[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54956-54959]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0214; Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-05

Amendment of Class D Airspace, Revocation of Class D Airspace,
and Amendment of Class E Airspace, Harrisburg, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, remove Class D
airspace, amend Class E surface airspace, and amend Class E airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Capital City
Airport, Harrisburg, PA. In addition, this action would make
administrative updates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0214 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-05 using any of the following methods:

    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov anytime. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, contact the Rules
and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goodson, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding 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 I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D airspace, remove Class D airspace for
Harrisburg International Airport, amend Class E surface airspace, and
remove Class E airspace designated as an extension for a Class D
surface area for Capital City Airport, Harrisburg, PA, as well as
update the geographic coordinates of the airport and out of date terms
for Harrisburg, PA.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the proposal's overall regulatory,
aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should submit only once if comments are filed
electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written
comments if comments are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives and a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible without incurring expense
or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it
receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in
Paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document
proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would subsequently be published in the next FAA Order JO
7400.11 update. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace for Capital City Airport, Harrisburg,
PA, by removing excessive verbiage from the description header per
order FAA 7400.2. Also, this action would add the Harrisburg
International Airport to the Class D description header and legal
description since it's used in describing the Class D airspace. In
addition, this action would update the geographical coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's database. Also, the legal
description of the Capital City Airport would be amended to that
airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including
1,600 MSL beginning at the intersection of the Capital City Airport's
106[deg] bearing and 1.5- mile radius direct to Lat 40[deg]14'13'' N,
long 76[deg]53'23'' W direct to the intersection of the Capital City
Airport's 287[deg] bearing and Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius,
thence clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius to the
intersection of the Harrisburg International Airport's 5-mile radius,
thence counterclockwise along the Harrisburg International Airport's 5-
mile radius to the intersection of the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile
radius, thence clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile
radius to the point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward
from the surface up to but not including 2,600 feet MSL beginning at a
line bearing 191[deg] from a point at Lat. 40[deg]12'23'' N, long
76[deg]48'37'' W, extending from said point to the point

of intersection with the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius, thence
clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius to the
intersection of the Capital City Airport's 287[deg] bearing, thence
direct to Lat 40[deg]14'13'' N, long 76[deg]53'23'' W, thence direct to
the point of beginning. Also, this action would make the editorial
changes replacing the terms Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air
Missions and Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement.
    The Class D airspace listed under the header Harrisburg
International Airport, Harrisburg, PA, would be removed as it is no
longer required due to the establishment of Harrisburg International
Airport's Class C airspace.
    The Class E surface airspace for Capital City Airport, Harrisburg,
PA, would be amended by removing excessive verbiage in the description
header per order FAA 7400.2. Also, this action would add the Harrisburg
International Airport to the Class E surface airspace description
header and legal description since it is used in describing the Class E
surface airspace. In addition, this action would amend the airport's
geographical coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. Also, the
legal description of the Capital City Airport would be amended to that
airspace extending upward from the surface beginning at a line bearing
191[deg] from a point at Lat. 40[deg]12'23'' N, long 76[deg]48'37'' W,
extending from said point to the point of intersection with the Capital
City Airport's 4-mile radius, thence clockwise along the Capital City
Airport's 4-mile radius to the intersection of the Harrisburg
International Airport's 5-mile radius, thence counterclockwise along
the Harrisburg International Airport's 5-mile radius to the
intersection of the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile radius, thence
clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile radius to the
intersection of the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile radius and the
Capital City Airport's 106[deg] bearing, thence direct Lat.
40[deg]12'23'' N, long 76[deg]48'37'' W. This action would also remove
the extension to the southwest as it is unnecessary (the Class E
airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area includes
this airspace). Also, this action would make the editorial changes
replacing the terms Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions and
Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement.
    The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D
surface area for Capital City Airport would be amended by removing
excessive verbiage in the description header per order FAA 7400.2 and
updating the airport's geographical coordinates to coincide with the
FAA's database. In addition, the references using runways and miles off
the runways would be replaced with the bearings and mileage from the
airport reference point; the legal description would be amended to that
airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles on each
side of the Capital City Airport's 251[deg] bearing extending from the
airport's 4-mile radius to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport. Also,
excessive verbiage in the legal description would be removed since it
is unnecessary.
    Controlled airspace is necessary for the area's safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. This action is
necessary to support IFR operations in the area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA D Harrisburg, PA [Amended]

