal government.............  ..............  Not affected.

State/local/tribal government..  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is meant to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my information/comments to the
EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0747. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

II. Background

    In 2012, the EPA issued a final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas
Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,'' 77 FR 49490 (August
16, 2012). The final rule contains final actions on two different
national standards for the oil and natural gas industry promulgated by
the EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA): (1) The new source performance
standards (NSPS), promulgated under section 111 of the CAA, and (2) the
NESHAP, promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. The NESHAP portion of
the final rule (``the 2012 NESHAP revisions'') included the EPA's
residual risk and technology review of the NESHAP for the Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities and the NESHAP for the Natural Gas
Transmission and Storage Facilities major source categories (40 CFR
part 63 subpart HH \1\ and HHH, respectively) pursuant to sections
112(f)(2) and (d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, pursuant to section
112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA, the EPA established emission standards
for BTEX based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for a
subcategory of glycol dehydrators referred to as the ``small glycol
dehydration units.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH also includes standards for
certain area source glycol dehydration units, which were not a
subject of the 2012 NESHAP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This request is to obtain additional data and information. We are
interested in receiving information on HAP emissions from some affected
facilities in the oil and natural gas production, and the natural gas
transmission and storage segments of the oil and natural gas sector. In
particular, the EPA is interested in the following information:
    1. HAP emissions from storage vessels without PFE from the oil and
natural gas production segment;
    2. Emission information on HAP other than BTEX from small glycol
dehydrators and available control options.
    In addition, the EPA recently learned of a potential compliance
demonstration issue with respect to the 2012 BTEX MACT standards for
small glycol dehydration units as they apply to units with very low
BTEX emissions. The EPA is also soliciting comment and information
related to this issue. The Agency also requests any additional relevant
information for sources covered by the NESHAP.
    Section III of this action discusses in more detail the information
identified above. The EPA is providing a 60-day period for the public
to submit the requested information.

III. Solicitation of Data and Comments

    The following presents the issues on which we are particularly
interested in receiving feedback, data, and information.

A. Storage Vessels Without Potential Flash Emissions

    We request available data on storage vessels without PFE. Crude
oil, condensate, and produced water are typically stored in fixed-roof
storage vessels. Some vessels used for storing produced water may be
open-top tanks. These fixed-roof vessels, which are operated at or near
atmospheric pressure conditions, are typically located in tank
batteries at well sites and at centralized gathering facilities. A tank
battery refers to the collection of process components used to
separate, treat, and store crude oil, condensate, intermediate
hydrocarbon liquids, and produced water. The extracted products from
production wells enter the tank battery through the production header,
which may collect product from many wells.
    Emissions from storage vessels are a result of working, breathing,
and flash losses. Working losses occur due to the emptying and filling
of storage vessels. Breathing losses are the release of gas associated
with daily temperature fluctuations and other equilibrium effects.
Flash losses occur when a liquid with entrained gases is transferred
from a vessel with higher pressure to a vessel with lower pressure, and
thus, allowing entrained gases or a portion of the liquid to vaporize
or flash. In the oil and natural gas production segment, flashing
losses occur when crude oil or condensate flows into a storage vessel
from a processing vessel operated at a higher pressure. Typically, the
larger the pressure drop, the more flash emissions will occur in the
storage vessel. Temperature of the liquid may also influence the amount
of flash emissions.
    In 1999, the EPA promulgated the NESHAP for the Oil and Natural Gas
Production Facilities major source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart
HH). The 1999 NESHAP included the MACT standards for storage vessels
with PFE, which are defined in subpart HH, 40 CFR 63.761.
    The 1999 NESHAP left unregulated storage vessels without PFE (i.e.,
storage vessels that do not meet the above definition). In the 2011
proposal to revise the Oil and Natural Gas

NESHAP,\2\ the EPA proposed MACT standards for storage vessels without
PFE pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), but did not take final
action on that proposal. As explained in the preamble to the 2012
NESHAP revisions, ``we need (and intend to gather) additional data on
these sources in order to analyze and establish MACT emission standards
for this subcategory of storage vessels under section 112(d)(2) and (3)
of the CAA.'' 77 FR 49503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed Rule, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source
Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Reviews, 76 FR 52738 (August 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request available data regarding storage vessels without PFE. In
particular, we are interested in data and other relevant information
characterizing emissions and emission rates of storage vessels in the
oil and natural gas production segment that do not have PFE, but that
nonetheless emit HAP. We also request information on technologies and/
or practices for reducing emissions from storage vessels without PFE.

