[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39981-39984]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14446]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78062; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options Platform

June 14, 2016.
    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 1, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at 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 Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') to: (1) Increase the Exchange's
standard rates for Customer \6\ orders executed on the EDGX Options and
to make related changes; (2) modify the criteria to qualify for a tier
under the Exchange's existing tiered pricing structure; and (3) modify
the Exchange's routing fees, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), excluding any transaction for a
Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in Exchange Rule
16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Orders
    Fee codes PC and NC are currently appended to all Customer orders
in Penny Pilot Securities \7\ and Non-Penny Pilot Securities,\8\
respectively, and result in a standard rebate of $0.01 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to increase the standard rate for all Customer
orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities to a
standard rebate of $0.05 per contract. In addition to reflecting the
increase in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees portion of the Exchange's
fee schedule for fee codes PC and NC, the Exchange proposes to delete
the reference to the $0.01 rebate on the Standard Rates table with
respect to fee codes PC and NC. The Standard Rates table provides a
range of rebates and fees applicable to executions on the Exchange in
summary form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those issues
that are quoted pursuant to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
    \8\ The term ``Non-Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those
issues that are not Penny Pilot Securities quoted pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the standard rebate provided to all Customer orders,
the Exchange offers several Customer Volume Tiers pursuant to footnote
1. The Customer Volume Tiers currently consist of six separate tiers,
each providing an enhanced rebate to a Member's Customer orders that
yield fee codes PC or NC upon satisfying monthly volume criteria
required by the respective tier. Pursuant to Customer Volume Tier 1,
the lowest volume tier, a Member currently receives a rebate of $0.05
per contract where the Member has an ADV \9\ in Customer orders equal
to or greater than 0.10% of average TCV.\10\ Because the Exchange is
increasing its standard rebate to $0.05 per share, the Exchange
proposes to delete current Tier 1 and to re-number Tiers 2 through 6 as
Tiers 1 through 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \10\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiered Pricing Changes
    In addition to the Customer Volume Tiers described above and in
footnote 1 of the fee schedule, the Exchange also provides reduced fees
or enhanced rebates under the Market Maker Volume Tiers described in
footnote 2. Fee codes PM and NM are currently appended to all Market
Maker \11\ orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot
Securities, respectively, and result in a standard fee of $0.19 per
contract. The