Capital City Airport, PA
    (Lat 40[deg]13'02'' N, long 76[deg]51'05'' W)
Harrisburg International Airport, PA
    (Lat 40[deg]11'35'' N, long 76[deg]45'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not
including 1,600 MSL beginning at the intersection of the Capital
City Airport's 106[deg] bearing and 1.5- mile radius direct to Lat
40[deg]14'13'' N, long 76[deg]53'23'' W direct to the intersection
of the Capital City Airport's 287[deg] bearing and Capital City
Airport's 4-mile radius, thence clockwise along the Capital City
Airport's 4-mile radius to the intersection of the Harrisburg
International Airport's 5-mile radius, thence counterclockwise along
the Harrisburg International Airport's 5-mile radius to the
intersection of the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile radius, thence
clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 1.5-mile radius to the
point of beginning; and that airspace extending upward from the
surface up to but not including 2,600 feet MSL beginning at a line
bearing 191[deg] from a point at Lat. 40[deg]12'23'' N, long
76[deg]48'37'' W, extending from said point to the point of
intersection with the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius, thence
clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius to the
intersection of the Capital City Airport's 287[deg] bearing, thence
direct to Lat 40[deg]14'13'' N, long 76[deg]53'23'' W, thence direct
to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

AEA PA D Harrisburg International Airport, PA [Removed]

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA E2 Harrisburg, PA [Amended]

Capital City Airport, PA
    (Lat 40[deg]13'02'' N, long 76[deg]51'05'' W)
Harrisburg International Airport, PA
    (Lat 40[deg]11'35'' N, long 76[deg]45'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface beginning at a
line bearing 191[deg] from a point at Lat. 40[deg]12'23'' N, long
76[deg]48'37'' W, extending from said point to the point of
intersection with the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius, thence
clockwise along the Capital City Airport's 4-mile radius to the
intersection of the Harrisburg International Airport's 5-mile
radius, thence counterclockwise along the Harrisburg International
Airport's 5-mile radius to the intersection of the Capital City
Airport's 1.5-mile radius, thence clockwise along the Capital City
Airport's 1.5-mile radius to the intersection of the Capital City
Airport's 1.5-mile radius and the Capital City Airport's 106[deg]
bearing, thence direct Lat. 40[deg]12'23'' N, long 76[deg]48'37'' W.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
D or E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AEA PA E4 Harrisburg, PA [Amended]

Capital City Airport, PA
    (Lat 40[deg]13'02'' N, long 76[deg]51'05'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles
on each side of the Capital City Airport's 251[deg] bearing,
extending from the airport's 4-mile radius to 7.5 miles southwest of
the airport.
* * * * *

     Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 7, 2023.
Lisa E. Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-17349 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 53794]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22528]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9932-72-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Mississippi

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of
Mississippi's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective September 8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On June 22, 2015, the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) submitted an application titled ``Network Discharge
Monitoring Report System'' for revisions/modifications to its EPA-
approved stormwater and industrial pretreatment programs under title 40
CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed MDEQ's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Mississippi's request to revise/modify its
following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under
40 CFR parts 122 and 403, is being published in the Federal Register:
Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; and Part 403--General Pretreatment
Regulations For Existing And New Sources Of Pollution.
    MDEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-22528 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38808]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket Nos. CP10-3-000; CP10-3-001; PF09-6-000]

Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mainline 133 Loop
Expansion Project

June 25, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Mainline 133 Loop Expansion Project (Loop Expansion) in the above
referenced docket. Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust)
requests authorization to add up to 800,000 dekatherms per day of
natural gas capacity from the existing Rock Springs Compressor Station
southwest of Rock Springs in Sweetwater County, Wyoming westbound to
Overthrust's existing Cabin 31 station in Uinta County, Wyoming.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Loop Expansion Project in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) participated as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis. The BLM will adopt and use the EA to consider the issuance of
a right-of-way grant for the portion of the project on Federal lands.
    Overthrust proposes to construct the following facilities:
     About 43 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Uinta and
Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming;
     a bypass valve assembly tie-in at the Rock Springs
Compressor Station in Rock Springs, Wyoming;
     a new crossover valve assembly at about milepost (MP)
43.7; and
     two 36-inch-diameter block valves at about MPs 19 and 39.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC
receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before July 26, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP10-3-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling
expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-3). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16283 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73222]
[DOCID:fr09de05-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-29-000, et al.]

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, et al.; Electric Rate
and Corporate Filings

December 1, 2005.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Consolidated Edison Company of New York

[Docket No. EC06-29-000]

    Take notice that on November 21, 2005, Consolidated Edison Company
of New York (ConEdison) pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power
Act submitted an application authorizing the purchase, acquire or take
unsecured evidences of indebtedness of its affiliate Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc., maturing not more than twelve months after
their date of issue up to an amount not in excess of $200 million at
any one time outstanding.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 15, 2005.

2. FPL Energy Horse Hollow Wind II, LP

[Docket No. EG06-10-000]

    Take notice that on November 18, 2005, FPL Energy Horse Hollow Wind
II, LP (FPLE Horse Hollow II), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale
generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
    FPLE Horse Hollow II states it will own a wind-powered generating
facility of up to 522.5 MW located in Taylor County, Texas.
    FPLE Horse Hollow II further states that copies of this application
have been served on the Securities and Exchange Commission, Florida
Public Service Commission, and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 9, 2005.