B. Studies of HAP Emissions From Small Glycol Dehydrators

    The EPA is specifically interested in receiving data for units with
low inlet concentration of BTEX and the amount of these HAP emissions
from small glycol dehydration units. In 2012, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA revised 40 CFR part 63, subparts HH and HHH
to include MACT standards for ``small glycol dehydration units.'' See
40 CFR 63.761 and 63.1271. The standards for both existing and new
sources of small glycol dehydration units are in the form of a unit-
specific BTEX emission limit determined by the equations provided in
that subpart.
    The EPA recently learned of a potential compliance demonstration
issue for certain small glycol dehydration units with very low BTEX
emissions. Specifically, we were informed that for certain small glycol
dehydrators that operate with low BTEX inlet concentrations, the
equations may result in emission standards that are below the detection
limit for the reference method used for compliance purposes. If there
are units that fit this criterion, it is theoretically possible that
neither the source nor the EPA could verify compliance using the
methods specified in the rule. To enable us to fully evaluate this
issue, we are requesting source data that demonstrates whether
compliance with the standard can be verified at small glycol
dehydration units for which this is a potential issue. We request that
commenters submit estimates on the number of units where this is a
potential problem and the data showing the HAP inlet concentrations for
these units.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA is not requesting information that would identify
the units. Rather, we are requesting information demonstrating that
for an affected facility, the applicable standard would be below the
detection limit of the EPA method used to show compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also requesting information on emissions of HAP other than
BTEX from small glycol dehydrators. As explained above, in the 2012
NESHAP revisions, the EPA established MACT standards for BTEX emitted
from small glycol dehydration units. While our data indicate that there
is potential for other HAP to be emitted from small glycol dehydration
units, we do not have sufficient information to establish MACT
standards for other HAP emitted from these units. We are, therefore,
requesting data that show the types and quantities of HAP emissions
other than BTEX from small glycol dehydration units. In addition to
non-BTEX HAP emissions data, we are requesting information on methods
employed to control these non-BTEX HAP, including whether BTEX control
measures are an effective method for other non-BTEX HAP emitted by the
units.

    Dated: November 3, 2015.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2015-30103 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: "Joseph L. Suchecki"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 09/28/2012 04:24 PM
Subject: RE: Questions on Engines for NESHAP

Yes – that is correct

Joe

From: Melanie King<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:02 PM
To: Joseph L. Suchecki
Subject: Re: Questions on Engines for NESHAP
Thanks Joe. One thing I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you indicated for the third
question that your members think the same requirements would be appropriate for OCS sources as
those for land-based engines. We don't really have management practices in the RICE NESHAP for large
non-emergency CI engines, we have requirements for smaller non-emergency engines and for emergency
engines. So are you saying the management practices for smaller non-emergency CI engines (item 1 in
Table 2d of subpart ZZZZ) are also appropriate for large non-emergency CI engines?

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 "Joseph L. Suchecki" ---09/28/2012 02:52:36 PM---TO: Melanie King US EPA

From: "Joseph L. Suchecki"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 09/28/2012 02:52 PM
Subject: Questions on Engines for NESHAP

TO: Melanie King
US EPA

FROM: Joe Suchecki
EMA

DATE: September 28, 2012

RE: Responses to Questions Regarding Engine Issues for NESHAP

In response to three of your recent questions on stationary engine issues and
proposed changes to the stationary engine NESHAP and NSPS regulations, EMA
submits the following.
1 How can owners determine sited-rated horsepower of an engine?
It appears that is most cases the site-rated horsepower of a stationary
engine is indicated on the engine nameplate. However, in some cases,
and depending on engine manufacturer practice, the maximum engine
horsepower or family horsepower is indicated on the nameplate rather
than the specific site-rated horsepower. If the owner/operator is uncertain,
they can use the nameplate horsepower which will always be higher or
equal to the actual site-rated horsepower of the engine. Alternatively, the
owner/operator can contact the engine manufacturer with the serial
number of the engine, and most, if not all, manufacturers will be able to
supply to needed information.