Market Maker Volume Tiers in footnote 2 consist of seven separate
tiers, each providing a reduced fee or rebate to a Member's Market
Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying monthly
volume criteria required by the respective tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is registered with the Exchange as a Market
Maker as defined in Rule 16.1(a)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the qualifying criteria for
Customer Volume Tier 6 (as described above, the Exchange proposes to
re-number such tier as Customer Volume Tier 5, hereafter ``current
Customer Volume Tier 6'') under footnote 1 and for Market Maker Volume
Tier 7 under footnote 2, as further described below.
    Pursuant to current Customer Volume Tier 6, a Member currently will
receive a rebate of $0.21 per contract where: (1) The Member has an ADV
in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.20% of average TCV; and
(2) the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater
than 0.15% of average TCV. Similarly, pursuant to Market Maker Volume
Tier 7, the Exchange provides a reduced fee of $0.10 per contract
where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater
than 0.20% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV in Market
Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.15% of average TCV. Thus, the
qualifying criteria for current Customer Volume Tier 6 and Market Maker
Volume Tier 7 are identical.
    In order to encourage the entry of additional orders to the
Exchange, the Exchange proposes to modify current Customer Volume Tier
6 and Market Maker Volume Tier 7 to reduce the criteria necessary to
qualify. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide the same
rebate, $0.21 per contract, and reduced fee, $0.10 per contract, as it
currently provides for these tiers, respectively, and to provide such
rebate or fee where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal
to or greater than 0.20% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV
in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.10% of average TCV.
Thus, the Exchange proposes to reduce the criteria of the second prong
from 0.15% of average TCV to 0.10% of average TCV. The Exchange
believes that this change will make current Customer Volume Tier 6 and
Market Maker Volume Tier 7 more attainable for additional Members.
Routing Fees
    The Exchange proposes to modify the fees charged for orders routed
away from the Exchange and executed at various away options
exchanges.\12\ The Exchange currently charges flat rate routing fees
for executions at away options exchanges that have been placed into
groups based on the approximate cost of routing to such venues. The
grouping of away options exchanges is based on the cost of transaction
fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for
routing (i.e., clearing fees, connectivity and other infrastructure
costs, membership fees, etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). To
address different fees at various other options exchanges, the Exchange
proposes to increase fees applicable to routing to certain away options
exchanges in Non-Penny Securities, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Other options exchanges to which the Exchange routes
include: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), International
Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''), ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE
Gemini''), ISE Mercury, LLC (``ISE Mercury''), Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), Nasdaq Options Market LLC
(``NOM''), Nasdaq OMX BX LLC (``BX Options''), Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC
(``PHLX''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCA''), and NYSE MKT LLC (``AMEX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities,
the Exchange appends fee code RO to all such orders routed to and
executed at other options exchanges. Pursuant to fee code RO, the
Exchange charges a fee of $1.20 per contract. The Exchange proposes to
increase this fee from $1.20 per contract to $1.25 per contract to
account for additional Routing Costs incurred by the Exchange.
    With respect to Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities the
Exchange applies one of two fee codes: (1) Fee code RP, which results
in a fee of $0.25 per contract and applies to all Customer orders
(including orders in Penny Pilot Securities) routed to and executed at
AMEX, BOX, BX Options, CBOE, ISE Mercury, MIAX or PHLX; or (2) fee code
RR, which results in a fee of $0.90 per contract and applies to all
Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities routed to and executed at
ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM. The Exchange proposes to
increase the fee under fee code RR from $0.90 per contract to $1.00 per
contract to account for additional Routing Costs incurred by the
Exchange. The Exchange does not propose any change to fee code RP.
    As set forth above, the Exchange's proposed approach to routing
fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain flat fees that
approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges. The
Exchange then monitors the fees charged as compared to the costs of its
routing services, as well as monitoring for specific fee changes by
other options exchanges, and intends to adjust its flat routing fees
and/or groupings to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed result in
a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not
significantly higher or lower in any area. The increases are proposed
primarily in order to account for increased Routing Costs incurred by
the Exchange.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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 of the Act.\13\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed increase to the standard rebate
provided to Customer orders executed on the Exchange (as well as the
related changes) is reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory in that the rebate will provide additional incentive to
all Members to enter Customer orders to the Exchange. The Exchange also
believes the rebate for Customer orders remains consistent with pricing
previously offered by the Exchange as well as other options exchanges
and does not represent a significant departure from such pricing.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to
the tiered pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and
non-discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants may readily send order flow to many
competing venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive. As
a relatively new options exchange, the proposed fee structure remains
intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market
participants a competitive yet simple pricing structure. At the same
time, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to

offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to
contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
    Volume-based rebates such as those currently maintained on the
Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are
equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and
provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to
the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes. The proposed modification to the
criteria required to qualify for current Customer Volume Tier 6 and
Market Maker Volume Tier 7 is intended to incentivize Members to send
additional Customer orders and Market Maker orders to the Exchange in
an effort to qualify for the enhanced rebate or lower fee made
available by the tiers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers, as proposed to be
amended are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory, for
the reasons set forth above with respect to volume-based pricing
generally and because such changes will incentivize participants to
further contribute to market quality. The proposed tiers will provide
an additional way for market participants to qualify for enhanced
rebates or reduced fees. The Exchange also believes that the tiered
pricing structure remains consistent with pricing previously offered by
the Exchange as well as other options exchanges and does not represent
a significant departure from such pricing structures.
    With respect to the proposed increases under the Exchange's routing
structure, the Exchange again notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services if they
deem fee levels to be excessive. As explained above, the Exchange seeks
to approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges,
including other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing, in order
to provide a simplified and easy to understand pricing model. The
Exchange believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing
Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees is
fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an
approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such
exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure for orders
routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing,
as it will provide certainty with respect to execution fees at groups
of away options exchanges. In order to achieve its flat fee structure,
taking all costs to the Exchange into account, the Exchange will in
some instances charge a higher premium to route to certain options
exchanges than to others. As a general matter, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of
providing routing services to such exchanges and to make some
additional profit in exchange for the services it provides. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed increase to the fee structure
for orders routed to and executed at these away options exchanges is
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it
applies equally to all Members. Finally, the Exchange notes that it
intends to consistently evaluate its routing fees, including profit and
loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in connection with the
operation of a flat fee routing service, and would consider future
adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the extent it was
recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to away options
exchanges.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the
proposal is a competitive proposal that is seeking to further the
growth of the Exchange and to update the Exchange's fees for routing
orders to away options exchanges based on Routing Costs. With respect
to the increase to the standard Customer rebate and other tiered
pricing changes, the Exchange has structured the proposed fees and
rebates to attract additional volume to the Exchange. With respect to
the proposed changes to the routing fee structure, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are competitive in that they will
continue to provide a simple approach to routing pricing that some
Members may favor. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing, including pricing for transactions on the Exchange
as well as routing fees, if they believe that alternatives offer them
better value. In particular, with respect to routing services, such
services are available to Members from other broker-dealers as well as
other options exchanges. The Exchange also notes that Members may
choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to avoid
incurring routing fees.\15\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or
competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(7) (describing ``Book Only''
orders) and Exchange Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the Exchange's
routing process, which requires orders to be designated as available
for routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-21 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-BatsEDGX-2016-21. 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-BatsEDGX-2016-21 and should
be submitted on or before July 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14446 Filed 6-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3801-3802]
[DOCID:fr22ja08-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Denial of Petition

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance
order, and denial of petition for hearing on notification and remedy of
a safety related defect.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denials of two
petitions submitted by Mr. Robin R. Harrill (petitioner). The first
petition requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) order Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris) to
assume all owner costs incurred to replace defective third gear
assemblies on certain model year 1999 through 2001 Victory V92
motorcycles it manufactured. The second petition requested the NHTSA
hold a hearing concerning the company's alleged failure to remedy the
defective third gear assemblies on those motorcycles. Both petitions
are denied as moot. Polaris has, since the filing of this petition,
notified the affected motorcycle owners of the defect, and has made a
free remedy available to those owners, including the petitioner, and
has reimbursed all owners who had the recall repair work completed
prior to the initiation of the recall.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer T. Timian, Recall Management
Division (NVS-215), Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 4, 2006, Polaris filed a defect information report (06V-
298) with NHTSA, notifying it that some of its 2001 Victory V92
motorcycles and some of its 1999-2000 Victory V92 motorcycles that
received a transmission replacement last built in 2001 contained a
safety-related defect. According to Polaris, under certain conditions,
these motorcycles could experience third gear failures that could
result in a lock-up of the transmission. This, in turn, could cause a
loss of control and a crash. Polaris reported that it was planning to
install a rear sprocket damper assembly to correct for the possible
third gear failures, but that the schedule for implementing the remedy
campaign was still under development. Subsequently, on November 22,
2006, Polaris issued a letter to the affected owners notifying them of
the defect and stating that limited numbers of kits needed to repair
the motorcycles (referred to as ``Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits'')
were expected to be distributed the week of December 18, 2006. Owners
were instructed to contact Victory dealers to schedule repair
appointments.
    During the final stages of testing, however, Polaris found that the
remedy kits were not sufficient to address the risk of third gear
failures, and therefore additional work was needed to develop a better
remedy. Polaris advised the agency of its finding and the resulting
delay in delivery of remedy kits in January, 2007.
    On March 8, 2007, NHTSA received a package containing two petitions
from Robin R. Harrill. The first petition, captioned a ``Petition for
Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Order,'' requested that NHTSA
order Polaris to assume all costs motorcycle owners may have incurred
to replace the third gear assemblies on the affected motorcycles. The
second petition, captioned a ``Petition for Hearing on Notification and
Remedy of Defects,'' requested a hearing to address Polaris's alleged
failure to meet its obligation to remedy those defective assemblies.
    The crux of both petitions is that Polaris has been unreasonably
slow in making the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits available to owners
and dealers. In support of his petitions, Mr. Harrill provided a
timeline of events concerning the recall, an account of certain
conversations he had with various Polaris personnel, and summaries of
various communications Polaris had issued as to the status and
availability of the kits.
    In the meantime, and at the agency's request, Polaris prepared
another notification letter for owners. On or about April 20, 2007,
NHTSA received a draft of this letter together with an amended defect
information report. Polaris stated in its report that this second owner
notification mailing was to start April 30, 2007. Polaris further
reported that it was going to simultaneously publish on its Web site a
reminder notification to dealers about the recall, together with a
parts availability date. Both of these actions took place.
    In mid-May, 2007, the remedy kits for the affected motorcycles were
made available to dealers.

