[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15524-15530]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91339; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fees Applicable to the BZX Top Feed

March 17, 2021.
    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 March 4, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to the BZX Top Feed.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the fees
applicable to the BZX Top Feed,\3\ which is an uncompressed data feed
that offers both top-of-book quotations and execution information based
on equity orders entered into the System.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to: (1) Increase the fee for internal distribution of the BZX
Top Feed; and (2) introduce Professional User fees for internal
Professional Users of the BZX Top Feed.\5\ The current fees for
external

distribution of the BZX Top Feed will continue to apply, without
change, including various incentive programs that the Exchange has
adopted to facilitate the provision of lower-cost market data to retail
and other investors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
January 4, 2021. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90919
(January 14, 2021), 86 FR 6710 (January 2, 2021) [sic] (SR-CboeBZX-
2021-002). On March 4, 2021, the Exchange withdrew that filing and
submitted this proposal.
    \4\ See BZX Rule 11.22(d).
    \5\ A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is
any User other than a Non-Professional User. See BZX Schedule of
Fees, Market Data Fees, Definitions. A ``Non-Professional User'' of
an Exchange Market Data product is a natural person or qualifying
trust that uses Data only for personal purposes and not for any
commercial purpose and, for a natural person who works in the United
States, is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (ii) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of
1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or
(iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform
functions that would require registration or qualification if such
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt; or, for
a natural person who works outside of the United States, does not
perform the same functions as would disqualify such person as a Non-
Professional User if he or she worked in the United States. Id.
    \6\ See e.g., BZX Schedule of Fees, Financial Product
Distribution Program. The Financial Product Distribution Program
lowers the cost of distributing Derived Data based upon the
Exchange's top-of-book offerings, including Derived Data that is
often used by retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Background
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\ As the Commission
itself recognized, the market for trading services in NMS stocks has
become ``more fragmented and competitive.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84875, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equity trading is currently dispersed across sixteen exchanges,
including three new U.S. equities exchanges that launched trading in
2020, 32 alternative trading systems,\9\ and numerous broker-dealer
internalizers and wholesalers, all competing fiercely for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single U.S. equities
exchange has more than 20% market share.\10\ In turn, the market for
top-of-book quotation and transaction data is highly competitive as
national securities exchanges compete vigorously with each other to
provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data to a wide range of
investors and market participants. In fact, there are twelve competing
products offered by other national securities exchanges today,\11\ not
counting products offered by the Exchange's affiliates, and each of the
Exchange's affiliated U.S. equities exchanges also offers similar top-
of-book data. Each of those exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and
last sale information based on their own quotation and trading activity
that is substantially similar to the information provided by the
Exchange through the BZX Top Feed.\12\ Exchange top-of-book data is
therefore widely available today from a number of different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \11\ Competing top-of-book products include, Nasdaq Basic, BX
Basic, PSX Basic, NYSE BQT, NYSE BBO/Trades, NYSE Arca BQT, NYSE
Arca BBO/Trades, NYSE American BBO/Trades, NYSE Chicago BBO/Trades,
IEX TOPS, MIAX PEARL Equities Top of Market Feed, and MEMX MEMOIR
Top.
    \12\ For example, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
offers ``Nasdaq Basic'' which is a real-time market data product
that offers best bid and offer and last sale information for all
U.S. exchange-listed securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq
market center and trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade
Reporting Facility (``Nasdaq TRF''). See Nasdaq Equity Rules, Equity
7, Pricing Schedule, Section 147(a). The type of information
contained on the BZX Top Feed is substantially similar to that
offered through Nasdaq Basic, except that the Exchange disseminates
information about quotes and trades on BZX, whereas Nasdaq Basic
provides information about quotes and trades on Nasdaq and the
Nasdaq TRF. Other national securities with competing top-of-book
products also offer substantially similar types of information
through those top-of-book products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees for Internal Distribution of the BZX Top Feed
    Currently, the Exchange charges a modest fee of $500 per month for
internal distribution of BZX Top Feed data,\13\ i.e., distribution
within the distributor's own firm,\14\ and does not charge any
additional fees for internal distribution based on the number of
Professional or Non-Professional Users that receive access to this
information. These internal distribution fees have been in place,
without change, since July 2013 when the Exchange first began charging
for access to the BZX Top Feed, which had previously been available
free of charge.\15\ In the time since, the Exchange has made a number
of significant enhancements to its platform, including, among other
things, a significant expansion of its listing program for exchange-
traded products,\16\ that have resulted in improved trading
opportunities for investors and, consequently, more valuable market
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BZX Schedule of Fees, BZX Top, Internal Distribution.
    \14\ The Exchange's fee schedule defines an Internal Distributor
of an Exchange Market Data product as a Distributor that receives
the Exchange Market Data product and then distributes that data to
one or more Users within the Distributor's own entity. See BZX
Schedule of Fees, Market Data Fees, Definitions.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69936 (July 3,
2013), 78 FR 41483 (July 10, 2013) (SR-BATS-2013-39).
    \16\ See infra notes 44-45 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed, the Exchange now proposes to increase certain fees
applicable to firms that consume this data as internal distributors,
i.e., firms that use BZX Top Feed data for internal purposes as opposed
to firms that distribute such data externally to its customers. As
proposed, the Exchange would increase the monthly charge for internal
distribution of BZX Top Feed data to $750 per month, which would
continue to be significantly cheaper than similar products offered by
the Exchange's main competitors.\17\ In addition, the Exchange would
introduce Professional User fees for internal Professional Users of the
BZX Top Feed. Those Professional User fees will be the same as the
modest fee currently charged for external distribution of the BZX Top
Feed, i.e., $4 per month for each Professional User. There would
continue to be no charge associated with internal distribution to Non-
Professional Users. Further, as discussed, the current fees for
external distribution of the BZX Top Feed would continue to apply,
without change, including various incentive programs that the Exchange
has adopted to facilitate the provision of lower-cost market data to
retail and other investors. As a result, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee changes would allow it to be appropriately compensated for
the value of its market data, particularly from professional financial
services firms that use that data for internal purposes, while
simultaneously ensuring that its data would continue to be available to
a wide range of investors and market participants at a cost that
facilitates widespread availability of such data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See infra notes 32-39 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\19\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with

