[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64078-64079]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0397]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0077

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0077,
Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer Continental
Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements; without
change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2022-0397]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://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.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2022-0397], and must be received by November 21,
2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (87 FR 41137, July 11, 2022)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
maritime security requirements mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, 46 U.S.C. 70103 (formerly 33 U.S.C.
1226(c)), 46 U.S.C. 70034 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1231), 46 U.S.C. chapter
701, 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70052 (formerly 50 U.S.C. 191 & 192). Security
assessments, security plans and other security-related requirements are
in title 33 CFR parts 101 through 106.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if vessels and
facilities are in compliance with certain security standards.

Forms

     CG-6025, Facility Vulnerability and Security Measures
Summary.
     CG-6025A, Vulnerability and Security Measures Addendum.
    Respondents: Vessel and facility owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
1,198,530 hours to 1,070,430 hours a year, due to a decrease in the
estimated annual number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: September 20, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-22941 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39538-39543]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67275; File No. SR-BATS-2012-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Rule 11.13 Entitled ``Order Execution,'' Rule 21.9 Entitled ``Order
Routing'' and Rule 27.2 Entitled ``Order Protection''

June 27, 2012.
    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 June 15,

2012, 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 Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
11.13 entitled ``Order Execution'', Rule 21.9 entitled ``Order
Routing'' and Rule 27.2 entitled ``Order Protection'', to modify
Exchange system functionality when the consolidated market is crossed
and to modify the handling of orders that have been rejected after
routing away through the Exchange's affiliated broker-dealer. The
proposal applies to both the BATS equity securities trading platform
(``BATS Equities'') and the BATS equity options trading platform
(``BATS Options'').
    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 this rule filing is to modify Exchange system
functionality when the consolidated market is crossed and to modify the
handling of orders that have been rejected after routing away through
the Exchange's affiliated broker-dealer. The proposal applies to both
BATS Equities and BATS Options, as described below.
BATS Equities
    The Exchange is proposing changes to its system functionality for
BATS Equities to implement a price constraint in the event the Exchange
receives a non-routable order and a Protected Bid \3\ and a Protected
Offer \4\ are crossed (a ``Crossed Market''). The Exchange is also
proposing to provide its Users with the option to avoid any execution
when there is a Crossed Market. Finally, the Exchange is proposing a
change to the way that it responds to rejections of orders that were
routed to a Protected Quotation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(t), Protected Bid means a bid in
a stock that is displayed by an automated trading center,
disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan,
and an automated quotation that is the best bid of a national
securities exchange or association.
    \4\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(t), Protected Offer means an
offer in a stock that is displayed by an automated trading center,
disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan,
and an automated quotation that is the best offer of a national
securities exchange or association.
    \5\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(t), Protected Quotation means a
quotation that is a Protected Bid or Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current BATS Rules, for any execution to occur on BATS
Equities during Regular Trading Hours,\6\ the price must be equal to or
better than the Protected NBBO,\7\ unless the order is marked ISO or
unless the execution falls within another exception set forth in Rule
611(b) of Regulation NMS. For any execution to occur during the Pre-
Opening Session \8\ or the After Hours Trading Session,\9\ the price
must be equal to or better than the highest Protected Bid or lowest
Protected Offer. As noted below, the Exchange also currently allows
executions of orders outside of Regular Trading Hours when an order is
marked ISO and there is a Crossed Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(w), Regular Trading Hours means
the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    \7\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(s), Protected NBBO means the
national best bid or offer that is a Protected Quotation.
    \8\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(r), the Pre-Opening Session
means the time between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
    \9\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(c), the After Hours Trading
Session means the time between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The restrictions on executions described above reflect the
Exchange's implementation of the trade-through rule of Regulation NMS,
Rule 611, which only applies during Regular Trading Hours; however the
Exchange has also implemented trade-through protection outside of
Regular Trading Hours in order to promote the handling of orders in a
consistent and orderly fashion. Pursuant to the exception of Rule
611(b)(4) during Regular Trading Hours, as well as during the Pre-
Opening Session and the After Hours Trading Session, the Exchange does
not currently impose trade-through protections when there is a Crossed
Market. In order to constrain the price of executions when there is a
Crossed Market, in the event that a Protected Bid is crossing a
Protected Offer, whether during or outside of Regular Trading Hours,
unless an order is marked ISO, BATS Equities will not execute any
portion of a bid at a price more than the greater of 5 cents or 0.5
percent higher than the lowest Protected Offer or any portion of an
offer that is not marked ISO that would execute at a price more than
the greater of 5 cents or 0.5 percent lower than the highest Protected
Bid. In order to provide an additional option for Users \10\ that do
not want any orders to execute when there is a Crossed Market, upon
instruction from a User, BATS Equities will not execute any incoming
order from such User in the event a Protected Bid is crossing a
Protected Offer. The Exchange believes that the thresholds proposed in
this rule filing will help avoid executions of orders at prices that
are significantly worse than the NBBO.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(cc), a User is any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to access the Exchange's
system pursuant to Exchange Rules.
    \11\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(o), NBBO shall mean the
national best bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example demonstrates how the Exchange's Crossed
Market threshold would operate for BATS Equities:
     The NBBO in security ABC is $5.00 (bid) by $4.98 (offer),
and thus, there is a Crossed Market;
     A User submits a non-routable market order (e.g.,
designated as a ``BATS Only'' order) to buy 1,000 shares of ABC;
     The Exchange has liquidity in ABC as follows: 100 shares
to sell for $4.98, 100 shares to sell for $5.00, 200 shares to sell for
$5.03, and 300 shares to sell for $5.05.
    Under the circumstances described above, the incoming market order
to buy would be executed as follows:
     100 shares executed on the Exchange at the $4.98 price
level;
     100 shares executed on the Exchange at the $5.00 price
level;
     200 shares executed on the Exchange at the $5.03 price
level;
     600 shares cancelled back to the User.
    As proposed, with a Crossed Market of $5.00 by $4.98, the Exchange
will execute any incoming buy orders up to and including $5.03 and any
incoming sell orders down to and including $4.95