Decision

    The filing and disposition requirements for petitions for
rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders, are found in 49 CFR part
552. The stated scope of part 552 is to, among other things, allow
interested persons to request the agency ``make a decision that a motor
vehicle * * * contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle
safety.'' 49 CFR 552.1. The stated scope of Part 552 does not include
ordering manufacturers to reimburse owners for their costs in remedying
defective motor vehicles, or taking any other action related to
repairing or replacing defective motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment.
    Here, Polaris has already admitted that its vehicles have a defect
that relates to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, the issue of whether
the Polaris motorcycles in question have a safety-related defect has
been resolved, and so any agency determination mirroring the
manufacturer's decision would be meaningless.
    The filing and disposition requirements for petitions for hearings
on notification and remedy of defects, are found in 49 CFR part 557.
One of the stated purposes of part 557 is to enable NHTSA to respond to
petitions for hearings on whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its
obligation to remedy a safety-related defect identified in its product.
49 CFR 557.2. Pursuant to 49 CFR 557.8, a manufacturer can be ordered
to take certain actions to ensure its compliance with the recall
requirements. One such action could be requiring the manufacturer to
reimburse owners' costs for their independent repairing or replacing of
equipment in order to fix a defect.
    In deciding whether to grant petitioner's second petition, we have
taken into consideration the nature of his complaint and the
seriousness of the alleged breach of Polaris's obligation to remedy. We
have also considered that there have been approximately eight owner
complaints to NHTSA (including one the petitioner filed) about the
delays in repair due to the lack of availability of the Rear Sprocket
Cushion Drive Kits at local dealerships.
    Based on our consideration of these factors, we have determined
that any hearing related to the reasonableness of the remedy would be
moot because the alleged problem--delays in repair kits needed to fix
the transmission defect--has been resolved. Polaris has delivered the
kits to its dealers and all owners have been notified of the defect.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In phone calls with the agency, the petitioner reported that
he had received a call from his dealer letting him know the repair
kits had arrived and offering to schedule an appointment for a
repair. He also reported that he no longer owns a motorcycle
involved in the remedy campaign addressed by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the reasons above, this petition is denied. This
decision does not, of course, prevent the agency from taking future
action if warranted.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: January 15, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E8-951 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16891-16893]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06929]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8031; Special Conditions No. 25-653-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-
700-2A13 airplanes; Operation Without Normal Electrical Power.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc.
(Bombardier) Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These
airplanes will have novel or unusual design features when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. These design features are electrical and
electronic systems that perform critical functions, the loss of which
could be catastrophic to the airplane. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
these design features. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Bombardier on April 7, 2017. We must
receive your comments by May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8031
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://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 (DOT), 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 Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 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 Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to type
certificate no. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-
700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700
series of airplanes and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000
(Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These
airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category, executive-interior
business jets. The maximum passenger capacity is 19 and the maximum
takeoff weights are 106,250 lb. (Model BD-700-2A12) and 104,800 lb.
(Model BD-700-2A13).