2 Do all rich-burn engines emit uncontrolled CO at levels between 1000-
1500 ppm?
Although many stationary rich-burn engines may emit CO at levels somewhere
in that range, engine manufacturers provided examples of engines that emit
either above or below that level. So, while that is a good benchmark for many
rich-burn engines, it is not an absolute range. Uncontrolled emissions from
stationary rich-burn engines can be both above and below that range.

Having said that, EMA believes it would be appropriate to establish a PPM CO
standard for rich burn engines based upon a 75% reduction in emissions, or
alternatively to harmonize with the NSPS for new engines and use a value of
270 ppm as a standard. Given the variability of engine CO emissions, a 270
standard would likely result in some engines having to reduce CO more than
75% and some engines would have to reduce CO less than 75%.

.
3 Are different maintenance practices needed for Outer Continental Shelf
engines if EPA were to adopt EMA’s recommendations to align requirements of
OCS engines with those of remote-area land based engines?
The basic answer is no – no additional or different maintenance practices are
required for offshore/OCS engines. EMA would recommend the same
requirements for those engines as for land-based engines.

Please let me know if you need additional information or if you have questions
on the above.


[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 22917]
[DOCID:fr15my09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2146-126]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 7, 2009.
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 2146-126.
    c. Date Filed: April 24, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Project.
    f. Location: The proposed non-project use is located on Logan
Martin Lake, in Talladega County, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Keith E. Bryant, Senior Engineer, Alabama
Power Company, 600 18th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203, (205) 257-
1403.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jade Alvey at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments and or Motions: June 8, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company filed an
application seeking Commission authorization to permit Shoreline Real
Estate, LLC to install floating boat docks, a concrete boat ramp, and
other facilities on project lands along or near the shoreline of the
Logan Martin Lake in Section 4, Township 18 South, Range 4 East,
Talladega County, Alabama. The new facilities would be used by the
owners and residents of the Lincoln Harbor development on lands
adjacent to the project. The application is for a total of 15 floating
docks, with total boat slips not to exceed 176 slips, and a footprint
not to exceed 72,160 square feet. The boat docks would be constructed
over the coming years as a total of 952 residential units are
constructed and sold in a phased development process. The filing
includes maps and descriptions of the areas and of dock and slip
configurations, photographs, and environmental and historic
considerations. No dredging is proposed. This application was filed
after consultation with the appropriate agencies.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-459) to access the document. You
may also register Online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11335 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49315-49319]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78378; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Exchange's Price List

