[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17102-17105]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0250; Product Identifier 2018-NM-157-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-17-
14, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2015-
17-14 requires repetitive rototest inspections of the open tack holes
and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage,
including doing all applicable related investigative actions, and
repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2015-17-14, further analysis
and widespread fatigue damage (WFD) evaluations identified the need to
reduce the initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the
inspections for certain airplanes, and to add work for certain
airplanes. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions of AD
2015-17-14, would add actions for certain airplanes, and would reduce
the compliance times for certain airplanes, as specified in an European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by
reference. This proposed AD would also reduce the applicability. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described in the
``Related IBR material under 1 CFR part 51'' section in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email [email protected];
internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. 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 http://www.regulations.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0250; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0250;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-157-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    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 NPRM.

Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general
degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details
and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will
certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any
intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design
approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its
LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    We issued AD 2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR 52182, August
28, 2015) (``AD 2015-17-14''), for all Airbus SAS Model A319 series
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes,
and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes. AD 2015-17-14 requires repetitive rototest inspections of
the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings
of the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative
actions, and repair if necessary. AD 2015-17-14 resulted from reports
that during a full-scale fatigue test, several broken frames in certain
areas of the cargo compartment were found, especially on the cargo
floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand side. We
issued AD 2015-17-14 to address cracking in the open tack holes and
rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, which
could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2015-17-14 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-17-14, further analysis and WFD evaluations
identified the need to reduce the compliance time for the repetitive
inspections for certain airplanes, and to add work for certain
airplanes, and remove certain airplanes from the applicability.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2018-0233R1, dated November 28, 2018 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS
Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -
232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in the
cargo compartment area between Frame (FR) 50 and FR63 have been
found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack
holes on left hand (LH) side.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB [service
bulletin] A320-53-1257, providing inspection instructions, and SB
A320-53-1261, providing modification instructions.
    Consequently, EASA published AD 2013-0310 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2015-17-14], requiring repetitive inspections of the frames
in the cargo compartment area and of the cargo floor support
fittings and open tack holes on the LH side and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of corrective action(s). That [EASA] AD
also required a modification, which constituted terminating action
for the required repetitive inspections.
    After that [EASA] AD was issued, further analyses and widespread
fatigue damage evaluations identified the need to reduce the
threshold and intervals for the repetitive inspections for certain
configurations, and Airbus issued the inspection SB accordingly.
Airbus issued SB A320-53-1360, SB A320-53-1364 and SB A320-53-1365
to supplement SB A320-53-1261, and SB Information Transmission
(SBIT) 16-0070 providing additional information. Consequently, EASA
issued AD 2018-0233, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2013-
0310, which was superseded, but requiring accomplishment of the
repetitive inspections within reduced compliance times for certain
configurations. That [EASA] AD also required additional work for
aeroplanes that had already been modified in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus SB A320-53-1261, Rev. 02.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been determined that
certain A319 aeroplanes may be excluded from the Applicability of
the [EASA] AD, since the calculated compliance time for the initial
inspection is beyond the applicable limit of validity.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to
reduce the Applicability.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0250.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2015-17-14, this proposed AD would retain certain
requirements of AD 2015-17-14. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2018-0233R1, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0233R1 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of the open tack holes and rivet holes of the fuselage frames below the
cargo floor support fittings for cracking. 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, and it is publicly available through the EASA
website.

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 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.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2018-0233R1 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2018-0233R1 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2018-0233R1, through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2018-0233R1 that is required for compliance with EASA AD
2018-0233R1 will be available on the internet http://www.regulations.gov by searching

for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0250 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,009 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2015-17-  Up to 471 work-                  $0  Up to $40,035......  Up to $40,395,315.
 14.                                hours x $85 per
                                    hour = $40,035.
New proposed actions.............  Up to 474 work-              13,000  Up to $53,290......  Up to $53,769,610.
                                    hours x 85 per
                                    hour = $40,290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR 52182, August 28, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0250; Product Identifier 2018-NM-
157-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 10, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-17-14, Amendment 39-18247 (80 FR 52182,
August 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-17-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114,
-115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -
216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any
category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0233R1, dated November 28, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0233R1'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by further analysis and widespread fatigue
damage (WFD) evaluations and full-scale fatigue testing that
indicated that several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo
compartment were found, especially on the cargo floor support
fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand side, which identified
the need to reduce the initial compliance times and repetitive
intervals for the inspections for certain airplanes, and to add work
for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in
the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support
fittings of the fuselage, which could affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(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, EASA AD 2018-0233R1.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0233R1

