[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 101 (Thursday, May 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28476-28479]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1171; Product Identifier 2017-SW-124-AD; Amendment
39-21548; AD 2021-10-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-
BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD was prompted by a determination that a
life limit for the adapter forward (FWD) of the outboard load system,
repetitive inspections of other components of that system, and for
certain helicopters, a modification of the outboard load system, are
necessary to address the unsafe condition. This AD requires a
modification of the outboard load system for certain helicopters,
repetitive inspections of the outboard load system and its components
for any defect (including cracking, damage, corrosion, and incorrect
installation) and applicable corrective actions, and implementation of
a new life limit for the FWD adapter, as specified in a European
Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD, which is

incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 1, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1171.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1171; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0177, dated September 14, 2017
(EASA AD 2017-0177) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters, except the Model C-2e variant, and all Model MBB-BK 117 D-
2 helicopters.
    EASA's Model MBB-BK 117 C-2e variant helicopters are not a unique
model on the U.S. type certificate but are considered a configuration
of the Model MBB-BK117 C-2. The U.S. type certificate data sheet
explains that the FAA determined that the type design changes involved
did not rise to the level that required an FAA amended type
certificate. However, the FAA does recognize that helicopters with
these type design changes exist, therefore the designation Model MBB-
BK117 C-2(e) is used, starting from Serial Number 9601. The Model MBB-
BK117 C-2(e) is a visual flight rules only configuration of the Model
MBB-BK117 C-2 utilizing a Garmin 500H flight display system.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters, except the Model MBB-BK117 C-2(e) configuration. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2021 (86 FR 13830). The
NPRM was prompted by a determination that a life limit for the adapter
FWD of the outboard load system, repetitive inspections of other
components of that system, and for certain helicopters, a modification
of the outboard load system, are necessary to address the unsafe
condition. The NPRM proposed to require a modification of the outboard
load system for certain helicopters, repetitive inspections of the
outboard load system and its components for any defect (including
cracking, damage, corrosion, and incorrect installation) and applicable
corrective actions, and implementation of a new life limit for the FWD
adapter, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address detachment of an external
load or person from the helicopter hoist, resulting in personal injury,
or injury to persons on the ground. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Costs of Compliance Update

    The NPRM had specified no definitive data was available for the
costs of the modification and certain parts. The FAA has received data
on the costs of the modification and parts and has updated the costs of
compliance accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes and a change to paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2017-0177 describes procedures for modification of the
outboard load system for certain Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters,
repetitive inspections of the outboard load system and its components
for any defect (including cracking, damage, corrosion, and incorrect
installation) and corrective actions, and implementation of a new life
limit for the FWD adapter (i.e., repetitive replacements). The
corrective actions include replacement of any defective component with
a serviceable part.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 175 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................          $2,276           $2,616         $457,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Labor cost                 Parts cost        Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour =   Up to $970.........  Up to $1,140.
 $170.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-10-15 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-21548;
Docket No. FAA-2020-1171; Product Identifier 2017-SW-124-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in
any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except the Model MBB-
BK117 C-2(e) configuration.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c): Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters
utilizing a Garmin 500H flight display system are designated by EASA
as Model MBB-BK117 C-2e variants of the Model BK 117 C-2
helicopters, and by the FAA as a Model MBB-BK117 C-2(e)
configuration.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a life limit for
the adapter forward of the outboard load system, repetitive
inspections of other components of that system, and for certain
helicopters, a modification of the outboard load system, are
necessary to address the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address detachment of an external load or person from the
helicopter hoist, which could result in personal injury, or injury
to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2017-0177, dated September 14,
2017 (EASA AD 2017-0177).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2017-0177

    (1) Where EASA AD 2017-0177 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2017-0177 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2017-
0177 specifies contacting the applicable manufacturer of the
dedicated equipment for a definition of a cycle and recalculation to
hoist cycles, this AD does not require contacting the manufacturer
for a definition of a cycle and recalculation to hoist cycles.
    (4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2017-0177 specifies to do
``applicable corrective actions,'' for this AD, if there are any
defective components, replace all defective components with
serviceable components in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.
For the purposes of this AD, a defect may be indicated by cracking,
damage, corrosion, or incorrect installation.
    (5) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2017-
0177 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service instead.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2017-
0177 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD requires using hours time-
in-service.
    (7) Paragraph (9) of EASA AD 2017-0177 does not apply to this
AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly

to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0177, dated
September 14, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2017-0177, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-1171.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 3, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11080 Filed 5-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9717-9719]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3736]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66384; File No. SR-C2-2012-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Automated
Improvement Mechanism