per share. Accordingly, under this example, 400 shares of the incoming
buy order would be executed, including 200 shares at the Crossed Market
threshold of $5.03. The remaining 600 shares of the market order would
be cancelled back to the User because the liquidity on the Exchange at
the $5.05 price level exceeds the thresholds set forth in proposed Rule
11.13. The Exchange notes that in the event the order was designated as
eligible for routing, the Exchange's normal routing strategies would
apply, and, to the extent that other market centers have better prices
than are available on the BATS Book,\12\ the Exchange would route the
order away to such other market centers rather than executing solely on
the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add language to
Rule 11.13 to make clear that to the extent an incoming order is
executable because a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer but
such incoming order is eligible for routing and there is a Protected
Bid or Protected Offer available at another Trading Center \13\ that is
better priced than the bid or offer against which the order would
execute on the Exchange, the Exchange will first seek to route the
order to such better priced quotation pursuant to Rule 11.13(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(e), BATS Book means the
System's electronic file of orders.
    \13\ As defined in BATS Rule 2.11, a Trading Center is another
securities exchange, facility of a securities exchange, automated
trading system, electronic communication network or other broker or
dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to exclude ISOs from the proposed pricing
threshold because a User is subject to certain specific obligations
when pricing and submitting an order as an ISO.\14\ The Exchange
believes that rejecting an ISO upon receipt due to a Crossed Market is
inconsistent with the general notion of an ISO, which allows a User to
designate a price at which the Exchange can execute the order without
regard to the Exchange's view of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.600(b)(30) and 611(c); see also BATS Rule
11.9(d)(1), which states that ``[t]he Exchange relies on the marking
of an order as an ISO order when handling such order, and thus, it
is the entering Member's responsibility, not the Exchange's
responsibility, to comply with the requirements of Regulation NMS
relating to Intermarket Sweep Orders.'' The Exchange notes that as a
self-regulatory organization it conducts regulatory oversight of
each Exchange Member's use of Intermarket Sweep Orders on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the implementation of Crossed Market price
constraints and the ability to designate orders as ineligible for
execution during a Crossed Market, the Exchange is proposing to modify
the way that it handles rejections received from other Trading Centers.
Currently the Exchange routes all orders through its affiliated broker-
dealer, BATS Trading, Inc. (``BATS Trading''). In certain instances,
BATS Trading, in turn, routes to certain third party broker-dealers in
order to ensure that the Exchange has effective and redundant
connections to all other Trading Centers with Protected Quotations.
BATS Trading occasionally receives ``rejections'' of orders either from
the Trading Centers to which it routes directly or through the third
party broker-dealers through which it routes. Such rejections can be
for various reasons, including a technical problem with the order,
market access thresholds implemented pursuant to SEC Rule 15c3-5, or
other operational thresholds. The Exchange currently handles orders on
which it receives rejections by either cancelling the order back to the
User or, if the order submitted by the User instructs the Exchange to
do so, by posting the order to the Exchange's order book after
subjecting such order to its price sliding process pursuant to Rule
11.9(g) in order to avoid locking any Protected Quotation that it
cannot access. Rather than posting an order to its book, the Exchange
proposes to cancel all orders for which it has received a rejection due
to an inability to access another Trading Center, providing a User with
the opportunity to submit a new order or seek another path to the
applicable Protected Quotation. The Exchange has also proposed to make
clear that such a cancellation will not apply to Protected Quotations
published by a Trading Center against which the Exchange has declared
self-help pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.13(d). Although a Protected
Quotation may be inaccessible to the Exchange, once the Exchange has
declared self-help pursuant to Rule 11.13(d), the Exchange disregards,
and will continue to execute transactions and route orders without
regard to, such Protected Quotations. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
however, even after the Exchange has received a rejection from a
Trading Center, if there are multiple Trading Centers included in the
routing option selected by the User that have Protected Quotations at
the NBBO, the System \15\ will continue to route the order to the
Protected Quotations at other such other Trading Centers at that price
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(aa), System means the
electronic communications and trading facility designate [sic] by
the Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated
for ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATS Options
    The Exchange proposes to make each of the proposed changes
described above to the functionality applicable to trading on and
routing away from, BATS Options. The Exchange notes that there are no
substantive differences to the proposed functionality; rather, the only
differences between the proposal for BATS Equities and BATS Options are
the references to applicable rules and terms.
    The Exchange is proposing changes to its system functionality for
BATS Options to implement a price constraint in the event the Exchange
receives a non-routable order and a Protected Bid is higher than a
Protected Offer \16\ in a series of an Eligible Class (a ``Crossed
Market'').\17\ The Exchange is also proposing to provide its Users with
the option to avoid any execution when there is a Crossed Market.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing a change to the way that it responds
to rejections of orders that were routed to a Protected Quotation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As defined in BATS 27.1(18), ``Protected Bid'' or
``Protected Offer'' means a Bid or Offer in an options series,
respectively, that: (A) Is disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan;
and (B) Is the Best Bid or Best Offer, respectively, displayed by an
Eligible Exchange. An ``Eligible Exchange'' is a national securities
exchange registered with the SEC in accordance with Section 6(a) of
the Exchange Act that: (a) Is a Participant Exchange in OCC (as that
term is defined in Section VII of the OCC by-laws); (b) is a party
to the OPRA Plan (as that term is described in Section I of the OPRA
Plan); and (c) if the national securities exchange chooses not to
become a party to this Plan, is a participant in another plan
approved by the Commission providing for comparable Trade-Through
and Locked and Crossed Market protection.
    \17\ This definition for Crossed Market is consistent with the
definition contained in BATS Rule 27.1(5).
    \18\ As defined in BATS Rule 27.1(19), Protected Quotation means
a Protected Bid or Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current BATS Rules, Members are prohibited from effecting
Trade-Throughs \19\ on BATS Options unless the execution falls within
another exception set forth in BATS Rule 27.2(b), which includes an
exception for any order that is marked ISO. Pursuant to the exception
of Rule 27.2(b)(3), the Exchange does not prohibit Trade-Throughs when
there is a Crossed Market. In order to constrain the price of
executions when there is a Crossed Market, in the event that a
Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer, unless an order is marked
ISO, BATS Options will not execute any portion of a bid at a price more
than the greater of 5 cents or 0.5 percent higher than the lowest
Protected Offer or any portion of an