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0233R1 refers to ``the effective date
of the original issue of this AD,'' this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD, and where EASA AD 2018-0233R1 refers to
``the effective date of EASA AD 2013-0310,'' this AD requires using
October 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-17-14).
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0233R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International

Section, Transport Standards 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
International Section, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-17-14 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2018-0233R1 that
are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0233R1 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2018-0233R1, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2018-0233R1 may be found in the AD docket on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0250.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 10, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08172 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21469-21475]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69300; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing Certain
Fees for the NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT Realtime Reference Prices
Market Data Products

Dated: April 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on March 21, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish certain fees for the NYSE MKT
Trades and NYSE MKT Realtime Reference Prices (``NYSE MKT RRP'') market
data products. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish certain fees for the NYSE MKT
Trades and NYSE MKT RRP market data products.
Background
Current NYSE MKT Trades Basic and Broadcast Fees
    In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the
``Commission'') approved the NYSE MKT Trades data feed and certain fees
for it.\4\ NYSE MKT Trades is a NYSE MKT-only market data feed that
allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same last sale
information that the Exchange reports under the Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') Plan for inclusion in the CTA Plan's consolidated
data streams and certain other related data elements. Specifically,
NYSE MKT Trades includes the real-time last sale price, time, size, and
bid/ask quotations for each security traded on the Exchange and a stock
summary message. The stock summary message updates every minute and
includes NYSE MKT's opening price, high price, low price, closing
price, and cumulative volume for the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62187 (May 27,
2010), 75 FR 31500 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges NYSE MKT Trades data feed recipients
an access fee of $750 per month, and a subscriber fee for professional
subscribers of $10 per month per device, which may be counted, at the
election of the vendor based on the number of ``Subscriber
Entitlements'' \5\ (collectively, these fees are referred to in this
filing as ``NYSE MKT Trades basic fees''). In July 2012, the Exchange
added a fee for distribution by television broadcasters (``Broadcast
Fee''), which is $5,000 per month.\6\ The television broadcast
distribution method differs from the other distribution methods in that
the data is available in a temporary, view-only mode on television
screens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 31501.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67438 (July 13,
2012), 77 FR 42535 (July 19, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current NYSE MKT RRP Fees
    The Exchange also offers NYSE MKT RRP.\7\ NYSE MKT RRP is designed
for Web site distribution and includes the real-time last sale price
and time for each security traded on the Exchange as well as the stock
summary message, but does not include the size of each trade or bid/ask
quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61403 (Jan. 22,
2010), 75 FR 4598 (Jan. 28, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently charges a flat fee of $10,000 per month with
no user-based fees for NYSE MKT RRP. For that fee, the vendor may
provide NYSE MKT RRP to an unlimited number of the vendor's subscribers
and customers without having to differentiate between professional
subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without having to account
for the extent of access to the data, and without having to report the
number of users. As an alternative to the NYSE MKT RRP flat monthly
fee, the Exchange offers an alternative fee of $.004 for each real-time
reference price that a vendor disseminates to its customers (``per
query fee''), which is capped at $10,000 per month, the same amount as
the flat fee. In order to take advantage of the per-query fee, a vendor
must document that it has the ability to measure accurately the number
of queries and must have the ability to report aggregate query
quantities on a monthly basis. The per-query fee is imposed on vendors,
not end-users. There are currently no fees for NYSE MKT RRP that are
specifically designed for television or mobile device distribution.
    NYSE MKT RRP was created to allow distribution of a last sale data
product for reference purposes on Web sites at a low cost that would
facilitate distribution to millions of retail investors and relieve
vendors of administrative burdens.\8\ NYSE MKT RRP is an alternative to
delayed prices and is not intended for use in trading decisions.\9\ As
such, distribution of NYSE MKT RRP is subject to certain requirements.
Specifically, vendors may not provide NYSE MKT RRP in a context in
which a trading or order routing decision can be implemented unless CTA
data is available in an equivalent manner, must label NYSE MKT RRP as
NYSE MKT-only data, and must provide a hyperlinked notice similar to
the one provided for CTA delayed data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61144 (Dec. 10,
2009), 74 FR 67275, 67276-77 (Dec. 18, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Digital Media Offerings
    The Exchange recently created a new version of NYSE MKT Trades,
NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media, which will allow market data vendors,
television broadcasters, Web site and mobile device service providers,
and others to distribute the product to their customers for viewing via
television, Web site, and mobile devices.\11\ The NYSE MKT Trades
Digital Media product includes access to the real-time last sale price,
time, and size for each security traded on the Exchange as well as the
stock summary message, but does not include access to the bid/ask
quotation that is included with NYSE MKT Trades product under the basic
fees or Broadcast Fee. Vendors may not provide the NYSE MKT Trades
Digital Media product in a context in which a trading or order routing
decision can be implemented unless CTA data is available in an
equivalent manner, must label the product as NYSE MKT-only data, and
must provide a hyperlinked notice similar to the one provided for CTA
delayed data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also will offer NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media so that
NYSE MKT RRP will be available for distribution in the same manner as
NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media, via television, Web site, and mobile
devices. The data elements of NYSE MKT RRP (last sale price, time, and
stock summary message) will remain unchanged from today's NYSE MKT RRP
product offering.
    The Exchange has established these Digital Media products in
recognition of

