[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57149-57151]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25826]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563; FRL-9969-16]

Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple
Chemicals)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for the
pesticides listed in this document. These actions are in response to
EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of these
pesticides. In addition, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in
food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency
exemption granted by EPA.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 4, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 2, 2018,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select
``Test Guidelines for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 2, 2018. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0563, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA previously published final rules in the Federal Register for
each chemical and commodity listed, establishing time-limited
tolerances under FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a.
    EPA established the tolerances because FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from
the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food
that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency
exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be
established on EPA's own initiative and without providing notice or
time for public comment.
    EPA received requests to extend the emergency use of these
chemicals for this year's growing season. After having reviewed these
submissions, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist. EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues for each chemical in the
listed commodities. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerance under
FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard
and with FIFRA section 18.
    The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and
discussed in the final rules originally published to support these
uses. Based on that data and information considered, the Agency
reaffirms that extension of these time-limited tolerances will continue
to meet the requirements of FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the
time-limited tolerances are extended until the date listed. EPA will
publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked
tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although these
tolerances will expire and are revoked on the date listed, under FFDCA
section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the
amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on the commodity
after that date will not be unlawful, provided the residue is present
as a result of an application or use of a pesticide at a time and in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, the tolerance was in effect at the
time of the application, and the residue does not exceed the level that
was authorized by the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke these
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Tolerances for the use of the following pesticide chemicals on
specific commodities are being extended:
    A. Clothianidin. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of clothianidin on citrus for control of the Asian citrus psyllid in
Florida and Texas. This regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for
residues of the insecticide clothianidin and its metabolites in or on
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.07 ppm for an additional 3-year period.
This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2020. A time-
limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal Register of
February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10003) (FRL-9919-59).
    B. Sulfoxaflor. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of sulfoxaflor on sorghum for control of the sugarcane aphid in several
states. This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for residues of
the insecticide sulfoxaflor and its metabolites in or on sorghum,
forage at 0.4 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.3 ppm; and sorghum, stover at
0.9 ppm for an additional 3-year period. The tolerances will expire and
are revoked on December 31, 2020. Time-limited tolerances were
originally published in the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR
4512) (FRL-9920-45).

III. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for clothianidin in/on citrus fruits
at 0.07 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerance established for
clothianidin in/on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 in the United States. The
Codex has not established any MRLs for sulfoxaflor in/on sorghum
commodities.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to petitions submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 20, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.586, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.586  Clothianidin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                     Parts per    revocation
                                                  million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10....................        0.07     12/31/20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  180.668, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180. 668  Sulfoxaflor; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                      Parts per   revocation
                                                   million       date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorghum, forage................................         0.4     12/31/20
Sorghum, grain.................................         0.3     12/31/20
Sorghum, stover................................         0.9     12/31/20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-25826 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13202-13203]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0870; Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-7]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Maxwell, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at the Maxwell VHF
Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC),
Maxwell, CA, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft under control of Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC). This action enhances the safety and management of IFR
operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 12, 2014 the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
the Maxwell VORTAC, Maxwell, CA (79 FR 73853). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the
National Business Aviation Association in support of the proposal.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found an inadvertent omission of
exclusionary language regarding the 12-mile offshore territorial limit.
This action makes the correction.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward
from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Maxwell VORTAC navigation aid,
Maxwell, CA. By this action, aircraft are contained while in IFR
conditions under control of Oakland ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en
route airspace to terminal areas. This action enhances the safety and
management of controlled airspace within the NAS.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at the Maxwell VORTAC, Maxwell,
CA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En route domestic airspace areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E6 Maxwell, CA [New]

Maxwell VORTAC, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]19'03'' N., long. 122[deg]13'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 39[deg]42'30''
N., long. 124[deg]25'58'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]40'00'' N., long.
124[deg]06'00'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]05'00'' N., long. 120[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]33'00'' N., long. 120[deg]18'00'' W.; to lat.
38[deg]27'00'' N., long. 123[deg]23'00'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]59'30''
N., long. 124[deg]00'00'' W.; thence to the point of beginning,
excluding that airspace beyond 12-miles of the shoreline.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 27, 2015.
Johanna Forkner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, AJV-
W2.
[FR Doc. 2015-05708 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47250-47251]
[DOCID:fr13au08-159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on May 15, 2008, vol. 73, no. 95, pages
28183-28184. SFAR 36 (to part 121) relieves qualifying applicants
involved in aircraft repair of the burden to obtain FAA approval of
data developed by them for the major repairs on a case-by-case basis;
and provides for one-time approvals.