3. Newmont Nevada Energy Investment LLC

[Docket No. EG06-12-000]

    Take notice that on November 22, 2005, Newmont Nevada Energy
Investment LLC (NNEI) tendered for filing an application for a
determination that it is an exempt wholesale generator.
    NNEI states that it plans to construct and contract for the
operation of a new electric power plant in northern Nevada. NNEI states
that the facility will be located north of Dunphy, Nevada in Eureka
County and will include a coal-fired generator with a nominal capacity
of approximately 200 MW.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on January 10, 2006.

4. Cogentrix of Rocky Mount, Inc.

[Docket No. QF89-184-003]

    Take notice that on November 18, 2005, Cogentrix of Rocky Mount,
Inc., on behalf of itself and a direct or indirect subsidiary that has
not yet been created, submitted an application for Commission
recertification of its existing cogeneration facility as a qualifying
facility pursuant to section 292.707(b) of the Commission regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 9, 2005.

5. Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc. (Unit I)

[Docket No. QF90-81-005]

    Take notice that on November 18, 2005, Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc.
on behalf of itself and a direct or indirect subsidiary that has not
yet been created, submitted an application for Commission
recertification of its existing cogeneration facility (Unit I) as a
qualifying facility pursuant to section 292.207(b) of the Commission's
regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 9, 2005.

6. Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc. (Unit II)

[Docket No. QF98-38-002]

    Take notice that on November 18, 2005, Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc.
on behalf of itself and a direct or indirect subsidiary that has not
yet been created, submitted an application for Commission
recertification of its existing cogeneration facility (Unit II) as a
qualifying facility pursuant to section 292.207(b) of the Commission
regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 9, 2005.

Standard Paragraph

    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7085 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23318-23321]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Safety Advisory 2015-01]

Mechanical Inspections and Wheel Impact Load Detector Standards
for Trains Transporting Large Amounts of Class 3 Flammable Liquids

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

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.

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

SUMMARY: Recent derailments have occurred involving trains transporting
large quantities of petroleum crude oil and ethanol. Preliminary
investigation of one of these recent derailments involving a crude oil
train indicates that a mechanical defect involving a broken tank car
wheel may have caused or contributed to the incident. FRA is issuing
this Safety Advisory to make recommendations to enhance the mechanical
safety of the cars in trains transporting large quantities of flammable
liquids. This Safety Advisory recommends that railroads use highly
qualified individuals to conduct the brake and mechanical inspections
and recommends a reduction to the impact threshold levels the industry
currently uses for wayside detectors that measure

wheel impacts to ensure the wheel integrity of tank cars in those
trains.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Hynes, Director, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
Thomas Herrmann, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Office of Chief
Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The overall safety of railroad operations, including shipments of
hazardous materials, has improved in recent years. However, the July
2013 derailment in Lac-M[eacute]gantic, Quebec, Canada, demonstrates
the potentially catastrophic consequences of a railroad accident
resulting in the sudden release of large quantities of Class 3
flammable liquids. Since that accident, there have been a number of
derailments with subsequent fires and evacuations in the United States
involving trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable
liquids (specifically, crude oil and ethanol). Although none of the
recent derailments in this country have resulted in the tragic loss of
life that occurred as a result of the Lac-M[eacute]gantic derailment,
recent events have led DOT and FRA to thoroughly evaluate and address
the unique risks associated with the growing reliance on trains to
transport large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids.
    For example, in the last two years, DOT (including FRA and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)) has
taken numerous actions to address the safe transportation by rail of
Class 3 flammable liquids. Among other actions, DOT has issued three
emergency orders \1\ and several safety advisories, reached voluntary
agreements with the railroad industry,\2\ and undertaken several
separate rulemaking proceedings to address the transportation and
handling of trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable
liquids. Notably, PHMSA, in cooperation with FRA, is nearing completion
of a comprehensive final rule that will enhance the safe transportation
of large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids by rail. The final
rule will build on proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the HM-251 rulemaking proceeding (79 FR 45016,
Aug. 1, 2014).\3\ The final rule was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review pursuant to Executive Order
12866 on February 5, 2015 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public). A chronology
of various DOT actions to address safe transportation of flammable
liquids is listed on PHMSA's Internet Web site.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOT Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order, Docket No. DOT-
OST-2014-0067 (May 7, 2014); DOT Amended and Restated Emergency
Restriction/Prohibition Order, Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0025 (March
6, 2014); and, FRA Emergency Order No. 28, 78 FR 48218, Aug. 2,
2013.
    \2\ http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/letter-association-american-railroads.
    \3\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-01/pdf/2014-17764.pdf.
    \4\ http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/osd/chronology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite ongoing efforts by DOT, the railroad industry, tank car
manufacturers, and other interested parties, the United States has
experienced the derailment of several trains transporting large
quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids (i.e., ``high-hazard flammable
trains'' or HHFTs) over just the past three months. (For purposes of
this Safety Advisory a HHFT is a train comprised of 20 or more loaded
tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid in a continuous block or 35 or
more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid across the entire
train.) These incidents occurred in Iowa, West Virginia, and Illinois.
FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that the recent derailment in
Illinois may have occurred as a result of a wheel break occurring on a
railroad tank car loaded with petroleum crude oil.