the demand for a more seamless and easier-to-administer data
distribution model that takes into account the expanded variety of
media and communication devices that investors utilize today. For
example, a television broadcaster could display the NYSE MKT Trades
data during market-related television programming and on its Web site
and allow its viewers to view the data via their mobile devices,
creating a more seamless distribution model that will allow investors
more choice in how they receive and view market data.
Proposed Digital Media Fees
    The NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be $5,000 per
month, and the NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media Enterprise Fee will be $2,500
per month. The Exchange notes that the NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media
Enterprise Fee is lower than NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media Enterprise
Fee because it does not include trade size data. Vendors that pay these
fees will not be required to pay an access fee, but they will be
required to pay the redistribution fees as described below. As with the
current NYSE MKT RRP product and the Broadcast Fee, a vendor paying the
Digital Media Enterprise Fee may deliver the NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE
MKT RRP data to an unlimited number of television, Web site, and mobile
device viewers without having to differentiate between professional
subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without having to account
for the extent of access to the data, and without having to report the
number of users.
    For NYSE MKT Trades, the television-only $5,000 Broadcast Fee
option will no longer be available. For NYSE MKT RRP, web-only
distribution for $10,000 per month will no longer be available. The
Exchange does not believe that any customers would elect these options
in light of the broader distribution offered with the new Digital Media
Enterprise Fees and the substantially lower price for NYSE MKT RRP
Digital Media.
    The Exchange will continue to offer the $.004 per query fee for
NYSE MKT RRP to any vendor that so chooses, but the Exchange proposes
to reduce the cap to $2,500, the same amount as the NYSE MKT RRP
Digital Media Enterprise Fee. Vendors and subscribers receiving NYSE
MKT Trades via traditional distribution methods, e.g. a Bloomberg
terminal or a broker-dealer customer Web site that permits order entry,
will not be eligible for Digital Media Enterprise Fees and will
continue to pay NYSE MKT Trades basic fees.
Redistribution Fees
    The Exchange also proposes to charge a redistribution fee of $750
per month for NYSE MKT Trades and $1,500 per month for NYSE MKT
RRP.\12\ The redistribution fees will apply regardless of whether the
customer is eligible for the Digital Media Enterprise Fees or NYSE MKT
Trades basic fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A redistributor is a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE MKT data product to a data recipient or to any
system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative Date
    The Digital Media Enterprise Fees will be operative on April 1,
2013 and the redistribution fees will be operative on May 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $5,000
per month and NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media Enterprise Fee of $2,500 per
month are reasonable because they will offer a means for vendors to
more widely distribute NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT RRP data to
investors for informational purposes at the same cost (in the case of
NYSE MKT Trades) or a lower cost (in the case of NYSE MKT RRP) than is
available today. Currently, NYSE MKT Trades can be distributed via
television for a $5,000 monthly fee, but that fee does not include Web
site or mobile device distribution. NYSE MKT RRP can be distributed
over Web sites for a $10,000 monthly fee, but that fee does not include
television or mobile device distribution. The Exchange believes that
the proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fees are reasonable because in
certain instances they are less than the fees charged by another
exchange for a similar product.\15\ The Exchange also believes that it
is reasonable to charge more for NYSE MKT Trades Digital Media than
NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media because the former includes trade size data.
The Exchange believes that the price reduction for NYSE MKT RRP coupled
with the broader distribution options will make the product more
attractive and result in its greater availability to investors. The
Exchange believes that reducing the cap for the per query fee from
$10,000 to $2,500 is reasonable because it will be equal to the
proposed monthly NYSE MKT RRP Digital Media Enterprise Fee. The
Exchange believes that reducing the cap for the per query fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to
ensure that vendors that elect the per query fee do not pay more for
real-time reference price data than vendors that pay a flat fee for
unlimited use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NASDAQ Stock Market offers proprietary last sale data
products for distribution over the Internet and television under
alternative fee schedules that are subject to a maximum fee is
$50,000 per month. See NASDAQ Rule 7039(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Digital Media Enterprise Fees also are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they will be applied uniformly to
market data vendors, television broadcasters, Web site and mobile
service providers, or any other person that distributes the data on the
basis described in this filing. The Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to offer a lower cost fee structure that is designed to
facilitate broader media distribution of the NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE
MKT RRP data for informational purposes because it will benefit
investors generally. Moreover, the value of the data distributed
generally in the media for informational purposes differs from when it
is distributed in manner in which it can immediately be utilized for
trading decisions. The Exchange believes that the data is more valuable
in that latter context, and as such, it is fair and equitable to have
differential pricing for it.
    In establishing the Digital Media Enterprise Fees, the Exchange
recognizes that there is demand for a more seamless and easier-to-
administer data distribution model that takes into account the expanded
variety of media and communication devices that investors utilize
today. As is the case with the current NYSE MKT RRP product and the
Broadcast Fee, the Exchange believes that the Digital Media Enterprise
Fee will be easy to administer because vendors that purchase it will
not have to differentiate between professional subscribers and
nonprofessional subscribers, account for the extent of access to the
data, or report the number of users; this is a significant reduction in
vendors' administrative burdens and is a significant value to vendors.
For example, a television broadcaster could display the NYSE MKT Trades
Digital Media data during market-related television programming and on
its Web site and allow its