offer that is not marked ISO that would execute at a price more than
the greater of 5 cents or 0.5 percent lower than the highest Protected
Bid. In order to provide an additional option for Users \20\ that do
not want any orders to execute when there is a Crossed Market, upon
instruction from a User, BATS Options will not execute any incoming
order from such User in the event a Protected Bid is crossing a
Protected Offer. The Exchange believes that the thresholds proposed in
this rule filing will help avoid executions of orders at prices that
are significantly worse than the NBBO.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As defined in BATS Rule 27.1(22), a Trade-Through is a
transaction in an options series at a price that is lower than a
Protected Bid or higher than a Protected Offer.
    \20\ As defined in BATS Rule 16.1(a)(63), a User is any Options
Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to access the
Exchange's system pursuant to Exchange Rules.
    \21\ As defined in BATS Rule 27.1(11), NBBO shall mean the
national best bid and offer in an option series as calculated by an
Eligible Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example demonstrates how the Exchange's Crossed
Market threshold would operate for BATS Options:
     The NBBO in options series XYZ is $2.00 (bid) by $1.98
(offer), and thus, there is a Crossed Market;
     A User submits a non-routable market order (e.g.,
designated as a ``BATS Only'' order) to buy 100 contracts of XYZ;
     The Exchange has liquidity in XYZ as follows: 10 contracts
to sell for $1.98, 10 contracts to sell for $2.00, 20 contracts to sell
for $2.03, and 30 contracts to sell for $2.05.
    Under the circumstances described above, the incoming market order
to buy would be executed as follows:
     10 contracts executed on the Exchange at the $1.98 price
level;
     10 contracts executed on the Exchange at the $2.00 price
level;
     20 contracts executed on the Exchange at the $2.03 price
level;
     60 contracts cancelled back to the User.
As proposed, with a Crossed Market of $2.00 by $1.98, the Exchange will
execute any incoming buy orders up to and including $2.03 and any
incoming sell orders down to and including $1.95 per share.
Accordingly, under this example, 40 contracts of the incoming buy order
would be executed, including 20 contracts at the Crossed Market
threshold of $2.03. The remaining 60 contracts of the market order
would be cancelled back to the User because the liquidity on the
Exchange at the $2.05 price level exceeds the thresholds set forth in
proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 27.2. The Exchange notes
that in the event the order was designated as eligible for routing, the
Exchange's normal routing strategies would apply, and, to the extent
that other market centers have better prices than are available on the
BATS Options Book,\22\ the Exchange would route the order away to such
other market centers rather than executing solely on the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .02
to Rule 27.2 to make clear that to the extent an incoming order is
executable because a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer but
such incoming order is eligible for routing and there is a Protected
Bid or Protected Offer available at another options exchange that is
better priced than the bid or offer against which the order would
execute on the Exchange, the Exchange will first seek to route the
order to such better priced quotation pursuant to Rule 21.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As defined in BATS Rule 16.1(a)(9), BATS Options Book means
the means the electronic book of options orders maintained by the
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described for BATS Equities, the Exchange has proposed to
exclude ISOs from the proposed pricing threshold for BATS Options
because a User is subject to certain specific obligations when pricing
and submitting an order as an ISO. The Exchange believes that rejecting
an ISO upon receipt due to a Crossed Market is inconsistent with the
general notion of an ISO, which allows a User to designate a price at
which the Exchange can execute the order without regard to the
Exchange's view of the NBBO.
    In addition to the implementation of Crossed Market price
constraints and the ability to designate orders as ineligible for
execution during a Crossed Market, the Exchange is proposing to modify
the way that it handles rejections received from other options
exchanges. Currently the Exchange routes all orders through its
affiliated broker-dealer, BATS Trading, Inc. (``BATS Trading''). In
certain instances, BATS Trading, in turn, routes to certain third party
broker-dealers in order to ensure that the Exchange has effective and
redundant connections to all other options exchanges with Protected
Quotations. BATS Trading occasionally receives ``rejections'' of orders
either from the options exchanges to which it routes directly or
through the third party broker-dealers through which it routes. Such
rejections can be for various reasons, including a technical problem
with the order, market access thresholds implemented pursuant to SEC
Rule 15c3-5, or other operational thresholds. The Exchange currently
handles orders on which it receives rejections by either cancelling the
order back to the User or, if the order submitted by the User instructs
the Exchange to do so, by posting the order to the Exchange's order
book after subjecting such order to its price sliding process pursuant
to Rule 21.1 in order to avoid locking any Protected Quotation that it
cannot access. Rather than posting an order to its book, the Exchange
proposes to cancel all orders for which it has received a rejection due
to an inability to access another options exchange, providing a User
with the opportunity to submit a new order or seek another path to the
applicable Protected Quotation. The Exchange has also proposed to make
clear that such a cancellation will not apply to Protected Quotations
published by an options exchange against which the Exchange has
declared self-help pursuant to Exchange Rule 27.2(b)(1). Although a
Protected Quotation may be inaccessible to the Exchange, once the
Exchange has declared self-help pursuant to Rule 27.2(b)(1), the
Exchange disregards, and will continue to execute transactions and
route orders without regard to, such Protected Quotations.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, even after the Exchange has
received a rejection from an options exchange, if there are multiple
options exchanges included in the routing option selected by the User
that have Protected Quotations at the NBBO, the System \23\ will
continue to route the order to the Protected Quotations at other such
other options exchanges at that price level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As defined in BATS Rule 16.1(a)(59), System means the
automated trading system used by BATS Options for the trading of
options contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\24\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\25\ because
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system by helping to avoid executions of orders
on the Exchange at prices that are significantly worse than the
national best bid or national best offer at the time an order is
initially received by the Exchange, even if executions are permissible
pursuant to Regulation NMS or under the Exchange's analogous rules for
BATS Options. The Exchange believes