Galena, Illinois Derailment

    The following is an overview of the circumstance surrounding the
most recent notable derailment involving a HHFT. The probable cause of
this derailment has not yet been established by FRA. Accordingly,
nothing in this Safety Advisory is intended to attribute a definitive
cause(s) to this incident, or to place responsibility for the incident
on the acts or omissions of any specific person or entity.
    On March 5, 2015, an eastbound BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) train
consisting of 103 tank cars loaded with Bakken crude oil (petroleum
crude oil, UN 1267, 3, PG I) derailed near Galena, Illinois, resulting
in a fire. The train was traveling from North Dakota to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The train was traveling at an approximate speed of 23 mph
when 21 loaded tank cars derailed. As a result of the derailment,
petroleum crude oil was released and a fire ensued. Seven cars
experienced catastrophic thermal tears, three cars released product
through their bottom outlet valves, and two cars released product from
their top fittings. The derailment occurred in a rural area only a few
hundred feet from the Mississippi River. FRA's preliminary
investigation indicates that a broken wheel on one of the loaded tank
cars in the train may have caused the derailment.
    In addition to the above-described incident, previous publicized
derailments resulting in releases of crude oil or ethanol and/or
resulting fires have occurred with increasing frequency (e.g., Dubuque,
Iowa; Mt. Carbon, West Virginia; Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville,
Alabama; Lynchburg, Virginia; Columbus, Ohio; Cherry Valley, Illinois;
Arcadia, Ohio; New Brighton, Pennsylvania). Since February 2015, an
additional three incidents occurred in Ontario, Canada, two of which
involved HHFTs.
    In light of FRA's preliminary findings with respect to the Galena,
Illinois derailment (described further below), FRA believes that
further industry action is necessary to ensure public safety. One area
that FRA believes needs further industry consideration is the general
mechanical condition of the equipment used in HHFTs. Thus, FRA is
issuing this Safety Advisory to recommend that railroads take certain
actions to ensure the safe mechanical condition of the tank cars used
in HHFTs to prevent or identify defects that could lead to derailments.

Derailment Causes

    As discussed above, the most recent crude oil derailment occurred
in March near Galena, Illinois. FRA's preliminary investigation
indicates that a broken wheel on a tank car loaded with petroleum crude
oil may have caused that derailment. Federal railroad safety
regulations prohibit the use of railroad freight cars with certain
wheel defects. 49 CFR 213.103. For example, flat spots on any freight
car wheel that exceeds 2.5'' in length, or with two adjoining flat
spots, each of which is more than two inches in length, would prohibit
that car from being placed in a train and transported. 49 CFR
215.103(f). This safety requirement is intended to prevent derailments
and damage to other mechanical or track components that might occur as
a result of moving a railroad car with flat spots in a wheel(s).
    With regard to wheels with flat spots, wheels with that particular
defect impact the rail each time the flat portion of the wheel meets
the rail as the wheel rotates. Flat spots or other wheel defects (built
up tread) cause freight car wheels to be out-of-round and may
ultimately cause a wheel to break. Further,

excessive wheel impacts caused by out-of-round wheels can cause rails
to crack or break. Track defects are one of the leading causes of
derailments. Several other notable derailments involving large
quantities of flammable liquids that have occurred in this country so
far this year (near Dubuque, Iowa and Mt. Carbon, West Virginia,
respectively) are believed to have been track-caused, as was the 2014
crude oil train derailment that occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia. FRA is
not asserting that these incidents were caused by flat spots on wheels
or other mechanical defects, but only that that wheel defects can cause
derailments and can damage track to the point that a rail breaks and
causes a derailment. FRA's intent in publishing this Safety Advisory is
to address the mechanical condition of tank cars used in HHFTs to avoid
or identify mechanical defects that may lead to derailments, regardless
of whether the ultimate cause of an accident is the result of a
mechanical, track, or other defect.