Section 11(A) of the Act as it supports (i) fair competition among
brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange
markets and markets other than exchange markets, and (ii) the
availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with
respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.\20\ Finally,
the proposed rule change is also consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation
NMS,\21\ which provides that any national securities exchange that
distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions
in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \21\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
with the launch of three new national securities exchanges that trade
U.S. equity securities last September, there are now sixteen registered
U.S equities exchanges, and with the exception of Long-Term Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE''), which has determined to not offer any
proprietary market data feeds, each of these exchanges offer associated
market data products to their customers, either with or without a fee.
It is in this robust and competitive market in which the Exchange is
proposing to increase its fees, while still providing its data at a
significantly lower price than competing products offered by other
national securities exchanges with similar data quality.
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Further, with respect
to market data, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC upheld the
Commission's reliance on the existence of competitive market mechanisms
to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of fees for proprietary
market data: ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' '' \22\
The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that ``Congress
intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and
practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading
equity securities.' '' \23\ As discussed in this filing, significant
competitive forces constrain the ability of the Exchange to charge
supra-competitive fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 535 (DC Cir. 2010)
(``NetCoalition I'') (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323).
    \23\ Id. at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. The BZX Top Feed Is an Optional Market Data Product, and the
Exchange Is Constrained in Its Pricing by Significant Competitive
Forces
    Subscribing to the BZX Top Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange
is not required to make the BZX Top Feed available to any customers,
nor is any customer required to purchase the BZX Top Feed.\24\ A
customer's decision as to whether to purchase the BZX Top Feed is
therefore entirely discretionary, and is based on that firms individual
business needs. Generally, firms that choose to subscribe to the BZX
Top Feed do so because they believe that it is a cost-effective source
for top-of-book data that provides valuable information about the
market for national market system (``NMS'') stocks traded on the
Exchange, where a consolidated display covering all U.S. equities
exchanges is not required. Such firms are able to determine for
themselves whether the BZX Top Feed helps them to achieve their
business goals, and if so, whether or not it is attractively priced
compared to other similar top-of-book products offered by competing
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to
purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations. See In the Matter of the Application of Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association for Review of Actions
Taken by Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-
15350; AP-3-15351 (May16, 2014). Similarly, there is no requirement
in Regulation NMS or any other rule that proprietary data be
utilized for order routing decisions, and some broker-dealers and
ATSs have chosen not to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, if the BZX Top Feed does not provide sufficient value to
firms based on the uses those firms may have for it, such firms may
simply choose to conduct their business operations in ways that do not
use the BZX Top Feed. In fact, comparing the number of internal
distributors that currently subscribe to the BZX Top Feed, based on
data compiled by the Exchange as of November 2020, to the total number
of internal distributors that subscribe to core data offered by the CTA
and UTP SIPs, as published on plan websites for Q3 2020,\25\ less than
9.5% of internal distributors that purchase U.S. equities data choose
to subscribe to the BZX Top Feed.\26\ The BZX Top Feed therefore
represents an insignificant proportion of the market for such market
data, and significantly more internal distributors choose not to
purchase this product than those that do. Given the insignificant
percentage of internal distributors that consume the BZX Top Feed, it
is clear that such firms can and do exercise their right to choose to
purchase, or not purchase, this particular market data product. And, as
discussed later in this filing, any internal distributor of top-of-book
data that does not wish to purchase the BZX Top Feed, due to the price
of that data or for any other reason, can choose to substitute similar
information from other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CTA Quarterly Population Metrics (Q3 2020), available
at https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/CTAPLAN_Population_Metrics_3Q2020.pdf; UTP Quarterly Population
Metrics (Q3 2020), available at https://www.utpplan.com/DOC/UTP_2020_Q3_Stats_with_Processor_Stats.pdf.
    \26\ This statistic reflects the number of internal distributors
that purchase the BZX Top Feed divided by the number of internal
distributors that purchase consolidated market data from the SIPs,
as reflected in publicly available information. Id. The Exchange
does not have similar information about the number of internal
distributors that purchase top-of-book data from other exchanges as
competing exchanges do not typically make this information publicly
available due to the commercially sensitive nature of such
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange is not required to make any data, including
top-of-book data, available through its proprietary market data
platform, the Exchange believes that making such data available
increases investor choice, and contributes to a fair and competitive
market. Specifically, making such data publicly available through
proprietary data feeds allows investors to choose alternative,
potentially less costly, market data based on their business needs. For
example, a buy-side investor or fintech firm may choose to purchase the
BZX Top Feed, or a similar product from another exchange, in order to
perform investment analysis, or to provide general information about
the market for U.S. equity securities, respectively. In either case the
choice to purchase the BZX Top Feed would be based on the firm's
determination of the value of the data offered by their chosen product
compared to the cost of acquiring this data instead of receiving
similar data from other sources. The BZX Top Feed serves as a valuable
reference for investors that do not require a consolidated display.
Making alternative products available to market participants ultimately
ensures competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of
exchanges to charge supra-competitive fees.
    Further, in the event that a market data customer views one
exchange's top-of-book data product and/or fees as more or less
attractive than a competitor's offerings they can and