that permitting Users to avoid any execution of an incoming order in a
Crossed Market is an additional functionality that is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Although the
Exchange does not believe that any other self-regulatory organization
has exactly the same Crossed Market threshold in place, the Exchange as
well as other market centers have implemented a variety of pricing
thresholds to constrain executions and protect market participants.\26\
Also, this proposal is consistent with existing Exchange rules that
allow for the breaking of trades deemed clearly erroneous \27\ or in
obvious error \28\ by reference to objective thresholds worse than the
NBBO. The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing thresholds are
reasonable because they are significantly narrower than thresholds in
place on BATS Equities for market orders received by the Exchange \29\
and also narrower than applicable clearly erroneous thresholds for BATS
Equities. A narrow threshold will protect market participants and their
customers from potentially executing at prices away from the NBBO when
there is a Crossed Market, which can be an indication of a pricing
anomaly in a security or a potential systems issue at another Trading
Center or options exchange. Further, the proposed threshold is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will help to avoid clearly erroneous executions or obvious
error transactions from occurring in the first place, rather than
allowing an execution to occur and breaking the trade based on Exchange
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ See, e.g., BATS Rule 11.9(a)(2), which constrains the
executions of a market order on BATS to $0.50 or 5 percent away from
the NBBO at the time the order initially reaches the Exchange; see
also NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(a); NASDAQ Rule 4751(f)(13).
    \27\ See BATS Rule 11.17.
    \28\ See BATS Rule 20.6.
    \29\ See supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the cancellation of all orders
that have been rejected by other market centers or third party routers,
rather than posting such orders to the Exchange's book will provide
Users with more immediate certainty regarding their orders, and will
provide Users the ability to modify and re-submit or send their orders
via a different path to attempt to access the applicable Protected
Quotation. Accordingly, the modifications to BATS Rules 11.13 and 20.9
[sic] promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