Wheel Impact Load Detectors

    Technology has enabled railroads to use additional means to learn
of defects to freight cars and railroad track structures than were
previously available. In relation to the issues in this Safety
Advisory, the use of wayside detectors has specifically enabled
railroads to identify certain wheel defects and prevent derailments
before they occur. For example, hot wheel/box detectors have long been
used to alert railroads and their train crews about potential wheel or
axle problems while a train is enroute, such that the train can be
inspected and cars with dangerous conditions removed from the train.
Railroads also employ Wheel Impact Load Detectors (WILD) along their
rights of way. These detectors identify wheels on a railcar that may
have flat spots or other defects before a wheel can cause damage to
railroad track structures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://freightrailworks.org/wp-content/uploads/safety2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has established
industry-wide standards regarding how freight cars with wheels that
have peak vertical load (kips) above certain thresholds should be
handled. See e.g., 2015 Field Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules. AAR
guidance (Rule 41) states that when a freight car's wheel registers an
impact on a wayside WILD of 65 kips or more, that the car's owner
receives notification of that reading. When a wheel registers from 80
to 89 kips on a WILD, that wheel is condemnable and may be replaced
when the car is on a shop or repair track for any other reason. Any
wheel that registers over 90 kips is condemnable and may be replaced at
any time. FRA also understands that some railroads have adopted
procedures that set an additional upper threshold whereby a reading
above a certain level (140 kips) would require the train in which the
car is traveling to be stopped, and the car removed from the train to
be repaired immediately before further movement. FRA's investigation of
the recent incident near Galena, Illinois indicates that the train in
question had passed over a WILD within approximately 130 miles before
derailing. It appears that the car that potentially caused the
derailment registered 83.87 kips on that WILD (while another car in the
train registered 96 kips). A month earlier, on February 2, 2015, the
car that potentially caused the derailment also registered over 80 kips
while passing over two separate WILDs. Under AAR interchange rules, the
option existed for the car to have had a problematic wheel replaced
when the car was next on a repair track, while the car that registered
96 kips could have continued in transportation but been replaced at any
time.
    FRA continues to encourage the industry to implement this type of
advanced wayside detection equipment and applauds the industry for its
continued efforts to utilize the technology across the rail network.
However, in light of the significant increases in the amount of Class 3
flammable liquids being transported by rail over the last few years and
because wheel defects are known not only to cause derailments but also
to cause significant damage to rails, FRA is recommending that
railroads (and AAR via amendment to its interchange rules) lower the
impact threshold for action to replace the wheels on any car in a HHFT
specified below. FRA is recommending adjustment to the following
threshold levels:
     60 kips--issue maintenance advisory for the affected car;
     70 kips--change the wheel at the tank car's next visit to
a repair or shop track;
     80 kips--condemn the wheel and replace at the first
opportunity; and
     120 kips--immediately stop the train to inspect the wheel
and remove the car from service at the first available location.
    FRA believes that in light of the significant increase in the
number of HHFTs and the catastrophic consequences that can result when
one of these trains experience a derailment, the industry needs to
provide special attention to the mechanical condition of the tank cars
being hauled in these trains. This is especially important while newer,
more robust tank car standards are being developed. The adjustments
recommended above may enable railroads to identify and replace wheel
defects that could cause derailments much sooner than under the
existing industry guidelines. FRA also continues to encourage the
installation of additional WILD and other wayside detectors that might
help prevent train derailments.
    FRA is aware that the speed at which a train travels over a WILD
may impact the readings that are generated (e.g., a car traveling at
lower speed may result in a much lower WILD reading than when the same
car travels over a WILD at a higher speed). However, railroads should
not operate HHFTs over a WILD below normal operating speeds to avoid an
elevated WILD reading. FRA also encourages railroads to use electronic
data interchange so that a railroad transporting a tank car in an
affected train would have access to WILD readings generated by other
railroads that have previously transported that car.

Mechanical Inspections

    Another area FRA believes industry could address to ensure the safe
mechanical condition of rail cars used in HHFTs is mechanical
inspections. Existing Federal railroad safety regulations that address
mechanical and inspection requirements for freight cars are primarily
found in 49 CFR parts 215 and 232. To detect mechanical defects such as
wheels defects (before trains depart a terminal or point of origin)
railroads are required to inspect railroad freight cars prior to
transporting them in a train. 49 CFR 215.13. These inspections are
referred to as pre-departure inspections and are typically performed by
a designated inspector under Sec.  215.11. Section 215.11 requires that
a designated inspector demonstrate the knowledge and ability to inspect
railroad freight cars to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 215,
including the ability to detect wheel defects under Sec.  215.103.
However, if a designated inspector is not on duty, a railroad may use
another person, often a train crew member, to perform an abbreviated
inspection intended to detect readily discoverable defects (such as a
cracked or broken wheel). These inspections are often referred to as
``Appendix D'' inspections. See appendix D to 49 CFR part 215.
    In light of recent derailments involving HHFTs and the potential
consequences of any future derailments,