often do switch between competing products. As discussed, similar top-
of-book information is available from a number of competing U.S.
equities exchanges.\27\ This include a number of large established
exchanges that charge for access to such top-of-book data, as well as
certain smaller or new exchange entrants that provide similar data
without charge, in many cases as a way of attracting customers to their
exchange while they seek to grow market share. In this way, the BZX Top
Feed and other top-of-book products offered by a number of U.S.
equities exchanges, are all substitutes. The availability of these
substitute products constrains the Exchange's ability to charge supra-
competitive prices as market participants can easily obtain similar
data from one of the Exchange's many competitors. In fact, the impact
of competition on the market in which the BZX Top Feed is offered to
market participants and investors is showcased by the Exchange's other
recent fee changes related to this product, which involved the
reduction of fees to facilitate the Exchange's ability to compete for
customers.\28\ And, other exchanges have similarly filed to reduce the
prices of their top-of-book data in order to compete with products
offered by the Exchange and other competing exchanges.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Although the Exchange does not have access to the customer
lists for other competing products, it understands based on
conversations with subscribers to the BZX Top Feed that they
typically view exchange top-of-book products as substitutes and do
not generally look to purchase such data from more than one national
securities exchange.
    \28\ See supra note 6. The Exchange also notes that while this
proposed fee change involves an increase in fees, it is
simultaneously filing another proposed fee change to expand its
Financial Products Distribution Program and further reduce certain
fees. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90912 (January 13,
2021), 86 FR 6398 (January 1, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-003) [sic].
    \29\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90616
(December 9, 2020), 85 FR 81237 (December 15, 2020) (SR-NASDAQ-2020-
086).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distributors can discontinue use of the BZX Top Feed at any time
and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. Indeed, one internal distributor of the
BZX Top Feed that cancelled its subscription as of February 2021
informed the Exchange that its decision to do so was based on this fee
increase, which initially went into effect for the month of January
2021. Other internal distributors are free to similarly cancel their
subscriptions in favor of a competitor offering, or cheaper or free
data offered by the Exchange's affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, if
they believe that the fees are too high given their particular use case
for obtaining the data that the Exchange provides over the BZX Top
Feed. The Exchange offers all of its proprietary market data products
pursuant to a month-to-month contract that allows subscribers to choose
to terminate their subscription at any time. As a result, there are no
contractual or other legal impediments for firms that wish to cancel
their subscription to the Exchange's market data products, including
the BZX Top Feed. In addition, the Exchange notes that all internal
distributors of the BZX Top Feed either receive this data through a
market data vendor, as opposed to directly from the Exchange, or is a
market data vendor itself.\30\ Thus, firms can seamlessly switch to any
other competitor product offered by their chosen vendor without
incurring additional switching costs, such as the cost of establishing
connectivity to another exchange to receive its market data.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ One previous subscriber to the BZX Top Feed received this
data directly from the Exchange. However, that subscriber recently
terminated its subscription to the BZX Top Feed in favor of other
products offered by the Exchange.
    \31\ Market data vendors typically establish connectivity to a
number of national securities exchanges to be able to offer their
market data to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting the proposed fees for the BZX Top Feed, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. Indeed, the Exchange is
not in a position to charge unreasonable fees for its top-of-book data
as there are a number of competing products in the market, including
products that are currently offered free of charge by certain other
exchanges that have determined not to charge for their market data. The
existence of alternatives to the BZX Top Feed ensures that the Exchange
cannot set unreasonable fees when vendors and subscribers can freely
elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific
proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the
returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve
through the purchase.
ii. The Proposed Fees Are Reasonable Given the Value of the Data
Provided to Customers, and When Compared to Competing Market Data
Products
    The proposed fees are also reasonable as even with the proposed fee
increase they would continue to represent a relatively modest fee for
top-of-book data that has proven valuable for investors. The BZX Top
Feed is a competitively-priced alternative to top-of-book data
disseminated by other national securities exchanges. It is purchased by
a wide variety of market participants and vendors, including data
platforms, websites, fintech firms, buy-side investors, retail brokers,
regional banks, and securities firms inside and outside of the U.S.
that desire low cost, high quality, real-time U.S. equity market data.
By providing lower cost access to U.S. equity market data, the BZX Top
Feed benefits a wide range of investors that participate in the
national market system. As discussed, the decision to purchase a
particular market data product from a particular exchange is largely
based on two factors: (1) The quality of the data, and (2) the price
charged for access to that data. The Exchange believes that the BZX Top
Feed is competitive on both of these factors.
    First, the BZX Top Feed would remain competitively priced compared
to similar products offered by other comparable U.S. equities
exchanges. Although the BZX Top Feed is not offered free of charge like
certain other competitor offerings, particularly those offered by newer
U.S. equities exchanges that are seeking to grow market share, it is
made available at a price that is significantly lower than the prices
charged by the Exchange's main competitors--i.e., those with comparable
market shares and data quality. Notably, even with the proposed fee
increase, the BZX Top Feed would remain significantly cheaper than
similar products offered by New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''),
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), and Nasdaq both in terms of the fees
charged for internal distribution and the fees charge for each
Professional User that is provided access to the feed. For example,
NYSE charges a total of $3,000 per month for internal distribution of
their equivalent products, i.e., $1,500 per month for applicable top-
of-book quotation information,\32\ and an additional $1,500 per month
for transaction information,\33\ both of which are included in the BZX
Top Feed for a single fee.\34\ Arca, which has a similar pricing model
to NYSE, also charges a higher rate of $1,500 per month for internal
distribution of its equivalent products, separated into a $750 per