DATES: Please submit comments by September 12, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Development of Major Repair Data.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0507.
    Forms(s): 8100-8.
    Affected Public: An estimated 9 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 10 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 181 hours annually.
    Abstract: SFAR 36 (to part 121) relieves qualifying applicants
involved in aircraft repair of the burden to obtain FAA approval of
data developed by them for the major repairs on a case-by-case basis;
and provides for one-time approvals.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information

is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-18641 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1560-1565]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73995; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances

January 6, 2015.
    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 December 23, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on
a managed non-display basis and an access fee for managed non-display
data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. 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 eligibility requirements for
redistribution of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances on a managed non-display
basis and to establish an access fee for managed non-display data
recipients of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances, operative January 1, 2015.
    Non-Display Use of NYSE MKT market data means accessing,
processing, or consuming NYSE MKT market data delivered via direct and/
or Redistributor \3\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of
a data recipient's display or further internal or external
redistribution. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display
Services manages and controls the access to NYSE MKT Order Imbalances
and does not allow for further internal distribution or external
redistribution of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances by the data recipients.
Managed Non-Display Services Fees apply when a data recipient's non-
display applications are hosted by a Redistributor that has been
approved for Managed Non-Display Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE data product to a data recipient or to any system
that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is
required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data
recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through the
Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display
Service does not have any reporting requirements.
    Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved
under the Exchange's Unit-of-Count policy.\4\ The Exchange is proposing
to retire the Unit-of-Count Policy,\5\ and as a result, eligibility for
Managed Non-Display Services of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances would no
longer be based on eligibility under the Unit-of-Count Policy. The
Exchange proposes instead to establish eligibility requirements
specifically for the redistribution of market data for Managed Non-
Display Services. The Exchange also proposes to add an access fee that
would apply to a data recipient that receives NYSE MKT Order Imbalances
from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61936 (Apr. 16,
2010), 75 FR 21088 (Apr. 22, 2010)(SR-NYSEAmex-2010-30 (notice) and
62187 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR 31500 (June 2, 2014) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-
35) (approval order) (Unit-of-Count Policy filing). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285 (April 3, 2013), 78 FR
21172(Apr. 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-32) and 72020 (Sept. 9, 2014),
79 FR 55040 (Sept. 15, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-72) (establishing fees
for non-display use of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances). The Unit-of-Count
Policy currently applies to NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades and
NYSE MKT BBO as a method for counting Users. For NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances, the Policy sets the criteria for eligibility for Managed
Non-Display Services.
    \5\ The Exchange has separately proposed to retire the Unit-of-
Count Policy and modify the eligibility requirements for Managed
Non-Display Services for all of its proprietary market data
products, including NYSE MKT Order Imbalances, and thereby harmonize
the eligibility requirements for all NYSE MKT data products that
have Managed Non-Display fees. See SR-NYSEMKT-2014-113 (amending
fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook) and SR-NYSEMKT-2014-115 (amending fees
for NYSE MKT BBO and NYSE MKT Trades) (collectively, ``NYSE MKT 2014
Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed
Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements
for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the
Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow
for further internal distribution or external redistribution of the
information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide
Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to
(a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment
located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and
(b) offer NYSE MKT Order Imbalances in the Redistributor's own
messaging formats (rather than using raw NYSE message formats) by
reformatting and/or altering NYSE MKT Order Imbalances prior to
retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances and without rendering NYSE MKT Order Imbalances inaccurate,
unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The
proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution
models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70748 (Oct. 23,
2013), 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-105) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for
NASDAQ OMX Phlx (``Phlx'')); 70269 (Aug. 27, 2013), 78 FR 54336
(Sept. 3, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-106) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish non-display
Managed Data Solution for NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'')); and
69182 (Mar. 19, 2013), 78 FR 18378 (Mar. 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-28)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for Phlx
equities market PSX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display
Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-
Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a
monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A
data recipient receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through a
Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have
any reporting requirements.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $250/
month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, all data recipients,
including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to
pay an Access Fee of $500/month to receive NYSE MKT Order Imbalances.
Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for
access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients.\7\ In
recognition that data recipients of Managed Non-Display Services
receive NYSE MKT Order Imbalances in a controlled format, the Exchange
proposes to reduce the Access Fee by half for those data recipients
that only receive Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances. In connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes
to amend the NYSE MKT LLC Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule to specify that the current Access Fee of $500/month is
charged to data recipients other than those receiving data through
Managed Non-Display Services. The proposed Managed Non-