February 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 31, 2012, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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 substantially
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to its Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com), 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend C2 Rule 6.51
to permit an Initiating Participant to elect to have last priority in
AIM's order allocation. AIM allows a Participant to submit an Agency
Order along with a contra-side second order (a principal order or a
solicited order for the same size as the Agency Order) into an Auction
where other participants could compete with the Initiating
Participant's second order to execute against the Agency Order, which
guarantees that the Agency Order will receive an execution.\3\
Initiating Participants must submit the Agency Order at the better of
the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit
order).\4\ Once an Auction commences, the Initiating Participant cannot
cancel it.\5\ Upon receipt of an Agency Order (and the Initiating
Participant's second order), the Exchange will commence the Auction by
issuing a Request For Response (``RFR'') detailing the side and size of
the Agency Order. The RFR period will last for one (1) second.\6\ At
the conclusion of an Auction, an Agency Order will be allocated at the
best price(s) in accordance with the applicable matching algorithm
rules for that class, subject to the allocation provisions of Rule
6.51(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See C2 Rule 6.51.
    \4\ See C2 Rule 6.51(a)(2). The Commission notes that if the
Agency Order is for less than 50 contracts, the Initiating
Participant must submit the Agency Order at the better of the NBBO
price improved by one minimum price improvement increment, which
increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may not be smaller
than one cent; or the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a
limit order). See C2 Rule 6.51(a)(3).
    \5\ See C2 Rule 6.51(b)(1)(A).
    \6\ See C2 Rule 6.51(b)(1). Several types of events will cause
an Auction to conclude. See C2 Rule 6.51(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, when submitting an Agency Order to initiate an
Auction against a single-price submission, the Initiating Participant
will have the opportunity to elect to have last priority in AIM's order
allocation. If the Initiating Participant makes this election, the
Initiating Participant would be allocated only the amount of contracts
remaining, if any, after the Agency Order is allocated to all other
Auction participants willing to trade with the Agency Order at the
single-price submission price.\7\ If it makes this election, the
Initiating Participant may not be allocated any contracts, or may be
allocated fewer contracts than it

would otherwise receive pursuant to Rule 6.51(b)(3)(F) (generally 40%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that Chapter V, Section 18(f)(v), The
Price Improvement Period (``PIP''), of the Rules of the Boston
Exchange Group, LLC includes a similar provision that permits an
options participant initiating a PIP auction to designate a lower
amount for which it will retain certain priority and trade
allocation privileges upon the conclusion of the PIP auction than
the 40% of the PIP order to which the initiating options participant
is otherwise entitled pursuant to PIP's allocation order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, suppose an Initiating Participant submits to an
Auction an Agency Order for 1,000 contracts and makes the election
described above:
     If at the conclusion of the Auction, other Auction
participants are willing to trade with 800 of these contracts at the
single-price submission price or better price(s) resulting from the
Auction, then the Initiating Participant will be allocated the
remaining 200 contracts (or 20%) for execution against its contra-side
order at its specified single price.
     If at the conclusion of the Auction, other Auction
participants are willing to trade with 600 of these contracts at the
single-price submission price or better price(s) resulting from the
Auction, then the Initiating Participant will be allocated the
remaining 400 contracts (or 40%) for execution against its contra-side
order at its specified single price.
     If at the conclusion of the Auction, other Auction
participants are willing to trade with 400 of these contracts at the
single-price submission price or better price(s) resulting from the
Auction, then the Initiating Participant will be allocated 600
contracts for execution against its contra-side order at its specified
single price.
     If at the conclusion of the Auction, other Auction
participants are willing to trade with the entire Agency Order at the
single-price submission price or better price(s) resulting from the
Auction, then the Initiating Participant will be allocated no
contracts.
    Under this proposal, Agency Orders submitted to AIM will continue
to be guaranteed execution at a price at least as good as the NBBO
while providing the opportunity for execution at a price better than
the NBBO.
    The Exchange believes this proposal will incent more Participants
to initiate Auctions, because the additional flexibility encourages
increased participation by Participants willing to trade with Agency
Orders at the NBBO but not at a price better than the NBBO and by
Participants willing to facilitate and stop a customer order at a
particular price even when there is not a desire to trade against any
or all of the customer order. Additionally, this proposal provides the
possibility that other Participants may receive increased order
allocations through AIM, which the Exchange believes could increase
participation in Auctions. The Exchange believes that this proposal may
ultimately provide additional opportunities for price improvement over
the NBBO for its customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act \8\. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a
reasonable modification designed to provide additional flexibility for
Participants to obtain executions on behalf of their customers while
continuing to provide meaningful, competitive Auctions. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change will increase the number of
and participation in Auctions, which will ultimately enhance
competition in the AIM Auctions and provide customers with additional
opportunities for price improvement.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (B)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