FRA is recommending that any HHFT traveling long distances have a pre-
departure inspection performed by a designated inspector. Designated
inspectors are typically mechanical employees. Unlike train crew
members or other railroad employees, designated inspectors' duties
primarily relate to the detection and remedy of mechanical defects on
railroad rolling equipment. FRA believes that designated inspectors are
better trained, equipped, and experienced to detect mechanical defects
on rail cars that may lead to derailments than railroad employees whose
duties primarily involve other tasks, such as operating trains. Thus,
FRA believes safety is improved by using only designated inspectors to
perform pre-departure inspections of HHFTs.
    In addition to the required pre-departure inspection that is
performed on trains to determine compliance with part 215, trains also
must undergo an air-brake and other mechanical-related inspections
prior to transportation under 49 CFR part 232. In 2001, FRA promulgated
a final rule (66 FR 4104) that established minimum inspection standards
for ``extended haul'' trains that travel long distances (up to 1,500
miles). 49 CFR 232.213. Railroads typically use the standards in Sec.
232.213 to identify, inspect, and operate unit trains that travel long
distances across the United States, such as coal trains and high
priority intermodal trains. FRA believes that trains can be transported
safety over such long distances if, among other requirements, quality
mechanical inspections are performed to ensure that all air brakes in a
train are operative at the point of origin, and that no mechanical
defects exist prior to the train's departure. As explained in the final
rule, Sec.  232.213 contains ``stringent inspection requirements, both
brake and mechanical, by highly qualified inspectors'' that ensure the
safety of trains operated over long distances under that section's
requirements. 66 FR 4121.
    The brake inspection applicable to an extended haul train must be
performed by a ``qualified mechanical inspector'' (QMI) as defined by
Sec.  232.5, while the part 215 inspection is required to be performed
by a designed inspector under Sec.  215.11 as discussed above. A QMI is
required to receive instruction and training on the ``troubleshooting,
inspection, testing, maintenance or repair of the specific train brake
components and systems for which the person is assigned
responsibility.'' 49 CFR 232.5. FRA believes that QMIs (versus other
employees such as train crew members) possess the skill to perform high
quality inspections and can identify defective conditions, know how
those defects might affect other parts of the freight car's brake or
mechanical systems, and know how such defects might be caused. 66 FR
4148.
    In evaluating the recent incidents involving HHFTs, many of the
trains were traveling uninterrupted (such as for reclassification at a
yard) for long distances. For example, the recent crude oil derailments
have involved trains transporting product from its source in North
Dakota to refineries on the coasts--in some instances distances of well
over 1,000 miles. FRA recognizes that many railroads already move these
long distance trains as extended haul trains and conduct the mechanical
and brake inspections discussed above. To assure the safety of HHFTs
that might travel long distances, FRA recommends that such trains
receive mechanical and brake inspections conducted by QMIs and
designated inspectors. FRA believes that having these critical
inspections conducted by highly qualified inspectors at the point where
such trains are initiated will help ensure the safe mechanical
condition of these trains.
    In seeking the appropriate approach to ensuring safety, FRA has
also limited the recommendations in this Safety Advisory to HHFTs only
and would have applied to all of the recent incidents described above.
This threshold ensures that FRA is focusing on the highest risk
shipments and not unnecessarily making safety-related recommendations
that would impose undue burdens on lesser risks that do not represent
the same safety and environmental concerns. However, FRA also supports
additional safety-related inspections or measures that railroads wish
to adopt, irrespective of commodity being hauled or the type of
operation.
    Recommended Railroad Action: In light of the above discussion, FRA
recommends for any HHFT that railroads:
    (1) Continue to install and maintain Wheel Impact Load Detectors
(WILD) along routes traveled by affected trains, and adjust the
existing industry standards for actions to be taken when wayside WILDs
detect an impact above a certain threshold for an affected train. If a
railroad receives notification of a wheel impact for a car in an
affected train above the below-listed thresholds, at a minimum, take
the following actions:
     60 kips--issue maintenance advisory to the car owner of
the affected car;
     70 kips--change the wheel at the tank car's next movement
onto a repair or shop track;
     80 kips--condemn the wheel and replace it at the first
opportunity; and
     120 kips--immediately stop the train to inspect the wheel
and remove the car from service at the first available location.
    (2) Conduct initial terminal brake inspections by qualified
mechanical inspectors as defined in 49 CFR 232.5 and conduct freight
car inspections at initial terminals with designated inspectors under
49 CFR 215.11 for any affected train that will travel 500 miles or more
from its initial terminal to destination.
    FRA encourages railroad industry members to take actions that are
consistent with the preceding recommendations and to take other
complementary actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's
railroad employees. FRA may modify this Safety Advisory, issue
additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate actions
necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's
railroads, including pursuing other corrective measures under its rail
safety authority.

Sarah Feinberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-09612 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61121-61124]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73296; File No. SR-BATS-2014-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules
11.13 and 21.9 of BATS Exchange, Inc.