month charge for top-of-book quotation information and an additional
$750 per month charge for transaction information.\35\ Finally, Nasdaq
charges its internal distributors a fee of $1,500 per month for Nasdaq
Basic, which includes both top-of-book quotation information and
transaction information for the same fee, similar to the Exchange's
pricing model, but again at a higher cost.\36\ In each case, the
internal distribution charges associated with obtaining comparable U.S.
equities market data from NYSE, Arca, and Nasdaq runs at least double
and up to four times as much as the proposed fee to be charged by the
Exchange, meaning that the Exchange would continue to be offering its
data at a price that is attractive compared to the prices charged by
its competitors. Similarly, each of these exchanges charges a fee for
each professional subscriber.\37\ Those professional subscriber fees
are each higher than that proposed by the Exchange--i.e., $26 per month
for Nasdaq,\38\ and $8 per month total for both NYSE and Arca.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 1.3, NYSE BBO.
    \33\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 1.4, NYSE Trades.
    \34\ See supra note 4 and accompanying text. The Exchange also
offers a separate market data product, i.e., BZX Last Sale, that
exclusively provides last sale information. See BZX Rule 13.8(d).
However, all of the information contained in the BZX Last Sale Feed
is also made available in the BZX Top Feed at no additional charge.
    \35\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 3.3, NYSE Arca
BBO; NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 3.4, NYSE Arca Trades.
    \36\ See Nasdaq Equity Rules, Equity 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 147(c)(1). In addition, Nasdaq also charges distributors a
$100 monthly administrative fee. See Nasdaq Equity Rules, Equity 7,
Pricing Schedule, Section 135.
    \37\ These exchanges use a definition of ``professional
subscriber'' that is substantially similar to the Professional User
definition used by the Exchange. See e.g. Nasdaq Equity Rules,
Equity 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 147(d)(4)(B); NYSE
Nonprofessional Subscriber Policy, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/Policy-Non-ProfessionalSubscribers_PDP.pdf.
    \38\ Nasdaq's Professional User fee is divided into Nasdaq
issues ($13), NYSE issues ($6.50), and other issues ($6.50) for a
total of $26 per month for each Professional User. See Nasdaq Equity
Rules, Equity 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 147(b)(1).
    \39\ NYSE and Arca's fees are both broken down into $4 per month
for BBO information and an additional $4 per month for Trades
information. See supra notes 32, 33, and 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed fees are reasonable given the value of the
data provided in the BZX Top Feed and used by data recipients in their
profit-generating activities. The BZX Top Feed provides top-of-book
quotations and transactions executed on the Exchange, and provides a
valuable window into the market for securities traded on a market that
accounts for about 5% of U.S. equity market volume today.\40\ As
discussed, the Exchange offers the BZX Top Feed in a competitive
environment where firms may freely choose which market data products
best suit their business needs. Invariably, firms that choose to
purchase the BZX Top Feed instead of receiving one of the many free
products offered by other exchanges,\41\ including free products
offered by an affiliate of the Exchange,\42\ have decided that the
value of the BZX Top Feed is greater than that offered by those other
products. Indeed, by incentivizing market quality improvements through
its Lead Market Maker (``LMM'') and other programs designed to enhance
the quality of its market,\43\ the Exchange is able to offer higher
quality market data products to customers. The Exchange consistently
ranks among the top U.S. equities exchanges in terms of various market
quality measures, e.g., NBBO quote quality and NBBO market share.\44\
In turn, investors may choose to rely on the Exchange's market data
products instead of other competitor offerings based on the value they
provide in relation to any additional cost associated with obtaining
that market data from the Exchange. For example, investors may wish to
obtain market data from an exchange that has a higher time at the
inside, as data obtained from an exchange that is quoting more often at
the NBBO may better reflect the applicable market for securities it
trades. Similarly, an exchange with greater overall market share will
produce more transaction information that may be valuable to consumers
of its data. Improvements in market quality will therefore directly
impact the value of the market data that an exchange is able to offer
to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \41\ See e.g., Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, Market Data
fees.
    \42\ See e.g., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Fee Schedule, EDGA Top.
    \43\ Under the LMM Program, the Exchange offers daily incentives
for LMMs securities listed on the Exchange for which the LMM meets
certain Minimum Performance Standards. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 86213 (June 27, 2019), 84 FR 31951 (July 3, 2019). The
term ``Minimum Performance Standards'' means a set of standards
applicable to an LMM that may be determined from time to time by the
Exchange. See Rule 11.8(e)(1)(E). Such standards will vary between
LMM Securities depending on the price, liquidity, and volatility of
the LMM Security in which the LMM is registered. Id. The performance
measurements will include: (A) Percent of time at the NBBO; (B)
percent of executions better than the NBBO; (C) average displayed
size; and (D) average quoted spread. Id.
    \44\ See https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/market_quality/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. The Proposed Fees Are Equitable and Not Unfairly Discriminatory as
Internal Distributors Will Be Subject to Uniform Pricing Based on Their
Usage of the Data and Differences Between the Fees Charged for Internal
and External Distribution are Appropriate
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for internal distribution
of the BZX Top Feed will continue to be allocated fairly and equitably
among subscribers, and are not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed
fees will apply equally to all data recipients that choose to subscribe
to the BZX Top Feed and distribute that data to internal subscribers.
As proposed, all internal distributors of the BZX Top Feed will be
subject to the same internal distribution fee, regardless of the type
of business that they operate, or the use they plan to make of the data
feed. Thus, all internal distributors would have access to the BZX Top
Feed on the same equitable and non-discriminatory terms. Similarly,
with the introduction of Professional User fees, internal distributors
of the BZX Top Feed will be subject to the same modest fees based
solely on the number of Professional Users that each internal
distributor has chosen to permission for access to this information.
The Exchange does not believe that it is inequitable, or unfairly
discriminatory, to charge a fee based on the number of Professional
Users within a firm that have access to the BZX Top Feed as this
ensures that firms with the highest usage pay their equitable share for
the data.
    The Exchange also believes that it is fair and equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory, to continue not to charge a fee for internal
distribution to Non-Professional Users. The Exchange's fee structure is
generally designed to facilitate lower cost access to its market data
by retail investors, either through substantially lower User fees for
Non-Professional Users, or other incentive programs, such as the Small
Retail Broker Distribution Program, which was recently implemented to
lower the cost of the Exchange's market data to small broker-dealers
that serve retail investors. The Exchange does not believe that any
significant number of Non-Professional Users to [sic] receive BZX Top
Feed Data through internal, i.e., within the distributor's firm, as
opposed to external distribution, and in the event that certain firms
may distribute data internally to Users that qualify as Non-
Professional, providing such Users access without any User fees would
facilitate the Exchange's overall goals of facilitating access to its
data by retail investors, which the Commission has continually found to
be consistent with the Exchange Act.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is fair and equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory to continue to charge different fees for
internal and external distribution of the BZX Top Feed. As is common
practice, the Exchange charges lower fees to distributors that use its
market data products for internal distribution only than to
distributors