July 21, 2016.
    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 July 11, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Price List to add
additional wireless connections and update or remove obsolete text. 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 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's co-location \4\ services include the means for Users
\5\ to receive market data feeds from third party markets (``Third
Party Data'') through a wireless connection.\6\ The Exchange currently
offers wireless connectivity to six Third Party Data feeds.\7\ The
Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Price List to (a) expand the
existing wireless connections to Bats Pitch BZX Gig shaped data
(``BZX'') and DirectEdge EDGX Gig shaped data (``EDGX'') to include
additional market data feeds, and (b) provide a wireless connection to
NASDAQ TotalView Ultra (FPGA) and BX TotalView-ITCH data. The Exchange
also proposes to update or remove obsolete text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-56). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New
Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the Price List,
a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees
for the same co-location service charged by the Exchange's
affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 70206 (August 15, 2013), 78 FR 51765 (August 21,
2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76748 (December 23,
2015), 80 FR 81609 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-52) (``Wireless
Approval Release'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77119 (February 11,
2016), 81 FR 8313 (February 18, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the connections
to BZX and EDGX as follows:
     The wireless connection to BZX data would also include
Bats Pitch BYX Gig shaped data (``BYX''), and
     the wireless connection to EDGX data would also include
Bats EDGA Gig shaped data (``EDGA'').
    The related fees would not change.
    Any User that presently has a wireless connection to BZX or EDGX
data would also receive BYX or EDGA data, respectively, upon
effectiveness of the proposed change. Such User would not be required
to pay a second non-recurring initial charge.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add a seventh Third Party
Data feed, which would include NASDAQ TotalView Ultra (FPGA) and BX
TotalView-ITCH data (``FPGA and TotalView-ITCH''). Both such data feeds
are currently offered separately. For each wireless connection to FPGA
and TotalView-ITCH, a User would be charged a $5,000 non-recurring
initial charge and a monthly recurring charge (``MRC'') of $14,500.
    Any User that presently has a wireless connection to the separate
FPGA and TotalView-ITCH feeds would become subject to the $14,500 MRC
upon effectiveness of the proposed change. Such User would not be
required to pay another non-recurring initial charge.
    The Exchange accordingly proposes to revise its Price List to
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                        Amount of charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless connection of Bats Pitch BZX    $5,000 per connection initial
 Gig shaped data and Bats Pitch BYX Gig   charge plus monthly charge per
 shaped data.                             connection of $6,000
                                         Fees are subject to a 30-day
                                          testing period, during which
                                          the monthly charge per
                                          connection is waived.
Wireless connection of Bats EDGX Gig     $5,000 per connection initial
 shaped data and Bats EDGA Gig shaped     charge plus monthly charge per
 data.                                    connection of $6,000
                                         Fees are subject to a 30-day
                                          testing period, during which
                                          the monthly charge per
                                          connection is waived.
Wireless connection of NASDAQ Totalview  $5,000 per connection initial
 Ultra (FPGA) and BX Totalview-ITCH       charge plus monthly charge per
 data.                                    connection of $14,500
                                         Fees are subject to a 30-day
                                          testing period, during which
                                          the monthly charge per
                                          connection is waived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all the Third Party Data, the Exchange would utilize a
network vendor to provide a wireless connection to BZX and BYX, EDGX
and EDGA or FPGA and TotalView-ITCH data (together, the ``Additional
Third Party Data'') through wireless connections from an Exchange
access center to its data center in Mahwah, New Jersey, through a
series of towers equipped with wireless equipment. A User that wished
to receive Additional Third Party Data would enter into a contract with
the relevant third party provider, which would charge the User the
applicable market data fees. The Exchange would charge the User fees
for the wireless connection.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A User only receives the Third Party Data for which it
enters into a contract with the third party provider. If a User
requested not to be connected to one of the Third Party Data feeds
(for example, if it entered into a contract with BATS for BZX but
not BYX, or for EDGA but not EDGX), the Exchange would only provide
the wireless connection requested, but would charge the User the
full $5000 initial fee, plus $6000/monthly fee for the wireless
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the previously approved wireless connections to Third Party
Data, if a User purchases two wireless connections to Additional Third
Party Data, it pays two non-recurring initial charges. Wireless
connections include the use of one port for connectivity to Third Party
Data.\9\ As with the previously approved wireless connections to Third
Party Data, the Exchange proposes to waive the first month's MRC, to
allow Users to test the receipt of Additional Third Party Data for a
month before incurring any MRCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A User only requires one port to connect to the Third Party
Data, irrespective of how many of the wireless connections it
orders. It may, however, purchase additional ports. See Wireless
Approval Release, supra note 6, at 81610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connections to provide
Users with an alternative means of connectivity to Additional Third
Party Data. Currently, Users can receive such Third Party Data from
wireless networks offered by third party vendors.\10\ Users may also
receive connections to Additional Third Party Data through other
methods, including, for example, from another User, through a
telecommunications provider, or over the internet protocol (``IP'')
network.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, at least six third party vendors offer Users
wireless network connections using wireless equipment installed on
towers and buildings near the data center.
    \11\ The IP network is a local area network available in the
data center. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74222 (February
6, 2015), 80 FR 7888 (February 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-05) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
include IP network connections).