October 3, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 25, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.13(a) regarding the
handling of orders that have been posted to the order book (``BATS
Book'') \5\ of the Exchange's cash equities trading platform (``BATS
Equities'') that are subsequently locked or crossed by other Trading
Centers. Consistent with its practice of offering similar functionality
for the Exchange's equity options trading platform (``BATS Options'')
as it does for BATS Equities, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule
21.9(a) to make similar changes with respect to BATS Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide Users of the
Exchange with additional options with respect to the Exchange's method
of processing the unfilled balance of a routable limit order that is
posted to the BATS Book.
    With respect to BATS Equities, the Exchange currently allows Users
to submit various types of limit orders to the Exchange that are
processed pursuant to Exchange Rules 11.13(a)(1) and 11.13(a)(2)(B), as
set forth below. Rule 11.13(a)(1) describes the process by which an
incoming order would execute against the BATS Book for BATS Equities.
To the extent an order has not been executed in its entirety against
the BATS Book, Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) then describes the process of
routing marketable limit orders \6\ to one or more Trading Centers,
including a description of how the Exchange treats any unfilled balance
that returns to the Exchange following the first attempt to fill the
order through the routing process. If not filled through routing, and
based on the order instructions, the unfilled balance of the order may
be posted to the BATS Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Market orders are also routed away pursuant to Rule
11.13(a)(2)(A), however the Exchange is not proposing any changes to
the treatment of routed market orders at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, with respect to BATS Options, Rule 21.8 describes the
process by which an incoming order would execute against the BATS
Options Book.\7\ To the extent an order has not been executed in its
entirety against the BATS Options Book, Rule 21.9(a)(1) then describes
the process of routing marketable limit orders \8\ to one or more other
options exchanges, including a description of how the Exchange treats
any unfilled balance that returns to the Exchange following the first
attempt to fill the order through the routing process. If not filled
through routing, and based on the order instructions, the unfilled
balance of the order may be posted to the BATS Options Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in Rule 16.1(a)(9).
    \8\ Market orders are also routed away pursuant to Rule
21.9(a)(1), however the Exchange is not proposing any changes to the
treatment of routed market orders at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to current Exchange rules,\9\ to the extent the unfilled
balance of an order has been posted to the BATS Book, should the order
subsequently be locked or crossed by another accessible Trading Center,
the System \10\ shall route the order to the locking or crossing
Trading Center if instructed to do so by the User (the ``RECYCLE
Option''). The Exchange proposes to modify the RECYCLE Option as set
forth below. At the outset, the Exchange notes that it proposes to re-
name the RECYCLE Option as Re-Route instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 11.13(a)(2) for BATS Equities and Rule 21.9(a)(1)
for BATS Options.
    \10\ As defined in Rule 1.5(aa), the System is the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATS Equities
    The Exchange currently offers only one form of RECYCLE, namely,
that an order will be subject to the RECYCLE Option if it is either
locked or crossed. The Exchange proposes to retain this functionality
and to name such functionality the Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction, which reference reflects the willingness of the routable
order posted to the BATS Book to route to away Trading Centers and to
remove liquidity from such Trading Centers any time such order is
locked or crossed (i.e., rather than passively waiting for an execution
on the BATS Book). The Exchange also proposes to add new optional
functionality that will allow a User to instruct the Exchange to apply
the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction solely to routable orders
posted to the BATS Book with remaining size of less than one round lot.
    In addition to the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction described
above, the Exchange proposes to add a second option, the Aggressive Re-
Route instruction, which would subject an order to the routing process
after being posted to the BATS Book only if the order is subsequently
crossed by another Trading Center (rather than if the order is locked
or crossed).
    The Exchange proposes to retain language making clear that unless
otherwise specified the Re-Route options described above may be
combined with any of the System routing options specified in paragraph
(a)(3) of Rule 11.13.
Examples
Example 1--Aggressive Re-Route
    As an example of an order with an Aggressive Re-Route instruction,
assume the Exchange receives an order to buy 300 shares of a security
at $10.10 per share. Assume further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10
when the order is received, and the Exchange's lowest priced offer is
priced at $10.11. The Exchange will route the order away