that redistribute that data externally to their customers. In the case
of the BZX Top Feed, external distributors are subject to a higher
distribution fee, and are also subject to Non-Professional User fees,
which as discussed above the Exchange has determined to continue not to
charge to internal distributors.\45\ Increasing the fees that the
Exchange charges for internal distribution of the BZX Top Feed, as
proposed, would actually serve to decrease the disparity in charge
between internal and external distribution, while at the same time
continuing to facilitate the internal distribution of the BZX Top Feed
at a lower cost. The Exchange continues to believe that it is
appropriate to distinguish between internal and external distributors
in setting fees for the BZX Top Feed as external distributors can
redistribute the Exchange's market data to its clients for a fee,
whereas internal distributors are not allowed to redistribute the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See BZX Schedule of Fees, BZX Top. The proposed
Professional User fee for internal distribution of the BZX Top Feed
is the same as currently charged for external distribution of that
market data product. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
these data products is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is
broadly disseminated by competing U.S. equities exchanges. There are
therefore a number of alternative products available to market
participants and investors, including products offered by certain
competing exchanges without charge. In this competitive environment
potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to
purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the
choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase
cheaper top-of-book data products, and quality, as market participants
seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage
compared to other market participants. As discussed, the proposed fees
would apply to all internal distributors of the BZX Top Feed on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis, and the continued difference in
fees for internal and external distribution are appropriate given the
ability for external distributors to redistribute data externally to
their clients. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fees
neither favor nor penalize one or more categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on
competition.
    To the extent that particular fees would apply to only a subset of
subscribers, e.g., Professional versus Non-Professional Users, those
distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory and do not unfairly burden
one set of customers over another. As discussed, the Exchange does not
believe that any significant number of Non-Professional Users receive
BZX Top Feed Data through internal distribution. Further, to the extent
that any Non-Professional Users receive the BZX Top Feed through
internal distribution, the Exchange believes that it is not unfairly
discriminatory not to charge a fee for their usage as this would
facilitate the dissemination of market data to retail investors.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other SROs that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In
setting the proposed fees, the Exchange is constrained by the
availability of numerous substitute products offered by other national
securities exchanges. Because market data customers can find suitable
substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products
stands a high risk that users may substitute another product. These
competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees
can impose an undue burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed
fees do not do so here.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 \46\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \47\
thereunder. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \47\ 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-CboeBZX-2021-020 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-CboeBZX-2021-020. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit

personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2021-020 and should
be submitted on or before April 13, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05913 Filed 3-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27961-27964]
[DOCID:fr19my10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0479 Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark
0070 and 0100 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough internal
pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario for the
hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected) brake QD
[quick-disconnect] coupling. Further investigation of the service
experience files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have
occurred on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127 configuration. The
unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible brake
fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to safely land
the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended
to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252 627 211; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0479;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0176, dated August 6, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During 1995, several reports were received of brake QD [quick-
disconnect] couplings loosened and/or disconnected during operation.
In a few cases, residual brake pressure was trapped in the affected
brake, causing asymmetric braking and/or resulting in hot brakes.
Loosened couplings may cause a hydraulic leak with the risk of a
brake fire. Investigation revealed that the installation of the
brake QD couplings must be done with care and that the locking teeth
on the light alloy sleeve are prone to wear. The Fokker 70/100
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) has been revised to include
additional information to ensure correct removal and installation of
the couplings.
    In 1997, Fokker Services issued SBF100-32-106, recommending the
introduction of QD couplings with corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
sleeves that would prevent excessive wear of the locking teeth on
the light alloy sleeve. In response to more reported cases of
loosened QD couplings resulting in brake problems, further improved
QD couplings were introduced in 2001 through SBF100-32-127. These
couplings increase the reliability of the brake system.
    Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough
internal pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario
for the hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected)
brake QD coupling. Further investigation of the service experience
files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have occurred
on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127 configuration.
    In order to reduce the probability of a fluid fire as described
in CS (certification specification) 25.863, additional action is
deemed necessary.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
[detailed] inspections [for wear] of the affected brake QD couplings
and replacement of the QD couplings with improved units.
Installation of the improved QD couplings terminates the repetitive
inspections requirements.

The unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible brake
fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to safely land
the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156,
Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 16 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $4,814 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $82,464, or $5,154 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0479; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-220-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 6, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial
numbers, with any brake quick-disconnect (QD) coupling having part
number (P/N) AE70690E, AE70691E, AE99111E, or AE99119E installed.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During 1995, several reports were received of brake QD couplings
loosened and/or disconnected during operation. In a few cases,
residual brake pressure was trapped in the affected brake, causing
asymmetric braking and/or resulting in hot brakes. Loosened
couplings may cause a hydraulic leak with the risk of a brake fire.
Investigation revealed that the installation of the brake QD
couplings must be done with care and that the locking teeth on the
light alloy sleeve are prone to wear. The Fokker 70/100 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) has been revised to include additional
information to ensure correct removal and installation of the
couplings.
    In 1997, Fokker Services issued SBF100-32-106, recommending the
introduction of QD couplings with corrosion resistant steel (CRES)
sleeves that would prevent excessive wear of the locking teeth on
the light alloy sleeve. In response to more reported cases of
loosened QD couplings resulting in brake problems, further improved
QD couplings were introduced in 2001 through SBF100-32-127. These
couplings increase the reliability of the brake system.
    Recently, a brake fire was reported which was caused by a
ruptured brake piston. The fire was quickly extinguished but caused
damage to the paint and hydraulic/electrical harness and its
components. Detailed investigation showed that a hydraulic lock must
have been present close to the affected brake creating enough
internal pressure to rupture the piston. The most probable scenario
for the hydraulic lock is a loosened (not necessarily disconnected)
brake QD coupling. Further investigation of the service experience
files at Fokker Services showed that more brake fires have occurred
on aeroplanes in a pre-mod SBF100-32-127 configuration.
    In order to reduce the probability of a fluid fire as described
in CS (certification specification) 25.863, additional action is
deemed necessary.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
[detailed] inspections [for wear] of the affected brake QD couplings
and replacement of the QD couplings with improved units.
Installation of the improved QD couplings terminates the repetitive
inspections requirements.