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

    The proposed connectivity to the FPGA and TotalView-ITCH data feeds
would be available upon effectiveness. The proposed connectivity to the
BZX and BYX or EDGX and EDGA data feeds is expected to be available no
later than September 1, 2016. The Exchange will announce the date that
the wireless connections will be made available through a customer
notice.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace the existing
references to ``DirectEdge'' and ``BATS'' in the Price List with
references to ``Bats'' in order to reflect the recent name changes of
BATS Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.
and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., respectively.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77298 (March 4,
2016), 81 FR 12757 (March 10, 2016) (SR-EDGX-2016-04) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
reflect a legal name change by BATS Global Markets, Inc. and the
legal names of certain subsidiaries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete statements in the Price
List that say that the wireless connections for Third Party Data are
expected to be available no later than March 1, 2016, as such
statements are obsolete. This proposed change would have no impact on
pricing.
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \13\ and
(iii) a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \14\ See SR-NYSE-2013-59, supra note 5 at 51766. The Exchange's
affiliates have also submitted substantially the same proposed rule
change to propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSEMKT-2016-
70 and SR-NYSEArca-2016-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\16\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed service is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers because the proposed changes would provide Users with an
alternative means of connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data.
Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless
connections would still be able to obtain the Additional Third Party
Data through other methods, including, for example, from wireless
networks offered by third party vendors, another User, through a
telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to
use wireless connections to Additional Third Party Data would receive
the Additional Third Party Data that is available to all Users, as all
market participants that contract with the relevant third party market
for the Additional Third Party Data may receive it.
    The Exchange believes that this removes impediments to, and
perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protects investors and the public
interest because it would provide Users with choices with respect to
the form and optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive
Additional Third Party Data, allowing a User that opts to receive such
Additional Third Party Data to select the connectivity and number of
ports that better suit its needs, helping it tailor its data center
operations to the requirements of its business operations.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged
only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding
services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed
herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated
because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they
are available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same products
and services are available to all Users). All Users that voluntarily
select wireless connections to Additional Third Party Data would be
charged the same amount for the same services and would have their
first month MRC for wireless connections waived.
    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless
connections to described herein as a convenience to Users, but in doing
so would incur certain costs, including costs related to the data
center facility, hardware and equipment and costs related to personnel
required for initial installation and monitoring, support and
maintenance of such services. The costs associated with the wireless
connections are incrementally higher than fiber optics-based solutions
due to the expense of the wireless equipment, cost of installation and
testing and ongoing maintenance of the network.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable not to charge a User a
second non-recurring initial charge if it has a wireless connection to
BZX or EDGX data as of the date of effectiveness of the proposed
change, because such User would have already paid a non-recurring
initial charge for the wireless connection to BZX or EDGX data that it
already has. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that a User
that presently has a wireless connection to the separate FPGA and
TotalView-ITCH

