[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5143-5148]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76972; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Amending the Fees for NYSE Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts

January 26, 2016.
    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 January 13, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 amend the fees for NYSE Order Imbalances
and NYSE Alerts to establish a multiple data feed fee. The Exchange
also proposes to amend the fees for the NYSE Order Imbalances to
discontinue fees relating to managed non-display. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Order Imbalances
\4\ and for NYSE Alerts,\5\ as set forth on the NYSE Proprietary Market
Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to make the
following fee changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59543 (March 9,
2009), 74 FR 11159 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-132), 72923 (Aug.
26, 2014), 79 FR 52079 (Sept. 2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-43) (``2014
Non-Display Filing'') and 73994 (Jan. 6, 2015), 80 FR 1554 (Jan. 12,
2015) (SR-NYSE-2014-77).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50844 (Dec. 13,
2004), 69 FR 76806 (Dec. 22, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Establish a multiple data feed fee for NYSE Order
Imbalances and for NYSE Alerts; and
     Discontinue fees relating to managed non-display for NYSE
Order Imbalances.
Multiple Data Feed Fee for NYSE Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The text of footnote 6 in Exhibit 5 of this proposed rule
change was previously filed under a separate filing. See SR-NYSE-
2016-02 (Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fees for NYSE OpenBook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to establish a new monthly fee, the
``Multiple Data Feed Fee,'' that would apply to data recipients that
take a data feed for a market data product in more than two locations.
Data recipients taking NYSE Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts in more
than two locations would be charged $200 per product per additional
location per month. No new reporting would be required.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Data vendors currently report a unique Vendor Account Number
for each location at which they provide a data feed to a data
recipient. The Exchange considers each Vendor Account Number a
location. For example, if a data recipient has five Vendor Account
Numbers, representing five locations, for the receipt of the Order
Imbalance Data Feed product, that data recipient will pay the
Multiple Data Feed fee with respect to three of the five locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Managed Non-Display Fees for NYSE Order Imbalances
    Non-Display Use of NYSE market data means accessing, processing, or
consuming NYSE market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
\8\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of a data
recipient's display usage or further internal or external
redistribution.\9\ 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.\10\ A Redistributor
approved for Managed Non-Display Services manages and controls the
access to NYSE Order Imbalances and does not allow for further internal
distribution or external redistribution of NYSE Order Imbalances by the
data recipients. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display
Services is required to report to NYSE on a monthly basis the data
recipients that are receiving NYSE market data through the
Redistributor's managed non-display service and the real-time NYSE
market data products that such data recipients are receiving through
such service. Recipients of data through Managed Non-Display Service
have no additional reporting requirements. Data recipients that receive
NYSE Order Imbalances from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-
Display Services are charged an access fee of $250 per month and a
Managed Non-Display Services Fee of $200 per month, for a total fee of
$450 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (Mar. 9,
2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131).
    \10\ To be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor must manage and control the access to NYSE 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, the
Redistributor is 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 Order
Imbalances in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than
using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE
Order Imbalances prior to retransmission without affecting the
integrity of NYSE Order Imbalances and without rendering NYSE Order
Imbalances inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading
or discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the fees related to Managed
Non-Display Services because of the limited number of Redistributors
that have qualified for Managed Non-Display Services and the
administrative burdens associated with the program in light of the
limited number of Redistributors that have qualified for Managed Non-
Display Services. As proposed, all data recipients currently using NYSE
Order Imbalances on a managed non-display basis would continue to be
subject to an access fee of $500 per month, and the same non-display
services fees,\11\ as other data recipients.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fee Schedule.
    \12\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is simultaneously proposing to remove
fees related to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE BBO, NYSE
Trades, and NYSE OpenBook. See SR-NYSE-2016-03 and SR-NYSE-2016-02.
The fees applicable to NYSE Integrated market data product effective
as of January 4, 2016 do not include Managed Non-Display Services
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification of the Application of the Access Fee for NYSE Order
Imbalances
    Data recipients that subscribe to NYSE Order Imbalances are
currently charged an access fee of $500 per month. The Exchange
currently charges an access fee of $5,000 per month to each NYSE
OpenBook data feed recipient. The access fee for NYSE OpenBook allows
recipients of NYSE OpenBook to also receive NYSE Order Imbalances and
NYSE BBO without separately paying additional access fees for these
products.\13\ The Exchange is not proposing any change to the access
fee currently payable for NYSE Order Imbalances. The Exchange notes,
however, that pursuant to a proposed rule change filed separately,
recipients of NYSE OpenBook will no longer receive NYSE Order
Imbalances or NYSE BBO without paying a separate access fee for each of
these products.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (Mar. 9,
2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131), at 11163.