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-C2-2012-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-006. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-006, and should be submitted on
or before March 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3736 Filed 2-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:40 AM
To:
Joe Green<EMAIL_ADDRESS>D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
letter granting extension to EAF NSPS comment period

To Mr. Green and interested parties: See attached letter granting 30-day extension to EAF NSPS comment period. The comment period will now remain open until August 15, 2022, to allow additional time for stakeholders to review and comment on the proposal. A notice with this information will be published in the Federal Register shortly.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< AX-22-000-5060 response.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6719-6724]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01280]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90923; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-002]

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

January 14, 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 January 4, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to the EDGX 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/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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 EDGX Top Feed, which is an uncompressed data feed
that offers both top-of-book quotations and execution information based
on equity orders entered into the System.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to: (1) Increase the fee for internal distribution of the EDGX
Top Feed; and (2) introduce Professional User fees for internal
Professional Users of the EDGX Top Feed. The current fees for external
distribution of the EDGX 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EDGX Rule 13.8(c).
    \4\ See e.g., EDGX Schedule of Fees, EDGX Top, Small Retail
Broker Distribution Program; EDGX Schedule of Fees, Financial
Product Distribution Program. The Small Retail Broker Distribution
Program is a pricing program offered by the Exchange that allows
small retail brokers that purchase top-of-book market data from the
Exchange to benefit from discounted fees for access to such market
data. 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.'' \5\ As the Commission
itself recognized, the market for trading services in NMS stocks has
become ``more fragmented and competitive.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 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,\7\ 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.\8\ In turn, the market for
top-of-book data is highly competitive as national securities exchanges
compete both with each other and with the securities information
processors (``SIPs'') to provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data
to a wide range of investors and market participants. In fact,
Regulation NMS requires all U.S. equities exchanges to provide their
best bids and offers, and executed transactions, to the two registered
SIPs for dissemination to the public.\9\ Top-of-book data is therefore
widely available to investors today at a relatively modest cost.
National securities exchanges may also disseminate their own top-of-
book data, but no rule or regulation of the Commission requires market
participants to purchase top-of-book data from an exchange.\10\ The
EDGX Top Feed therefore competes with the SIP and with similar products
offered by other national securities exchanges that offer their own
competing market data products. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
    \10\ By contrast, Rule 603(c) of Regulation NMS (the ``Vendor
Display Rule'') effectively requires that SIP data or some other
consolidated display be utilized in any context in which a trading
or order-routing decision can be implemented.
    \11\ Competing top of book products include, Nasdaq Basic, BX
Basic, PSX Basic, NYSE BQT, NYSE BBO/Trades, NYSE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees for Internal Distribution of the EDGX Top Feed
    Currently, the Exchange charges a modest fee of $500 per month for
internal distribution of EDGX Top Feed data,\12\ i.e., distribution
within the distributor's own firm,\13\ 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 early 2015 when the Exchange first began offering
the EDGX Top Feed.\14\ In the time since, the Exchange has made a
number of significant enhancements to its platform, including notably
the introduction of priority for retail limit orders,\15\ that have
resulted in improved trading opportunities for investors and,
consequently, more valuable market data.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EDGX Schedule of Fees, EDGX Top, Internal Distribution.
    \13\ 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 EDGX
Schedule of Fees, Market Data Fees, Definitions.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74282 (February 17,
2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87200 (October 2,
2019), 84 FR 53788 (October 8, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-012)
(Approval Order).
    \16\ The Exchange is also about to extend its early trading
hours to begin at 4:00 a.m. ET, which would similarly provide
additional value to EDGX Top subscribers who would receive
additional information about quotes and trades on EDGX during the
Early Trading Session. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90509
(November 24, 2020), 85 FR 77310 (December 1, 2020) (SR-CboeEDGX-
2020-056).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 EDGX 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 EDGX Top Feed data to $750 per month, which
would continue to be significantly cheaper than similar products
offered by the Exchange's main competitors, including both other
national securities exchanges that offer top-of-book data products to
their customers as well as the SIPs that provide similar ``core data''
to vendors and subscribers pursuant to Regulation NMS. In addition, the
Exchange would introduce Professional User fees for internal
Professional Users of the EDGX Top Feed. Those Professional User fees
will be the same as the modest fee currently charged for external