viewers to view the data via their mobile devices, creating a more
seamless distribution model that will allow investors more choice in
how they receive and view market data, all without having to account
for and/or measure who accesses the data and how much they do so. By
easing administration, broadening distribution channels, and, in the
case of NYSE MKT RRP, reducing prices, the Exchange believes that more
vendors will choose to offer NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT RRP, thereby
expanding the distribution of market data for the benefit of investors.
    The proposed redistribution fees also are reasonable because they
are comparable to other redistribution fees charged by the Exchange as
well as other exchanges.\16\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
charge redistribution fees because vendors receive value from
redistributing the data in their business products for their customers.
The redistribution fees also are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged on an equal basis only to
those vendors that choose to redistribute the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the Exchange and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') charge redistribution fees of $2,000 per month for certain
proprietary options market data products. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 68005 (Oct. 9, 2012), 77 FR 63362 (Oct. 16, 2012)
(SR-NYSEArca-2012-106), and 68004 (Oct. 9, 2012), 77 FR 62582 (Oct.
15, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-49). NYSE Arca charges a $3,000 per month
redistribution fee for the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66128 (Jan. 10, 2012), 77 FR 2331 (Jan. 17,
2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-96). The Options Price Reporting Authority's
Fee Schedule, available at http://www.opradata.com/pdf/fee_schedule.pdf, includes an ``Internet Service Only'' redistribution
fee ($650/month) and standard redistribution fee ($1,500/month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon the existence of
competitive market mechanisms to set reasonable and equitably allocated
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.'
    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). 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.' '' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can
rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this
filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the
relevant statutory standards.\18\ In addition, the existence of
alternatives to NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT RRP, including real-time
consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary last
sale data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
such alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended
paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3),
to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by
exchanges on an immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach, and the Exchange
incorporates by reference into this proposed rule change its
affiliate's analysis of this topic in another rule filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63291 (Nov. 9,
2010), 75 FR 70311 (Nov. 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary data feed products is constrained by (1) Actual
competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, (2) the
existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and free delayed
consolidated data, and (3) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary last sale data and the joint product nature of exchange
platforms.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings and order flow and sales of market
data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
    Competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. The U.S. Department of Justice
also has acknowledged the aggressive competition among exchanges,
including for the sale of proprietary market data itself. In announcing
that the bid for NYSE Euronext by NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and
IntercontinentalExchange Inc. had been abandoned, Assistant Attorney
General Christine Varney stated that exchanges ``compete head to head
to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include
the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity
trade, including the last sale.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this recognized
competitive constraint by sending their order flow and transaction
reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single
market. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume * * * dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598.