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-
700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in type certificate no. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13
airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply
with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34,
and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance

with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will
incorporate novel or unusual design features associated with electrical
and electronic flight-control systems that perform critical functions,
the loss of which may result in loss of flight controls and other
critical systems, and that may be catastrophic to the airplane if not
appropriately protected.
    The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion

    The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes have a fly-by-wire
flight-control system that requires a continuous source of electrical
power to maintain an operable flight-control system. Section
25.1351(d), ``Operation without normal electrical power,'' requires
safe operation in visual flight rule (VFR) conditions for at least five
minutes after loss of normal electrical power, excluding the battery.
This rule was structured around a traditional design using mechanical
control cables and linkages for flight control. These manual controls
allow the crew to maintain aerodynamic control of the airplane for an
indefinite time after loss of all electrical power. Under these
conditions, a mechanical flight-control system provided the crew with
the ability to fly the airplane while attempting to identify the cause
of the electrical failure, restart engine(s) if necessary, and attempt
to re-establish some of the electrical-power generation capability.
    A critical assumption in Sec.  25.1351(d) is that the airplane is
in VFR conditions at the time of the failure. This is not a valid
assumption in today's airline operating environment where airplanes fly
much of the time in instrument meteorological conditions on air-
traffic-control-defined flight paths. Another assumption in the
existing rule is that the loss of all normal electrical power is the
result of the loss of all engines. The five-minute period in the rule
is to allow at least one engine to be restarted, following an all-
engine power loss, to continue the flight to a safe landing. However,
service experience on airplanes with similar electrical power-system
architecture as the Bombardier Global 7000/8000 airplanes has shown
that at least the temporary loss of all electrical power for causes
other than all-engine failure is not extremely improbable. To maintain
the same level of safety, envisioned by the existing rule, with
traditional mechanical flight controls, the Global 7000/8000 design
must not be time-limited in its operation under all reasonably
foreseeable conditions, including loss of all normal sources of engine
or auxiliary-power-unit (APU)-generated electrical power. Unless
Bombardier can show that the non-restorable loss of the engine and APU
power sources is extremely improbable, Bombardier must demonstrate that
the airplanes can maintain safe flight and landing (including steering
and braking on the ground for airplanes using steer- and brake-by-wire,
and fly-by-wire speed-brake panels) with the use of emergency or
alternate electrical power systems. These electrical power systems, or
the minimum restorable electrical power sources, must be able to power
loads that are essential for continued safe flight and landing.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at
a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these
special conditions would apply to the other model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on two models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the
public notice and comment period in several prior instances, and has
been derived without substantive change from those previously issued.
It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant
change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has
determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special
conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow
interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in
response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-
700-2A13 airplanes.
    In lieu of 14 CFR 25.1351(d), the following special conditions
apply:
    1. Bombardier must show, by test or a combination of test and
analysis, that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and
landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as
prescribed by paragraphs 1.a. and 1.b., below. For purposes of these
special conditions, normal sources of electrical-power generation do
not include alternate power sources such as the battery, ram-air
turbine, or independent power systems such as the flight-control
permanent-magnet generating system. In showing capability for continued
safe flight and landing, Bombardier must account for systems
capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the
physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers for the longest
diversion time for which Bombardier is seeking approval.
    a. In showing compliance with this requirement, Bombardier must
account for common-cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal
physical threats.
    b. Bombardier may consider the ability to restore operation of
portions of the electrical power generation and distribution system if
it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system
is extremely improbable. The design must provide an alternative source
of electrical power for the time required to restore the minimum
electrical-power generation capability required for safe flight and
landing. Bombardier may exclude unrecoverable loss of all engines when
showing compliance with this requirement.
    2. Regardless of electrical-power generation and distribution
system recovery capability shown under special condition 1, above,
sufficient electrical-system capability must be provided to:

    a. Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the
speed that provides the best glide distance, from the maximum operating
altitude to the top of the engine-restart envelope, and
    b. Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and
auxiliary