distribution of the EDGX 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 EDGX 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 market participants
at a cost that facilitates widespread availability of such data.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\18\ 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.\19\ Finally, the proposed rule change is also consistent
with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \20\ 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.
The national securities exchanges also compete with the SIPs for market
data customers, as much of the information offered to market
participants and investors through the EDGX Top Feed is similarly made
available to market participants and investors through the SIPs,
consolidated with data from each of the other fifteen exchanges. It is
in this robust and competitive market in which the Exchange is
proposing to modestly increase its fees.
    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.' '' \21\
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.' '' \22\ As discussed in this filing, significant
competitive forces constrain the ability of the Exchange to charge
supra-competitive fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 535 (D.C. 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).
    \22\ Id. at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. The EDGX Top Feed Is an Optional Market Data Product, and the
Exchange is Constrained in Its Pricing by Significant Competitive
Forces
    Subscribing to the EDGX Top Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange
is not required to make the EDGX Top Feed available to any customers,
nor is any customer required to purchase the EDGX Top Feed. Unlike
certain other data products that firms may be required to purchase in
order to fulfill regulatory obligations,\23\ e.g., the consolidated
quotation and last-sale information feeds offered by the SIPs, a
customer's decision as to whether to purchase the EDGX Top Feed is
entirely discretionary, and is based on that firms individual business
needs. Generally, firms that choose to subscribe to the EDGX Top Feed
do so because they believe that it is a cost-effective alternative to
core data offered by the SIPs that provides valuable information about
the market for securities traded on the Exchange, particularly in cases
where a consolidated display is not required pursuant to the Vendor
Display Rule. Such firms are able to determine for themselves whether
the EDGX Top Feed helps them to achieve their business goals, and if
so, whether or not it is attractively priced compared to other similar
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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 (May 16, 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 EDGX 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 EDGX Top Feed. In fact, comparing the number of internal
distributors that currently subscribe to the EDGX 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,\24\ less than
1.9% of internal distributors that purchase U.S. equities data choose
to subscribe to the EDGX Top Feed. The EDGX Top Feed therefore
represents an insignificant proportion of the relevant 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 EDGX 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
While some market participants that desire a consolidated display often
choose the SIP to satisfy their top-of-book data needs, and in some
cases are effectively required to do so under the Vendor Display Rule,
others may prefer to purchase data directly from one or more national
securities exchanges. For example, a buy-side investor or fintech firm
may choose to purchase the EDGX 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
EDGX 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 EDGX Top Feed serves as a valuable reference for investors
that do not require a consolidated display that contains quotations for
all sixteen U.S. equities exchanges. 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, much of the top-of-book
quotation information and last-sale information offered within the EDGX
Top Feed is also available on the SIP feeds, and for firms that do not
require a consolidated display, as is typically the case for the
subscribers to the EDGX Top Feed, similar top-of-book information is
available from a number of competing U.S. equities exchanges.\25\ 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 EDGX Top Feed, SIP data products, 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 EDGX 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.\26\
Distributors can discontinue use of the EDGX Top Feed at any time and
for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of
fees charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Although the Exchange does not have access to the customer
lists for other competing products, it understands based on
conversations with subscribers to the EDGX 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.
    \26\ See supra note 4. 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 SR-CboeEDGX-2021-003 (pending publication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting the proposed fees for the EDGX Top Feed, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees. Indeed, the
Exchange has no market power and 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 EDGX 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 they represent a modest
increase for top-of-book data that has proven valuable for investors,
particularly as the Exchange grows market share due to its innovative
market model that has been successful in attracting retail limit
orders, increasing the Exchange's market share to over 7% consolidated
U.S. equities volume.\27\ Specifically, the EDGX Top Feed offers
competitively-priced alternative to top-of-book data disseminated by
SIPs, i.e., core data, for firms that do not need or desire a
consolidated display covering all sixteen U.S. equities exchanges, or
similar 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 EDGX 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 EDGX
Top Feed is competitive on both of these factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the EDGX Top Feed would remain competitively priced compared
to similar products offered by other comparable U.S. equities exchanges
and core data offered by the SIPs. Although the EDGX 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 EDGX Top
Feed would remain significantly cheaper than similar products offered
by New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''),
and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``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,\28\ and an