Display Access Fee would be in addition to the current Managed Non-
Display Services Fee of $100/month by each data recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is proposing to establish access fees
for Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT
BBO, and NYSE MKT Trades that is also half of the existing access
fee for each respective data feed. See NYSE MKT 2014 Filings, supra
note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements
for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more
closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is
reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the
Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the
market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar
requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-
Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to
recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee
because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a
controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the
significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of
computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading
activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to
grow through innovation and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx
also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access
fees for such services.\11\ The fee is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6. NASDAQ offers a Managed Data Solution
that assesses a monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of
$1,500 and monthly Subscriber fees of $60 for non-professionals to
$300 for professionals. See NASDAQ Rule 7026(b). Phlx charges a
monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of $2,000 and a
monthly Subscriber fee of $500. The monthly License fee is in
addition to the monthly Distributor fee of $3,500 (for external
usage), and the $500 monthly Subscriber fee is assessed for each
Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-
Phlx-2013-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the
feeds.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is entirely
optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to
any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances. Firms that do purchase NYSE MKT Order Imbalances do so for
the primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses,
and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for
order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances or any other similar products are
attractively priced or not.
    The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase
proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations.\12\ 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 alternative trading systems
(``ATSs'') have chosen not to do so.\13\ Firms that do not wish to
purchase NYSE MKT Order Imbalances at the new price can choose similar
alternative products,\14\ or can choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use NYSE MKT Order Imbalances data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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).
    \13\ For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, L.P. has
disclosed that it does not use proprietary market data in connection
with Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3, available at
http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-order-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of
comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses proprietary market data
feeds from all registered stock exchanges and LavaFlow ECN. See
http://www.iextrading.com/about/.
    \14\ See NASDAQ Rule 7023 (Nasdaq Totalview and Openview).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') 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.' '' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 proprietary market 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.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as
described below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in
isolation from prices charged by markets for other services that are
joint products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to
litigation and may distort incentives, including those to minimize
costs and to innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based
pricing, the Commission would be burdened with determining a fair
rate of return, and the industry could experience frequent rate
increases based on escalating expense levels. Even in industries
historically subject to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking
has been discredited. As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based
ratemaking would be inappropriate for proprietary market data and
inconsistent with Congress's direction that the Commission use its
authority to foster the development of the national market system,
and that market forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing
discipline. See Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's
2000 Concept Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees
and Revenues, which can be found on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
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 for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample 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. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (D.C. Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete
head-to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity
data products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, 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. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. 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.'' \18\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \19\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary market data products because
they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if
an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and
trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable
to customers using them in support of order routing and trading
decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by
competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus,
competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts
significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data
fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the
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.
Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE MKT Order Imbalances
unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay
the proposed fees unless NYSE MKT Order Imbalances can provide value by
sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's
business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange 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, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of 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 availability and quality,
and price and distribution of their data products. Without a platform
to post quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data
products would not exist.
    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 platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions 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 generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT, and the

NYSE's affiliates, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), was executed by market participants that
purchased one or more proprietary market data products (the 20 firms
were not the same for each market). A supra-competitive increase in the
fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of
reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\20\ 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll 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 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).
    \21\ 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 because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
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.
    As noted above, 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 various forms of ATSs, including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''), and
internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow
and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FINRA's Alternative Display Facility also receives over-
the-counter trade reports that it sends to CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 trading 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. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated
as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively,
have provided 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.\23\ Similarly, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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.
    \24\ See ``LavaFlow--ADF Migration,'' available at https://www.lavatrading.com/news/pdf/LavaFlow_ADF_Migration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell 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, internalizing broker-
dealers, 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. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. 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. With respect to NYSE MKT Order Imbalances,
competitors offer similar data.\25\ Because market data users can 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing, and indeed in the fact that
the changes here have the effect of lowering the price for NYSE MKT
Order Imbalances.
    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. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an
exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and
obtained exchange status in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides
market data to its subscribers at no charge.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting 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 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 the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient 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 has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\27\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2014-114 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-NYSEMKT-2014-114. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE MKT. 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-2014-114 and should
be submitted on or before February 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00214 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47738-47739]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Murray, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Murray,
KY, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Murray
Calloway County Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at the heliport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-
647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-
6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Murray

Calloway County Hospital Heliport, Murray, KY.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted
in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2016-6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Murray,
KY, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new
Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Murray
Calloway County Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the heliport
would be established for IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Murray, KY [New]

Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport, KY
    (Lat. 36[deg]36'27'' N., long. 88[deg]18'36'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-17311 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34963-34964]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0433]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tennessee River Mile 643 to 652, Knoxville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Tennessee River south of mile 643 to 652 on August 7, 2021. This safety
zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created during the rowers associated
with the event. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
(COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0433 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST3 Joshua Rehl, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-
5421, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
was notified of the event without ample time to allow for a reasonable
comment period because we must establish this safety zone by August 7,
2021.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because action is needed on August 7,
2021 to ensure the safety of the participants in the Three Rivers
Regatta, rowing marine event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Three Rivers Regatta, rowing marine event, will be a safety concern for
anyone within the rowing area. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the special local regulated area for the duration of the rowing
event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the Tennessee
River from mile markers 643 to 652 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August
7, 2021. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while
high speed boat races are taking place. No non-participant vessels or
persons will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels and
persons transiting the area must comply with all orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or their designated representative. The COTP
will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via
broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene designated
representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, 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. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety
zone restricts transit on theTennessee River from mile 643 to 652. The
area will have limited access for a period of 9 hours. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins, as appropriate,
about this safety zone so that waterway users may plan accordingly for
this short restriction on transit. This rule will allow vessels to
request permission to enter the safety zone.

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 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
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 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
call or email 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 annually 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 rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This 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 Executive Order 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 rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

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 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 rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning 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 lasting 9 hours that will prohibit entry within MM 643 to
652, on the Tennessee River, of vessels for the duration of the Three
Rivers Regatta, rowing marine event. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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
recordkeeping requirements, Secuity measures, Waterways.

    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 100 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0433 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0433  Safety Zone; Knoxville, TN. Tennessee River.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: All waters of the Tennessee River from mile marker 643
to mile marker 652.
    (b) Regulations. (1) All non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or their
designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by Sector Ohio Valley command center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on August 7, 2021.

    Dated: June 27, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-14051 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P