(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 for 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 \30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \32\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \33\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay, noting that doing
so would allow investors and market participants to benefit immediately
from additional protection against certain executions in Crossed Market
conditions and from the ability to re-route or re-submit orders that
are unable to access, and therefore rejected by, other market centers
with Protected Quotations at the NBBO. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\34\ Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \34\ 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 Exchange 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-2012-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2012-024. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BATS-2012-024 and should be submitted on or before July
24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16215 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 53130]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-100-000]

West Deptford Energy, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On August 1, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL16-100-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness
and reasonableness of West Deptford Energy, LLC's reactive power rates.
West Deptford Energy, LLC, 156 FERC ] 61,084 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-100-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19078 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT

 AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

General

1.  The Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
(Assistant Secretary) shall appoint a Small Business Advocacy Panel
(SBAP) Chairperson as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA).
 The SBAP Chairperson shall convene and chair any Small Business
Advocacy Review Panels, notify the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (Advocacy) of rules potentially identified as
having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and shall have primary responsibility for OSHA compliance with
the RFA.

2.  The Director of the Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA) shall
maintain routine informal communication with Advocacy, consulting with
personnel from that office from time to time to discuss the status of
OSHA rules and to identify those rules that may result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The Director
of ORA shall also keep the Chairperson informed of communications with
Advocacy personnel, the status of upcoming rules, and other issues of
interest to small businesses.

3.  Pursuant to Executive Order 13272, OSHA shall issue these as the
Agency’s written procedures and policies for compliance with the RFA
and make them publicly available within 180 day of the date of the
order, after consulting Advocacy.  OSHA may review and modify these
procedures from time to time, provided that, at a reasonable time prior
to finalizing any revisions, the Agency shall consult with Advocacy and
issues and make the modified procedures publicly available.

Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.  The Director of ORA is responsible for assessing whether OSHA rules
have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small
entities.

2.  Only for analytical purposes, the Director of ORA shall use the SBA
definition for small entities referenced in RFA Section 601 (3), (4),
and (5), unless the Director believes that these definition are
inappropriate for the rule in question (for example, because, after a
reasonable effort, OSHA still lacks adequate data to use that
definition).  If the Director believes that these definitions are not
appropriate, the Director will consult with Advocacy concerning the
alternative definition.  Any alternative definition will be published in
the Federal Register notice as part of the preamble to the proposed
rule, and the Agency will also solicit comment on the proposed
alternative definition in the Federal Register, as required by the RFA.

3.  If not able to certify that a draft proposed (final) rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, OSHA will prepare an initial (final) regulatory flexibility
analysis.  In making this determination, the Agency intends to use the
following definition unless the Director of ORA, in consultation with
the Chairperson, finds that an alternative definition is more
appropriate.  If, for any group of affected small entities, the costs
for the rule are estimated to exceed 1 percent of revenue or 5 percent
of profit unless there is compelling evidence that the cost may be
passed on in the form of a price increase or that there is de minimus
number of affected small entities, the Agency will be deemed not able to
certify.

4.   By publication of the proposed or final rule, the Director of the
appropriate Standards Directorate will assure the Chairperson that the
proposed or final rule minimizes significant economic impacts on small
entities to the extent possible, consistent with the objectives of the
OSH Act and other relevant statutes.  The Director of the ORA is
responsible for the preparation of the initial and initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.

5.  If able to certify in accordance with paragraph 3, the Assistant
Secretary for OSHA shall publish a certification in the Federal Register
at the time of the publication of the proposed or final rule, along with
a statement providing the factual basis for such certification.  This
certification and statement of factual basis shall be sent to Advocacy
when the agency submits a draft rule to OIRA under Executive Order 12866
or if no submission to OIRA is so required, at a reasonable time prior
to the publication of the proposed or final rule in the Federal
Register, pursuant to E.O. 13272.

SBREFA Panel Procedures

1.  When the Director of ORA anticipates that a rule under consideration
for proposal may have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, the Director will notify the Chairperson.  In
consultation with the Director of ORA, the appropriate Standards
Directorate, and the Solicitor’s Office, the Chairperson will
determine when to initiate the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
process.  When the Chairperson decides to initiate the process, the
Chairperson will generally notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at
least 60 days in advance of the projected panel convening date and
adhere to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is
found to be more appropriate after consultation with Chief Counsel.

2.  At lease 60 days in advance of the projected convening date, the
SBAP Chairperson will provide the Chief Counsel with information on the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and the type of
small entities that might be affected, including:

a description of the important components of the rule;

a description of the problem the rule is trying to solve and of the
statutory obligations underlying the rule;

a quantitative or, if impracticable or unreliable, a qualitative
description of the potential impacts;

a description of the types of entities likely to be affected by the
proposed rule and of any small-entity stakeholder involvement in the
process to date;

a description on any regulatory flexibility alternatives that are or
have been under consideration;

a list of potential small entity representatives; and

a list of any other important documents or information that has already
been developed to support the rulemaking.