The unsafe condition is loss of braking capability and possible
brake fires, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to
safely land the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Do the following actions.
    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection for wear of the brake QD couplings by measuring
dimension ``A,'' in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision 1,
dated June 29, 2009. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in Table 1 of this AD, except as
required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

                Table 1--Repetitive Inspection Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Repeat the inspection at intervals
       If dimension ``A'' is--                  not to exceed--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than or equal to 0.76 mm....  6 months.
Less than 0.76 mm but greater than    3 months.
 or equal to 0.72 mm.
Less than 0.72 mm but greater than    30 days.
 or equal to 0.68 mm.
Less than 0.68 mm but greater than    7 days.
 or equal to 0.61 mm.
Less than 0.61 mm but greater than    24 hours.
 0.53 mm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, dimension ``A'' on any brake QD coupling is less than or
equal to 0.53 mm, before further flight, replace the affected brake
QD coupling with an improved unit having P/N AE73059E or P/N
AE73091E, as applicable, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-
156, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009.
    (3) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace all remaining brake QD couplings having P/N AE70690E, P/N
AE70691E, P/N AE99111E, and P/N AE99119E with improved units, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2009.
    (4) Installation of brake QD couplings with an improved unit
having P/N AE73059E or P/N AE73091E at all locations terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (5) Replacing the brake QD couplings is also acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD if done before the effective date of
this AD, in accordance with any of the service bulletins specified
in Table 2 of this AD:

                Table 2--Fokker Credit Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fokker Service Bulletins        Revision                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Service Bulletin        Original........  July 20, 2001.
 SBF100-32-127.
Fokker Service Bulletin        1...............  March 6, 2009.
 SBF100-32-127.
Fokker Service Bulletin        Original........  March 6, 2009.
 SBF100-32-156.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0176, dated
August 6, 2009; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-156, Revision
1, dated June 29, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 4, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11904 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6491-6493]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02891]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0124; FRL-9973-35--Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to Permitting and Public Participation for Air Quality Permit
Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve four
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on December 12,
2016 and February 21, 2017, specific to air quality permitting and
public notice for air quality permit applications.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before March 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0124, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Adina Wiley, 214-665-
2115, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The Act at Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and
submit to EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review and
permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary
sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that
cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively
referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of
three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. The EPA codified
minimum requirements for these State permitting programs including
public participation and notification requirements at 40 CFR 51.160-
51.164. Requirements specific to construction of new stationary sources
and major modifications in nonattainment areas are codified at 40 CFR
51.165 for the NNSR program. Requirements for permitting of new
stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas subject
to PSD, including additional public participation requirements, are
found at 40 CFR 51.166. This proposed approval action will address four
separate revisions to the Texas NSR SIP submitted on December 12, 2016
and February 21, 2017. On December 12, 2016, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted a revision to the major NSR
program to remove from the Texas SIP the Compliance History provisions
at 30

TAC Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126. On February 21,
2017, the TCEQ submitted three separate revisions to the Texas SIP
revising the public notice provisions applicable to air quality permit
applications.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    The accompanying Technical Support Documents for this action
include a detailed analysis of the submitted revisions to the Texas
SIP. In many instances the revisions are minor or non-substantive in
nature and do not change the intent of the originally approved SIP
requirements. Following is a summary of our analysis for the submitted
revisions.

A. Evaluation of the Repeal of Chapter 116 Compliance History
Requirements

    The Chapter 116 Compliance History provisions were initially
adopted by the State on June 17, 1998, at 30 TAC Sections 116.120-
116.126. These revisions were submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on
July 22, 1998. The EPA approved these requirements into the SIP on
September 18, 2002 at 67 FR 58697.
    The TCEQ repealed the requirements of 30 TAC Section 116.124 on
September 2, 1999. The EPA approved this repeal on January 6, 2014 at
79 FR 551. The TCEQ repealed the remaining provisions at 30 TAC
Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 on August 7, 2002 and
replaced the requirements with media neutral compliance history
requirements under 30 TAC Chapter 60 pursuant to the requirements of
Texas House Bill 2912. The TCEQ did not submit the repeal of 30 TAC
Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 at the time of the state
rulemaking. The repeal of these requirements was submitted on December
12, 2016 as Rule Project Number 2016-028-SIP-NR.
    The repeal of the remaining compliance history provisions at 30 TAC
Sections 116.120-116.123, 116.125 and 116.126 is approvable. This
repeal was developed in accordance with the CAA and the State provided
reasonable notice and public hearing. The repeal of these provisions
will remove obsolete requirements from the Texas SIP. The EPA has
determined it is appropriate to approve the repeal and removal of these
provisions from the SIP since there are no federal requirements to
include comparable provisions in a SIP. This repeal will have no
negative impact on the Texas New Source Review program because the SIP-
approved permit programs do not rely on the repealed Compliance History
provisions. Therefore, we conclude that this repeal maintains
consistency with federal requirements for SIP development and New
Source Review permitting, and therefore, will not interfere with
attainment or reasonable further progress.