from the Exchange as a bid to buy 300 shares at $10.10. Assume that the
order obtains one 100 share execution through the routing process and
then returns to the Exchange. The Exchange will post the order as a bid
to buy 200 shares at $10.10. If displayed liquidity then appears at one
or more Trading Centers priced at $10.09 or lower (i.e., crossing the
posted bid to buy at $10.10), the Exchange will take the displayed bid
off of the BATS Book and again route such order to the displayed
liquidity at other Trading Centers.
Example 2--Super Aggressive Re-Route
    As an example of an order with a Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction, assume the Exchange receives an order to buy 300 shares of
a security at $10.10 per share designated with such instruction. Assume
further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10 when the order is received,
and the Exchange's lowest priced offer is priced at $10.11. The
Exchange will route the order away from the Exchange as a bid to buy
300 shares at $10.10. Assume that the order obtains one 100 share
execution through the routing process and then returns to the Exchange.
The Exchange will post the order as a bid to buy 200 shares at $10.10.
If displayed liquidity then appears in the marketplace priced at $10.10
or lower, the Exchange will take the displayed bid off of the BATS Book
and again route such order to the displayed liquidity at other Trading
Centers.
Example 3--Super Aggressive Re-Route for Odd Lots Only
    Assuming the facts from Example 2 above that results in a 200 share
order posting to the BATS Book after routing away, if a User has
elected to apply the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction solely to
routable orders posted to the BATS Book with remaining size of less
than one round lot, then the posted bid to buy 200 shares at $10.10
would not route off of the BATS Book if displayed liquidity appeared at
one or more other Trading Centers priced at $10.10 or lower. Assume,
however, that the posted order to buy 200 shares is later executed on
the BATS Book against an incoming order to sell 150 shares at $10.10,
leaving a 50 share order to buy at $10.10. Such order would now be
subject to the Super Aggressive Re-Route functionality and would route
to away Trading Centers if locked or crossed.
BATS Options
    In order to maintain consistency between analogous processes
offered by BATS Equities and BATS Options, the Exchange proposes to
modify the rules of BATS Options to conform to the changes described
above related to the Re-Route instruction.
    The proposed Re-Route functionality for BATS Options is similar to
the proposed functionality for BATS Equities, with the exception of
language related to odd lot orders. Because, consistent with other
options exchanges, BATS Options does not categorize any orders as odd
lot orders or round lot orders, the Exchange has omitted language
regarding the proposed optional Re-Route functionality applicable to
odd lot orders for BATS Equities. All other changes for BATS Equities,
including the rationale and examples described above, are identical for
BATS Options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ and further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed changes
are designed to provide Users with additional control over their orders
in the context of a national market system where quotations may lock or
cross orders posted to the BATS Book. Thus, the proposals are directly
targeted at removing impediments to and perfect [sic] the mechanism of
a free and open market and national market system. The proposed rule
change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1)
\13\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair competition among
brokers and dealers and among exchange markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to
functionality that may result in the efficient execution of such orders
and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased
functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users.
    The Exchange reiterates that the Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction is currently contained in Exchange rules as the RECYCLE
Option. The Exchange believes that adding an optional functionality
that will only treat orders with size less than a round lot as orders
with Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction is reasonable because such
orders are not Protected Quotations under the Act, and thus, are more
likely to be locked or crossed by external markets. Accordingly,
allowing such orders to only apply the Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction will enhance the likelihood of their prompt execution. The
Exchange believes that the proposed addition of the Aggressive Re-Route
instruction is consistent with the Act as it will provide Users with
another option that may result in the efficient execution of such
orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased
functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that Re-Route functionality generally encourages competition
by increasing the likelihood of executions of orders that have been
posted to the Exchange.

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

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

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may

become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that
waiver of this requirement would allow the Exchange to immediately
offer Exchange Users additionally variations of functionality that is
already available on the Exchange. The Exchange also stated that the
addition of a variation of Re-Route functionality that applies only
when an order is crossed by an accessible Trading Center and the odd
lot variation to the Super-Aggressive Re-Route instruction will benefit
market participants and their customers by allowing them greater
flexibility in their efforts to fill orders. The Commission believes
that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 Number SR-BATS-2014-044 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-BATS-2014-044. 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 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-BATS-2014-044 and should be
submitted on or before October 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24100 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50147-50148]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0095; FRL-11249-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Clean Water Act Water Quality
Certification (EPA ICR Number 2603.07, OMB Control Number 2040-0295) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31,
2023. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on April 5, 2023, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before August 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2023-0095, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liana Prudencio, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, (Mail
Code 4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through July 31, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on April 5, 2023 during a 60-day comment period (88 FR 20165). This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR describes the cost and burden associated with 40
CFR part 121, the regulations that implement Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 401. Under section 401, a federal agency may not issue a permit
or license that may result in any discharge into waters of the United
States unless the certifying authority where the discharge would
originate issues a section 401 water quality certification verifying
that the discharge will comply with certain water quality requirements
or waives the certification requirement. Certifying authorities are
states, tribes with treatment as a state (TAS) authorization, and in
limited circumstances, EPA. CWA section 401 requires project proponents
to submit project-specific information to certifying authorities.
Certifying authorities may act on project-specific information by
either granting, granting with conditions, denying, or waiving section
401 certification. To demonstrate it has acted on the certification
request, the certifying authority must provide a decision document to
the relevant federal licensing or permitting agency. If the certifying
authority fails or refuses to act on a certification request within a
reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after
receipt, the requirement to obtain certification is waived. EPA is also
responsible for coordinating input from certain neighboring or
downstream states and tribes affected by a discharge from a

federally licensed or permitted project under section 401(a)(2).
Information collected directly collected by EPA under section 401 in
support of the section 402 permit program is already captured under an
existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0004, EPA ICR Number 0229.22) and
therefore is not included in this analysis.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Project proponents, State, and
tribal reviewers (certifying authorities).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain 401
certification (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 154,000 responses from 77,140
respondents annually (total).
    Frequency of response: One per federal application.
    Total estimated burden: 860,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $48,000,000 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 70,500 annual
hours in the total estimated respondent burden, a decrease of 19,979
respondents, and a decrease of 40,000 annual responses compared with
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to refinements
in how the estimates are calculated in addition to a decrease in the
average number of annual licenses and permits issued that are used in
the low estimate and a decrease in the high estimate of annual
certification requests from incorporating values provided in pre-
proposal input letters.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-16216 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P