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

    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide
additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they
control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors
impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example,
vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to
offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not
purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will
enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Similarly, television broadcasters and Web site
and mobile device service providers will not elect to make available
NYSE MKT Trades or NYSE MKT RRP unless they believe it will help them
attract or maintain viewers/customers for their television, Web site,
or mobile device offerings. All of these operate as constraints on
pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade executions are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platforms where the order can be posted, including
the execution fees, data quality, and price and distribution of their
data products. The more trade executions a platform does, the more
valuable its market data products become.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's broker-
dealer customers view the costs of transaction executions and market
data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    Other market participants have noted that the liquidity provided by
the order book, trade execution, core market data, and non-core market
data are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.\22\
The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions and the arguments
therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics literature confirms
that there is no way to allocate common costs between joint products
that would shed any light on competitive or efficient pricing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62887 (Sept. 10,
2010), 75 FR 57092, 57095 (Sept. 17, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-121);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110); and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR 57321, 57324
(Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111) (``all of the exchange's costs
are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data
about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns
reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the
total costs of the joint products.''); see also August 1, 2008
Comment Letter of Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., Statement of Janusz Ordover
and Gustavo Bamberger (``because market data is both an input to and
a byproduct of executing trades on a particular platform, market
data and trade execution services are an example of `joint products'
with `joint costs.'''), attachment at pg. 4, available at
www.sec.gov/comments/34-57917/3457917-12.pdf.
    \23\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis * * *. Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F. W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it
is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both of
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets,
as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and
electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Competition among trading
platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each
platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different
platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable,
pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example,
some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge
relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data
products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for
accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of
paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.
Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce
proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX,
BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can
bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary

product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data
available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual
number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
Because market data users can thus find suitable substitutes for most
proprietary market data products, a market that overprices its market
data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another
source of market data information for its own.
    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20-minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    Those competitive pressure imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing. The Digital Media
Enterprise Fees, which will permit broader distribution at the same
price (in the case of NYSE MKT Trades) or a lower price (in the case of
NYSE MKT RRP) than is available today, also are lower than the maximum
fee for a similar product offered by another exchange\24\ and lower
than the television distribution fee charged by CTA.\25\ The proposed
redistribution fees also are comparable to the Exchange's and another
exchange's similar fees.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra n.15.
    \25\ See CTA Plan dated July 1, 2012, Exhibit E, Schedule A-1 at
n.6 (television distribution fee capped at $125,000 per month in
2010, with certain increases permitted thereafter) available at
http://www.nyxdata.com/CTA.
    \26\ See supra n.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. Today, BATS
and Direct Edge provide certain market data at no charge on their Web
sites in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from
resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for
their users.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, data products are valuable to certain end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in tracking prices and market trends. The
Exchange believes that the Digital Media Enterprise Fees, which will
permit wider distribution of last sale information at either the same
or a lower price, may encourage more vendors to choose to offer NYSE
MKT Trades or NYSE MKT RRP over multiple communication devices and
thereby benefit public investors and other market participants by
providing them with more convenient ways to track prices and market
trends during the course of the trading day. The Exchange further
believes that only vendors that expect to derive a reasonable benefit
from redistributing NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT RRP data will choose
to become redistributors and pay the attendant monthly fees.
    In establishing the proposed fees, 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 fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's
products, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed
consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures
that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns
any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \28\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \29\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \30\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-31 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-NYSEMKT-2013-31. 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 offices of NYSE. 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-NYSEMKT-2013-31, and should
be submitted on or before May 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08326 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76167-76168]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2002-72844]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
8 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 17, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before January 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-2002-12844], using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a

comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 8 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 8 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Howard F. Breitkreutz (MN)
John E. Evenson (WI)
Steven C. Humke (IA)
Craig M. Landry (LA)
Richard E. Nordhausen, Jr. (ID)
Andrew H. Rusk (IL)
Kenneth E. Vigue, Jr. (WA)
Richard A. Winslow (MN)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 8 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 69 FR 71100; 72 FR 1053; 73 FR
76440; 75 FR 80887). Each of these 8 applicants has requested renewal
of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 25, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 8 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 12, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-31000 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57175-57177]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0501]
RIN 1625-AA87

Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, Pacific Rum Run, Catalina Island,
California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard proposes to establish a one-time,
temporary safety zone near Ship Rock, Catalina Island, in support of
the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. This action is necessary to protect the
area near Ship Rock, Catalina Island, public vessels, and the high
speed vessels participating in the event. This regulation would
prohibit vessels from entering into, transiting through, or remaining
within the designated area unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Los Angeles--Long Beach, or her designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0501 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material

received during the comment period. Your comments can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person noted
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule,
and all public comments, are available in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider
doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We
would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date,
time, and location of such a meeting.

III. Background Information

    The Pacific Rum Run race is the 5th race planned as part of the
Ocean Cup Over the Horizon World Speed Record Series with a concept
sanctioned by Union Internationale Motonautique (UIM), American Power
Boat Association (APBA), and Powerboat P1 USA (P1). The race course
begins off of Huntington Beach Pier, proceeds to Ship Rock and
circumnavigates Catalina Island back to Ship Rock, and returns to the
finish at the Huntington Beach Pier. The event will have under ten
racing vessels, and several safety vessels that will transit a course
of approximately 80 miles at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour.
The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los Angeles--Long Beach has determined
that potential hazards associated with event safety may arise due to
the expected high concentration of vessels in the general area along
with the high speed race vessels. For these reasons the Coast Guard
believes that a safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of, and
reduce the risk to, the public, and mariners around Catalina Island.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Based on the safety risks described above the Coast Guard is
proposing to establish a temporary safety zone in the vicinity of the
Two Harbors, Catalina Island. This proposed safety zone would encompass
all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a
line connecting the following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N,
118[deg]30'09'' W, 33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W 33[deg]27'34''
N, 118[deg]28'54'', 33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. All
coordinates displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983,
World Geodetic System, 1984.
    During the enforcement period, vessels and persons would be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining within
the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or
their designated representative. The safety zone would be enforced on
the day of the Pacific Rum Run which is scheduled for October 10, 2020.
The Coast Guard would publish a notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register announcing the exact date and times planned for enforcement of
the safety zone. The general boating public would also be notified
prior to the enforcement of the safety zone via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Commercial vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit through this safety zone, with
coordination by the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative. The Coast Guard and Vessel Traffic Service/Marine
Exchange will coordinate and mitigate all inbound and outbound
commercial traffic movements through the race course. Recreational
traffic will be able to transit around this safety zone, which is near
the Two Harbors, Catalina entrance.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and, governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic
impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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 rely and rates
each agency's responsiveness to small business. 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 proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
E.O. 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone encompassing an area near
Ship Rock, Catalina Island for the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. Such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of the Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. An environmental analysis and
checklist supporting this determination and Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), reporting and record
keeping requirements, security measures, waterways management.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-0501 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-0501   Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, The Pacific Rum Run,
Catalina, California.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line
connecting the following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N, 118[deg]30'09''
W, 33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W 33[deg]27'34'' N,
118[deg]28'54'', 33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. All coordinates
displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World
Geodetic System, 1984.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long
Beach (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) During the enforcement period, vessels and
persons are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining within the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or their
designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach will
use all appropriate means to notify the public in advance of an event
of the enforcement of this safety zone to include publishing a Notice
of Enforcement in the Federal Register and through the Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced on
October 10, 2020. The exact times will be announced via publication of
a Notice of Enforcement and Local Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

    Dated: September 9, 2020.
K.L. Bernstein,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Los Angeles Long
Beach.
[FR Doc. 2020-20282 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P