additional $1,500 per month for transaction information,\29\ both of
which are included in the EDGX Top Feed for a single fee.\30\ 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.\31\ 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.\32\ 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
User that is higher than that proposed by the Exchange--i.e., $26 per
month for Nasdaq,\33\ and $8 per month total for both NYSE and
Arca.\34\ Finally, the EDGX Top Feed also remains competitively priced
compared to core data provided by the SIPs for firms, e.g., buy-side
investors or fintech firms, that do not need or desire a consolidated
display covering all sixteen U.S. equities exchanges.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 1.3, NYSE BBO.
    \29\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 1.4, NYSE Trades.
    \30\ See supra note 3 and accompanying text. The Exchange also
offers a separate market data product, i.e., EDGX Last Sale, that
exclusively provides last sale information. See EDGX Rule 13.8(d).
However, all of the information contained in the EDGX Last Sale Feed
is also made available in the EDGX Top Feed at no additional charge.
    \31\ See NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 3.3, NYSE Arca
BBO; NYSE PDP Market Data Pricing, Section 3.4, NYSE Arca Trades.
    \32\ 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.
    \33\ 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).
    \34\ 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 28, 29, and 31.
    \35\ See CTA Schedule of Market Data Charges, available at
https://www.ctaplan.com/pricing; UTP Fee Schedule, available at
https://utpplan.com/DOC/Datapolicies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed fees are reasonable given the value of the
data provided in the EDGX Top Feed and used by data recipients in their
profit-generating activities. The EDGX 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 more than 7% of U.S. equity market volume today.\36\ As
discussed, the Exchange offers the EDGX 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 EDGX Top Feed instead of receiving one of the many free
products offered by other exchanges,\37\ including free products
offered by an affiliate of the Exchange,\38\ have decided that the
value of the EDGX Top Feed is greater than that offered by those other
products. Indeed, by attracting liquidity providing orders, e.g.,
through retail priority, the Exchange is able to offer market data
products that benefit from increased market quality. In turn, investors
may choose to rely on those 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. The
Exchange therefore believes that its proposal is consistent with the
principles enshrined in Regulation NMS to ``promote the wide
availability of market data and to allocate revenues to SROs that
produce the most useful data for investors.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \37\ See e.g., Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, Market Data
fees.
    \38\ See e.g., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Fee Schedule, EDGA Top.
    \39\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 5, at
37503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for internal distribution
of the EDGX 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 EDGX Top Feed and distribute that data to internal subscribers.
As proposed, all internal distributors of the EDGX 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 EDGX Top
Feed on the same equitable and non-discriminatory terms. Similarly,
with the introduction of Professional User fees, internal distributors
of the EDGX 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 EDGX 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 anticipate any
significant number of Non-Professional Users to receive EDGX 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.