feeds would become subject to the $14,500 MRC upon effectiveness of the
proposed change, because such User would have the same service as a
User that obtained wireless connectivity to the FPGA and TotalView-ITCH
feeds after effectiveness. Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable that such a User would not be required to pay another non-
recurring initial charge, because such User would have already paid
non-recurring initial charges for the two wireless connections that it
already has.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that a User that has
already purchased wireless connections to other Third Party Data would
be charged a non-recurring initial charge when it purchases a wireless
connection to Additional Third Party Data, because the Exchange would
incur certain costs in installing the wireless connection to such Third
Party Data irrespective of whether the User had existing wireless
connections to other Third Party Data. Such costs related to initial
installation include, in particular, costs related to personnel
required for initial installation and testing. The costs associated
with installing wireless connections are incrementally higher than
those associated with installing fiber optics-based solutions.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing is reasonable
because it allows Users to select the Additional Third Party Data
connectivity option that better suits their needs. The fees also
reflect the benefit received by Users in terms of lower latency over
the fiber optics option. For competitive reasons, the Exchange has
opted not to change the existing fees for the BZX and EDGX Third Party
Data feeds. Accordingly, Users that already receive the BZX or EDGX
Third Party Data feed will receive an additional feed at no incremental
cost.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the first month's
MRC is reasonable as it would allow Users to test the receipt of the
feed for a month before incurring any monthly recurring fees and may
act as an incentive to Users to connect to Additional Third Party Data.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the
wireless connections to Additional Third Party Data would provide Users
with an alternative means of connectivity to such feeds. Users that do
not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would
still be able to obtain Additional Third Party Data through other
methods, including, for example, from wireless networks offered by
third party vendors, another User, through a telecommunications
provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless
connections for Additional Third Party Data would receive the
Additional Third Party Data that is available to all Users, as all
market participants that contract with the relevant third party market
for the Additional Third Party Data may receive it.
    The Exchange believes that deleting statements in the Price List
that say that the wireless connections for Third Party Data are
expected to be available no later than March 1, 2016, is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the reference is
obsolete and no longer has an impact on pricing. The Exchange also
believes that replacing the existing references to ``DirectEdge'' and
``BATS'' in the Price List with references to ``Bats'' is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it will reflect the
recent name changes of BATS Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. to
Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., respectively. The
proposed changes would result in the removal or update of obsolete text
from the Price List and therefore add greater clarity to the Price List
regarding the services offered and the applicable fees.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the proposed services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e. the same products and services are available to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes will not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such access will
provide Users with wireless connectivity to additional Third Party Data
feeds. Currently, Users can receive Additional Third Party Data from
wireless networks offered by third party vendors. Based on the
information available to it, the Exchange believes that its proposed
wireless connection would provide data at the same or similar speed and
at the same or similar cost as the other wireless networks.
Accordingly, the proposed wireless connections to Additional Third
Party Data would provide Users with an additional wireless connectivity
option, thereby enhancing competition.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed wireless connections to
Additional Third Party Data would compete not just with other wireless
connections to such Additional Third Party Data, but also with fiber
optic network connections to Additional Third Party Data, which may be
more attractive to some Users as they are more reliable and less
susceptible to weather conditions. Users that do not opt to utilize
wireless connections would be able to obtain Additional Third Party
Data through other methods, including, for example, from another User,
through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. In this
way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by helping Users
tailor their connectivity to Additional Third Party Data to the needs
of their business operations by allowing them to select the form and
optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive such Additional
Third Party Data that best suits their needs, helping them tailor their
data center operations to the requirements of their business
operations.
    The proposed wireless connections to Additional Third Party Data
would traverse wireless connections through a series of towers equipped
with wireless equipment, including a pole on the grounds of the data
center. The wireless network has exclusive rights to operate wireless
equipment on the data center pole. The Exchange will not sell rights to
third parties to operate wireless equipment on the pole, due to space
limitations, security concerns, and the interference that would arise
between equipment placed too closely together. In addition to space
issues, there are contractual restrictions on the use of the roof that
the Exchange has determined would not be met if it offered space on the
roof for third party wireless

equipment. Moreover, access to the pole or roof is not required for
third parties to establish wireless networks that can compete with the
Exchange's proposed service, as witnessed by the existing wireless
networks currently serving Users. Based on the information available to
it, the Exchange believes that its proposed wireless connections to
Additional Third Party Data would provide data at the same or similar
speed, and at the same or similar cost, as its proposed wireless
connection, thereby enhancing competition.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes that the distance of a wireless network
provider's wireless equipment from the User is only one factor in
determining overall latency. Other factors include the number of
repeaters in the route, the number of switches the data has to
travel through, and the millimeter wave and switch technology used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its services and related fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\ A proposed rule
change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative
prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\22\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will allow Users that elect to receive wireless
connections to both NASDAQ Totalview Ultra (FPGA) and BX Totalview-ITCH
data to do so without delay at a reduced fee through the new bundle
price. The Commission has therefore determined to waive the 30-day
operative delay and designate the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing with the Commission.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \25\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 No. SR-NYSE-2016-49 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 No. SR-NYSE-2016-49. 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 No. SR-NYSE-2016-49, and should be
submitted on or before August 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17664 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P