B. Evaluation of the Revisions to Texas Public Notice Requirements

    On February 21, 2017, the TCEQ submitted three separate revisions
to the Texas SIP revising the public notice provisions applicable to
air quality permit applications. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapters 39
and 55 submitted under Rule Project No 2015-018-080-LS make non-
substantive revisions to the existing SIP requirements. The revisions
to repeal the Chapter 116 public notice provisions submitted under Rule
Project No. 2016-026-116-AI remove obsolete requirements that have been
replaced with the existing SIP public notice provisions in Chapter 39.
The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 39 and 55 submitted under Rule Project
No. 2016-030-039-LS substantively revise the existing public notice SIP
requirements for concrete batch plant standard permits such that the
notice requirements are consolidated into one 30-day notice period that
satisfies the requirements of minor NSR public participation. The EPA
has determined it is appropriate to approve these three revisions to
the Texas SIP because these revisions continue to be consistent with
federal requirements for public notice and therefore, will not
interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that revise
the NSR permitting and public notice requirements. We have determined
that the revisions submitted on December 12, 2016 were developed in
accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations, policy and guidance for
NSR permitting. Therefore, under section 110 of the Act, the EPA
proposes approval of the following revisions to the Texas SIP:
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.120--Applicability--adopted
on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.121--Exemptions--adopted on
November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.122--Contents of Compliance
History--adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12,
2016;
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.123--Effective Dates--adopted
on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December 12, 2016;
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.125--Preservation of Existing
Rights and Procedures--adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on
December 12, 2016; and
     Repeal of 30 TAC Section 116.126--Voidance of Permit
Applications--adopted on November 2, 2016, and submitted on December
12, 2016.
    Additionally, we have determined that the revisions submitted on
February 21, 2017, were developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's
regulations, policy and guidance for public notice for air permitting.
Under section 110 of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the following
revisions into the Texas SIP:
     Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.405 adopted on December 9,
2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
     Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.411 adopted on December 7,
2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
     Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.419 adopted on December 9,
2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
     Revisions to 30 TAC Section 39.603 adopted on December 7,
2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
     Revisions to 30 TAC Section 55.152 adopted on December 7,
2016, and submitted on February 21, 2017;
     Withdrawal of 30 TAC Section 55.156(e) from the Texas SIP
as adopted on December 9, 2015, and submitted on February 21, 2017; and
the
     Repeal of 30 TAC Sections 116.130-116.134, 116.136, and
116.137 from the Texas SIP as adopted on November 2, 2016 and submitted
on February 21, 2017.
    We also propose to revise the amendatory language at 40 CFR
52.2270(c) to identify specific provisions adopted by the State were
not submitted for inclusion in the Texas SIP. We propose to revise the
language at 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to clearly indicate that the Texas SIP
does not include the revisions to 30 TAC Sections 39.405(h(1)(A) and
39.602(c) as adopted on December 9, 2015, or 30 TAC Section
39.411(e)(10) as adopted on December 7, 2016.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the
Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
or at the EPA

Region 6 Office (please contact Adina Wiley for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 7, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-02891 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62598-62599]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for New Special
Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21293-N......................  Harnyss, LLC............  173.311.................  To authorize the manufacture,
                                                                                mark, sale and use of a
                                                                                specially designed storage
                                                                                device consisting of a non-
                                                                                DOT specification cylinder
                                                                                similar to a DOT 3AL
                                                                                cylinder for use in
                                                                                transporting hydrogen
                                                                                absorbed in metal hydride,
                                                                                Division 2.1. (modes 1, 4)
21294-N......................  Trane U.S. Inc..........  173.306(e)(1)(i),         To authorize the
                                                          173.306(e)(1)(ii).        transportation in commerce
                                                                                of large refrigerating
                                                                                machines where each pressure
                                                                                vessel containing A2L
                                                                                refrigerant gases in
                                                                                quantities exceeding 50
                                                                                pounds and an aggregate of
                                                                                more than 100 pounds. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3)
21296-N......................  Lockheed Martin           173.185(e)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                Corporation.                                        transportation in commerce
                                                                                of low production lithium
                                                                                batteries in alternative
                                                                                packaging via motor vehicle.
                                                                                (mode 1)
21297-N......................  Luxfer Canada Limited...  178.75(d)(3),             To authorize the manufacture,
                                                          180.205(g)(1).            marking, sale and use of UN/
                                                                                ISO composite cylinders per
                                                                                CFR 178.71, and
                                                                                specification ISO 11119-2
                                                                                for use in MEGCs in
                                                                                accordance with CFR 178.75.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
21298-N......................  Linde Gas & Equipment     173.301(f),               To authorize the
                                Inc.                      173.301(g)(1)(ii),        transportation in commerce
                                                          173.304a(c).              of UN1070, nitrous oxide, in
                                                                                cylinders interconnected by
                                                                                a manifold. (modes 1, 2, 3)
21299-N......................  Orbital Sciences LLC....  172.101(j)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium batteries
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg by cargo-
                                                                                only aircraft. (mode 4)
21300-N......................  Distributor Operations,   172.200, 172.300,         To authorize the
                                Inc.                      172.400, 173.159(e),      transportation in commerce
                                                          173.185(b)(1).            of wet acid batteries and
                                                                                lithium batteries on the
                                                                                same vehicle, without being
                                                                                subject to the requirements
                                                                                of the Hazardous Materials
                                                                                Regulations. (mode 1)
21301-N......................  DGM Italia SRL..........  172.101(j)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion batteries
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg by cargo-
                                                                                only aircraft. (mode 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-24563 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P