power unit (APU). The design must provide this capability in addition
to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements
related to operation with all engines inoperative.
    3. The airplane emergency electrical power system must be designed
to supply:

    a. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must
continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss
of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow
reconfiguration to provide a non-time-limited source of electrical
power.
    b. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing
for the maximum diversion time.
    4. If Bombardier uses APU-generated electrical power to satisfy the
requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable
runway for landing is beyond the capacity of the battery systems, then
the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable flight
condition prior to the depletion of the battery, or the restoration of
normal electrical power, whichever occurs first. Flight test must
demonstrate this capability at the most critical condition.
    a. Bombardier must show that the APU will provide adequate
electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.
    b. The airplane flight manual (AFM) must incorporate non-normal
procedures that direct the pilot to take appropriate actions to
activate the APU after loss of normal engine-driven generated
electrical power.
    5. As part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the
tests to demonstrate loss of all normal electrical power must also take
into account the following:

    a. The assumption that the failure condition occurs during night
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at the most critical phase
of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical-power
distribution and equipment-loads-demand condition.
    b. After the un-restorable loss of normal engine-generator power,
the airplane engine restart capability is provided and operations
continued in IMC.
    c. The airplane is demonstrated to be capable of continued safe
flight and landing. The length of time must be computed based on the
maximum diversion time capability for which the airplane is being
certified. Bombardier must account for airspeed reductions resulting
from the associated failure or failures.
    d. The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal
electrical power to direct the pilot to the non-normal procedures, and
the AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct the
pilot to take appropriate actions.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06929 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5567-5568]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0003; OMB No. 1660-0068]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of
information regarding the existence of smoke detectors and sprinkler
systems within hotels and motels.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2015-0003. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal

information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is
available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teressa Kaas, Fire Program Specialist,
FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional
information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies
of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202)
212-4701 or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990,
Public Law 101-391, requires FEMA to establish and maintain a list of
hotels, motels, and similar places of public accommodation meeting
minimum requirements for protection of life from fire; the list is
known as the National Master List (NML). This law resulted from a
series of deadly fires in hotels and motels, occurring in the late
1970's and 1980's, with high loss of life. The legislative intent of
this public law is to provide all travelers the assurance of fire-
safety in accommodations identified on the National Master List. The
Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 further stipulates that Federal
employees on official travel stay in properties approved by the
authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and listed on the current NML. For
statutory reference see Title 15 U.S.C. ]] 2224-26.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0068.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 516-0-1, Federal Hotel and Motel
Fire Safety Declaration Form.
    Abstract: Applicants complete and submit the Hotel-Motel
Declaration Form online through the USFA Web site (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/applications/hotel/) or they may request a paper-based
version. Applications submitted through the Web site are reviewed and,
if approved, the applicant will receive a FEMA ID Number for their
facility. Online submission is the preferred method selected by the
majority applicants. Paper-based forms returned by traditional methods
(USPS mail, special delivery, or facsimile) receive the same review
process as those submitted online. Lodging establishments must meet a
certain level of life-safety from fire, as defined in Public Law 101-
391, to become eligible for listing on the NML. Federal employees use
the NML to select lodging while traveling on government-related
business, but the list is also accessible to the general public.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, local or
Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 2,294.
    Number of Responses: 2,655.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 696 hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of                                        Total                     Total
                                     Form name/form     Number of    responses      Total     Average  burden per     annual      Average       annual
       Type of respondent                number        respondents      per       number of      response  (in     burden  (in  hourly wage   respondent
                                                                     respondent   responses          hours)           hours)        rate         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business or other For-Profit....  Federal Hotel and          2,275            1        2,275  0.25 (15 mins.)....          569       $52.79      $30,038
                                   Motel Fire Safety
                                   Declaration Form/
                                   FEMA Form 516-0-1.
State, local or Tribal            Review of FEMA Form           19           20          380  0.333 (20 mins.)...          127        39.10        4,966
 Government.                       516-0-1.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ...................        2,294  ...........        2,655  ...................          696  ...........       35,004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $35,004. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$50,053.00.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2015-01840 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P