3.  At least 15 days after the provision of information to Advocacy, but
n later than 30 days after such provision, the Chairperson shall hold at
least one-per panel meeting with other Panel members to develop
regulatory flexibility alternatives, identify any information necessary
to evaluate alternatives, and consult Advocacy about the potential small
entity representatives (SERs).  Only those persons that primarily
represent one or more small entities potentially affect by a proposed
rule are eligible to become SERs, and the Chairperson will be
responsible for selecting on the date the Panel is convened only those
that are eligible to become SERs.  SERs may include trade association
representatives, attorney’s, and regulatory consultants if the
Chairman finds they meet the criterion for eligibility.

4.  At least 30 days after the provision of information, but no later
than 45 days after such provision, the Chairperson shall proved each
Panel member with the alternatives and supporting information identified
in any pre-panel meeting and any other information the Agency developed
as a result of a pre-panel meeting, and the list of SERs that the
Chairperson intends to select upon convening the Panel.  The appropriate
Directorate shall be responsible for developing requested information
and shall accommodate any reasonable information request made by any
Panel member.  A request is deemed to be reasonable if fulfilling such a
request would not consume excessive resources or time and relevant to
the rulemaking.

5.  At least 45 days after the provision of information, but no later
than 60 days after such provision, the Chairperson shall identify for
every Panel member the information that the Agency would like to provide
the SERs, to assist SERs in providing findings and recommendations.  At
minimum, the information package shall include a description of the
important components of the rule, of regulatory flexibility alternatives
and of the impacts of the rule, with and without these alternatives.
The SERs shall be asked to provide their advice and recommendations with
respect to the potential impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives
and on the following elements of the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA):

The description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply;

The description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule;

The identification of duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal
rules; and

Significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

Panel members will have no more than 7 days from receipt to review and
approve or request a meeting to discuss the contents of the information
package.  No information shall be distributed to SERs without the
express approval of all Panel members.

6.  Unless the Chief Counsel for Advocacy waives panel review pursuant
to Section 609(e) of the RFA, the Chairperson, in consultation with the
relevant Directorate, the Administrator of OIRA, and the Chief Counsel,
may convene the Panel no earlier than 60 days following provision of
information.  The Chairperson may request consideration of a waiver by
submitting to the Chief Counsel a written finding, with reasons
therefore, that convening a panel would not advance the effective
participation of small entities in the rulemaking process (for example,
if, as a result of consultation with Advocacy, the Chairperson finds the
Agency and/or potential SERs, OSHA modifies the rule to minimize the
economic impact on small entities).  If, after formal notification and
consultation with potential SERs and Advocacy, the Chairperson finds the
Agency can certify the rule, the Chairperson shall promptly notify the
Chief Counsel by providing the draft factual basis for certification for
comment if any.

7.  At least 15 days following SER receipt of the information approved
by the Panel, but not later than 15 days after the Panel’s convening,
the Chairperson shall hold at least one Pane meeting with SERs to hear
their advice and recommendations on the proposed rule, its impact, and
elements of the IRFA.  The Chairperson may hold this meeting following
Panel convening or on the day of convening.

8.  The Panel Chairperson shall appoint any additional panel members
from OSHA and obtain from the Administrator of OIRA and the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy the name of their panel members.

9.  At least 15 days after the Panel’s convening, but no later than 30
days following the Panel’s being convened, the Chairperson shall
provide other Panel members with a draft panel report on the comments of
the SERs and draft findings with respect to the topics enumerated above.

10.  When panel members agree on the summary of the comments of the
small entity representatives and on the draft finding of the Panel,
these will be designated in the panel report as panel finding.  When
panel members cannot agree, the views of individual panel members shall,
if the panel members so desire, be made a part of the panel report and
be designated in the report as the views of individual panel members.

11.  The Panel shall complete its report within 60 days of the convening
of the Panel, as required by the RFA.  This report must contain a
description of the important components of the rule being considered for
proposal and a summary of the SER comments and the findings and
recommendations of SERs and the Panel with respect to the following
elements of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis:

The description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply;

The description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule;

The identification of duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal
rules; and

Significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated
objective of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

12.  The Standards Directorate responsible for the rule shall be
responsible for making the Panel report public as part of the rulemaking
record.

13.  The Director of ORA, the Director of the appropriate Standards
Directorate and the Associate Solicitor for the Occupational Safety and
Health shall be responsible for assuring that any recommendation made by
any Panel member receives an appropriate response.  In general, the
Agency will accept any each recommendation agreed upon by the entire
Panel, whether as modification to the rule, or as issue to be discussed
in the preamble, unless further analysis or evidence collected after the
Panel completes its work indicates that the recommendation is not
practicable, enforceable, protective for worker safety, or consistent
with the OSH Act or other relevant statutes.  Even if there are
subsequent data findings or circumstances that warrant a change of
OSHA’s position after the panel closes, the Agency will discuss the
Panel’s recommendation drawing liberally from the panel report
discussion and the Agency’s response in the NPRM.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32701-32703]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0268]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Trailways Companies Application for
Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant Adirondack Trailways,
Pine Hill Trailways, New York Trailways (``Trailways'') and all other
regular-route passenger carriers and their drivers an exemption from
the hours-of-service (HOS) record of duty status (RODS) requirement to
enter a change in duty status on the daily log for breaks in driving
time of 10 minutes or less, for the limited purpose of picking up or
dropping off passengers, baggage, or small express packages. FMCSA
extended the request to all regular-route passenger carriers and their
drivers rather than limiting it to Trailways' drivers. The exemption
will allow these drivers to perform their daily duties without having
to record entries in the daily log for breaks in driving time of 10
minutes or less. Such activity will not be considered a change of duty
status for the purposes of 49 CFR 395.8(c).