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: (i) Competition among exchanges
that offer similar data products to their customers; and (ii) the
existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data disseminated by
the SIPs. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by both the SIPs and
the sixteen U.S. equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of
alternative

products available to market participants and investors, including
products offered by certain competing U.S. equities 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 EDGX Top Feed on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. 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.
    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 as well as core data offered by the SIPs. 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 \40\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \41\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \41\ 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-CboeEDGX-2021-002 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-CboeEDGX-2021-002. 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-CboeEDGX-2021-002 and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01280 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


QUESTIONS YOUR RESPONSE 1. Number of CWISs: 2 ( one " inside" the leg and one " outside" the leg). The outside pipe is one of two pipes that run inside a 48" pipe cut in half long ways and welded to the leg. One is cooling/ source water one is firewater. 2. Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe): Simple pipe.

3. Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether CWIS has existing flange: Outside approximately 12 inch, inside approximately 14 inches.

4. Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size: Outside  nothing, Inside  unsure.

5. Total daily maximum design water intake volumn of each CWIS: 800 to 1000 gpm both inside and outside. Typically run one at a time 6. Total daily water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 1000 gpm typical 7. Total daily cooling water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 1000 gallons 8. Design through screen velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( set up/ drilling): 12 inch = 2.82 ft/ sec 14 inch = 2.07 ft/ sec 9. List purposes of cooling water intake ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes): Cool gas, engines 10. List purposes of non cooling water intakes ( e. g., fire, water, hotel loads) other than ballast water: Waterflood, firewater, backwash 11. Total volume of water intake for ballasting, duration of ballast intake, and through screen velocity of ballast intake: NA 12. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms ( e. g., sea chest screens, strainers): None 13. Describe measures used to reduce or prevent biofouling: None 14. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing exotic species migration through ballast water: NA OCS Lease and Block: Platform Name: Monopod Platform COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE ( CWIS) INFORMATION The following questions apply to cooling water intake structure( s) at oil and gas extraction facility. If you own more than one facilty, please copy the questions and answer separately for each facility.

Prospect or Field Name: Company: Unocal


[Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44755-44757]
[DOCID:fr31au09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0646]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile 427.2 to 427.6,
Keithsburg, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Upper Mississippi River, mile 427.2 to 427.6,
extending the entire width of the river near Keithsburg, Illinois. This
safety zone is needed to protect persons and vessels from safety
hazards associated with a fireworks display occurring over a portion of
the Upper Mississippi River. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi
River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. CDT on
September 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the

docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0646 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0646 in the
''Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Matthew
Barker, Sector Upper Mississippi River Response Department at telephone
(314) 269-2540, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
because doing so and delaying the rule's effective date would be
contrary to public interest. Immediate action is needed to protect
vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with a
fireworks display.
    For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On September 5, 2009, the City of Keithsburg, Illinois will be
conducting a land based fireworks show between mile 427.2 and 427.6 on
the Upper Mississippi River. This event presents safety hazards to the
navigation of vessels between mile 427.2 and 427.6, extending the
entire width of the river. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi
River will inform the public of all safety zone changes through
broadcast notice to mariners.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all waters of the
Upper Mississippi River, mile 427.2 to 427.6, extending the entire
width of the river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels
and persons except participants and those persons and vessels
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi
River. This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. CDT on
September 5, 2009. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River will
inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of all safety
zone changes and enforcement periods.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This safety zone is expected to have
minimal economic impact because of its small size and short duration.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the Upper Mississippi River, mile 427.2 to 427.6 between 8 p.m.
and 10:30 p.m. CDT on September 5. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the zone covers a small area and will only be in effect for a
short period of time. In addition, notifications to the marine
community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners and the
River Industry Bulletin Board (RIBB) at http://www.ribb.com.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly effected
by this regulation, please contact LCDR Matthew Barker, Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so they could better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small businesses. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, because the rule establishes a safety
zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T09-0646 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0646  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile 427.2 to
427.6.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Mississippi River, from surface to bottom and from Mile 427.2
to 427.6 extending the entire width of the waterway.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10:30
p.m. CDT on September 5, 2009.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule is effective from 8 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. CDT on September 5, 2009. The Captain of the Port
Upper Mississippi River will inform the public through broadcast notice
to mariners of all safety zone changes and enforcement periods.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River or a designated representative. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River representative may be contacted at (314)
269-2332.
    (3) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated
representative. Designated Captain of the Port representatives include
United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of
the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: July 17, 2009.
S.L. Hudson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. E9-20861 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P