DATES: This exemption is effective from May 31, 2013 to May 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Request for Exemption

    Trailways (Adirondack Trailways, Pine Hill Trailways, and New York
Trailways) offers scheduled passenger-carrier service throughout New
York State and to Montreal and Toronto. Trailways stated that its
exemption application was for fixed-route carriers and their drivers
who are often away from the controls of the vehicle for brief periods
of time of less than 10 minutes to assist passengers or make one of
several passenger pick-ups and drop-offs along the route.

    Trailways advised that until March 2011 it and other motor carriers
had been operating in accordance with a 1996 interpretation of 49 CFR
395.8(c) issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The 1996
interpretation excluded regular-route passenger carrier CMV drivers
from having to record a location entry on the driver's RODS for non-
driving periods of less than 10 minutes. This guidance was not included
in the compilation and re-publication of all Agency regulatory guidance
on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16370), and is no longer valid.
    In March 2011, New York State officials began enforcing a literal
interpretation of the rule, requiring that a change in duty status be
entered on the log any time the driver leaves the operating controls of
the CMV. Trailways is concerned that the violations will have a
negative effect on the companies' and the drivers' Safety Management
System scores, as well as schedules and passenger service because of
the delays needed to make the entries.
    Instead of complying with the provisions in 49 CFR 395.8(c),
Trailways requested that its drivers with regularly scheduled routes be
exempted from changing their duty status from ``driving'' to ``on-duty
not driving'' when making stops of less than 10 minutes.
    Trailways notes that the 1996 interpretation reduced the amount of
total time a driver could drive in a duty period. Without the 1996
interpretation, the time drivers spend at stops to load passengers,
freight, etc. would be on-duty/not driving, increasing the driving time
available, but creating an additional administrative distraction every
time the driver leaves the controls regardless of the reason or the
limited amount of time away from the vehicle controls. Trailways
further advised that its carriers provide flag stops and that having to
update the log at each such stop increases the amount of time that the
motorcoach may be delaying traffic while waiting for the pick-up and/or
discharge of passengers and luggage, and then waiting for the driver to
update the log before continuing the route. According to Trailways, in
many instances the large number of brief stops will not fit on the log
if the driver makes all of the required entries.
    Trailways noted that the maximum possible driving time would be
reduced and that traffic congestion could be reduced if the exemption
were granted. FMCSA believes this would ensure that operations under
the exemption would be at least as safe as operations that comply with
the requirements on change of duty status.
    FMCSA sought public comment on the need to extend Trailways'
request to all regular-route for-hire passenger carrier drivers.
Including all regular-route for-hire passenger carrier drivers in this
exemption precludes the need for other carriers to file identical
exemption requests, and provides for consistent enforcement because the
same provisions will be applied to all similar scenarios involving
brief stops by drivers of these carriers during their regular-route
operations.
    A copy of Trailways' exemption application is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

Public Comments

    On October 1, 2012, FMCSA published notice of this application, and
asked for public comment (77 FR 60007). Ten comments were received to
the public docket. An anonymous submitter stated ``In my opinion I
don't see a reason in not granting this request.'' Mr. Gale C.
Ellsworth, of Trailways, Fairfax, Virginia, supported the application
and stated that ``the `exemption' is a common industry practice that
was approved and authorized in a rulemaking interpretation requested by
Greyhound in 1996.'' He further stated that ``Greyhound supports the
current request by Trailways, which became more important during 2011,
when law enforcement and DOT agents began writing this practice as
violations, which now affect a carrier's system safety ratings in the
FMCSA's public record.'' Mr. Russell S. Gaillard supported the
application by stating, ``I request that these drivers be exempted from
the requirement to enter a change in duty status on the daily log for
breaks in driving time of 10 minutes or less, for the limited purposes
such as picking up or discharging passengers, baggage and/or package
express items.'' Ms. Veronica Rodriguez said, ``I think an exemption
like this one will benefit all fixed route drivers.'' Mr. William
Woodsrow Gentry, Jr., commented, ``I support the stand that the change
of status is not correct for drivers. If they are just picking up
someone and loading luggage then they should remain On Duty Status.''
Additionally, Concord Coach Lines Inc., Greyhound, SMART Transportation
Division, Teamsters Local 118, and United Motorcoach Association all
supported Trailways' application for the exemption. All comments are
available for review in the docket for this notice.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated Trailways' application for exemption and
the public comments. The Agency believes that Trailways will likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

Terms of the Exemption

Period of the Exemption

    The limited exemption from the HOS record of duty status
requirements of 49 CFR 395.8(c) is granted for the period from 12:01
a.m. on May 31, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2015.

Extent of the Exemption

    The exemption is restricted to drivers employed by Trailways and
other regular-route for-hire passenger-carrier drivers. Instead of
complying with the provisions in 49 CFR 395.8(c), these drivers are
exempted from changing their duty status from ``driving'' to ``on-duty
not driving'' when making stops of less than 10 minutes. These drivers
must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399).

Preemption

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

Notification to FMCSA

    Trailways and other regular-route for-hire passenger-carriers must
notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49
CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under
the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the
following information:
    a. Date of the accident,
    b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    c. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
    d. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    f. Number of fatalities,
    g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and

    i. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should
this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public
interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to
comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: May 22, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-12908 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29151-29153]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0461]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Buffalo Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishment of safety zones for
annual events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. This proposed
rule adds events not previously published in Coast Guard regulations.
These safety zones are necessary to protect spectators, participants,
and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays or
other events.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0461 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Port: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Brian Sadler, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0461), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0461'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-0461 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    We propose these safety zones to control vessel traffic within the
immediate location of the fireworks launching area during annual
fireworks displays.
    The Coast Guard is now proposing to add 6 permanent safety zones in
33 CFR 165.939. Establishing permanent safety zones provides better
notice than promulgating temporary rules annually, and decreases the
amount of paperwork required for these events. The Coast Guard has not
previously received notice of any impact caused by safety zones created
for these events.
    These safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from
the hazards associated with fireworks displays or other events. Such
hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine
casualties and the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling
into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule and associated safety zones are necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and people during

annual firework events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo area of
responsibility that may pose a hazard to the public.
    The proposed safety zones will be enforced only immediately before,
during, and after events that pose hazard to the public, and only upon
notice by the Captain of the Port.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo will notify the public that the
zones in this proposal are or will be enforced by all appropriate means
to the affected segments of the public including publication in the
Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a).
Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain
of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the
public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section
is cancelled.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or the designated
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast
Guard's use of these safety zones will be periodic, of short duration,
and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These safety
zones will only be enforced immediately before, during, and after the
time the events occur. Furthermore, these safety zones have been
designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the
waterways not affected by the safety zones. The Coast Guard expects
insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these
safety zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones
during the dates and times the safety zones are being enforced.
    These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
proposed rule would be in effect for short periods of time, and only
once per year, per zone. The safety zones have been designed to allow
traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible and vessels
will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the
Captain of the Port.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact CDR Joseph
Boudrow, Prevention Dept. Chief, Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd.,
Buffalo, NY 14203; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such
expenditure, we nevertheless discuss its effects elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule will not affect the taking of private property
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
may disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive

Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves the establishment of safety zones and as such should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the
Instruction from further environmental documentation.
    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery
of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. In Sec.  165.939 revise paragraph (a) introductory text and add
paragraphs (a)(27) through (32) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.939  Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of
the Port Buffalo Zone.

    (a) Safety Zones:
* * * * *
    (27) Independence Celebration Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Oswego
Harbor, Oswego, NY--(i) Location. All waters of Lake Ontario at within
an 800-foot radius of position 43[deg]28'05'' N, 076[deg]31'01'' W; in
Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date. One day in the first week of July.
    (28) Rochester Harborfest, Lake Ontario at the Genesee River,
Rochester, NY--(i) Location. All waters of Lake Ontario at Genesee
River, within a 500-foot radius of position 43[deg]15'21'' N,
077[deg]36'19'' W; in Rochester, NY. [DATUM: NAD 83]. Located on the
Ontario Beach West pier.
    (ii) Enforcement date. One weekend after Fathers Day weekend in
June.
    (29) A Salute to Our Hero's, Lake Ontario, Hamlin, NY--(i)
Location. All waters of Lake Ontario within a 300-foot radius of
position 43[deg]16'27'' N, 076[deg]58'27'' W; off Hamlin Beach State
Park Area 1. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date. One day in the first week of July.
    (30) Olcott NY Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY--(i) Location.
All waters of Lake Ontario within a 600-foot radius of position
43[deg]20'24'' N, 078[deg]43'09'' W; located on the West Federal Pier
in Olcott, NY. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date. One day in the first week of July.
    (31) Erie Summer Festival of the Arts, Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay,
Erie, PA--(i) Location. All waters of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay
within a 420-foot radius of position 42[deg]07'45'' N, 080[deg]06'20''
W; in Erie, PA (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date. One day in the last week of June.
    (32) Mercyhurst College ``Old Fashion 4th of July,'' Lake Erie,
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA--(i) Location. All waters of Lake Erie,
Presque Isle Bay 1,000 feet NW of the Chestnut Street Boat Launch in a
400-foot radius of position 42[deg]08'41'' N, 080[deg]06'40'' W; in
Erie, PA. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement date. One day in the first week of July.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
R.S. Burchell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. E9-14381 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P