    \14\ See SR-NYSE-2016-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to NYSE
Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts.
Multiple Data Feed Fee for NYSE Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require data
recipients to pay a modest additional fee taking a data feed for a
market data product in more than two locations, because such data
recipients can derive substantial value from being able to consume the
product in as many locations as they want. In addition, there are
administrative burdens associated with tracking each location at which
a data recipient receives the product. The Multiple Data Feed Fee is
designed to encourage data recipients to better manage their requests
for additional data feeds and to monitor their usage of data feeds. The
proposed fee is designed to apply to data feeds received in more than
two locations so that each data recipient can have one primary and one
backup data location before having to pay a multiple data feed fee. The
Exchange notes that this pricing is consistent with similar pricing
adopted in 2013 by the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'').\17\ The
Exchange also notes that the OPRA Plan imposes a similar charge of $100
per connection for circuit connections in addition to the primary and
backup connections.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013) (SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04).
    \18\ See ``Direct Access Fee,'' Options Price Reporting
Authority Fee Schedule Fee Schedule PRA Plan [sic] at http://www.opradata.com/pdf/fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Managed Non-Display Fees for NYSE Order Imbalances
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to discontinue Managed
Non-Display Fees. The Exchange determined in 2013 that its fee
structure, which was then based primarily on counting both display and
non-display devices, was no longer appropriate in light of market and
technology developments.\19\ Since then, the Exchange also modified its
approach to display and non-display fees with changes to the fees as
reflected in a 2014 filing.\20\ Discontinuing the fees applicable to
Managed Non-Display as proposed reflects the Exchange's continuing
review and consideration of the application of non-display fees, and
would harmonize and simplify the application of Non-Display Use fees by
applying them consistently to all users. In particular, after further
experience with the application of non-display use fees, the Exchange
believes that it is more equitable and less discriminatory to
discontinue the distinction for Managed Non-Display services because
all data recipients using data on a non-display basis are using it in a
comparable way and should be subject to similar fees regardless of
whether or not they receive the data directly from the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that applying the same non-display fees to all data
recipients on the same basis better reflects the significant value of
non-display data to data recipients and eliminates what is effectively
a discount for certain data recipients, and as such is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the non-display fees
directly and appropriately reflect 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69278 (April 2,
2013), 78 FR 20973 (April 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-25).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No .72923 (Aug. 26,
2014), 79 FR 52079 (Sept. 2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications to Access Fees for NYSE Order Imbalances
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the changes
proposed to the application of access fees for NYSE Order Imbalances.
Specifically, data recipients that take the NYSE Order Imbalances, or
any other data feed, receive value from each product they choose to
take. A data recipient that chooses to take multiple products (no
recipient is required to take any of products [sic], or any specific
combination of them) uses each product in a different way and therefore
obtains different value from each. Applying an access fee to each
product would bring consistency to the Exchange's application of access
fees to each product. The Exchange believes that each product has a
separate and distinct value that is appropriate to reflect in a
separate access fee. Finally, the requirement to pay separate access
fees for each market data product is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all data recipients and
appropriately reflects the value of each product to those who choose to
use them.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE Order Imbalances and NYSE Alerts are
entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Order
Imbalances or NYSE Alerts available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase
NYSE Order Imbalances or NYSE Alerts. Firms that do purchase these
products do so for the primary goals of using them 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 these products or any other similar
products are attractively priced or not.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Proposing Release on Regulation of NMS Stock
Alternative Trading Systems, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76474 (Nov. 18, 2015) (File No. S7-23-15). See also, ``Brokers
Warned Not to Steer Clients' Stock Trades Into Slow Lane,''
Bloomberg Business, December 14, 2015 (Sigma X dark pool to use
direct exchange feeds as the primary source of price data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.' '' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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. In addition,
the existence of alternatives to these data products, such as
consolidated data and proprietary 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 select such alternatives.
    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 proprietary market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and 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.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.'' \25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
    \26\ 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 competing 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 in light of
the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues
may become 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 also redistributed
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 Order Imbalances
and NYSE Alerts unless their customers request them, and customers will
not elect to pay the proposed fees unless these products 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 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 September 2015, more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE and NYSE's affiliates NYSE Arca and
NYSE MKT 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.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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).
    \28\ 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 11 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of alternative trading
systems (``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.
    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 Global Markets (``BATS'') and Direct Edge,
which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008
and 2010, respectively, provided certain market data at no charge on
their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and used revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE MKT, 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. 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.
    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    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.
    In determining the proposed change to the fees for NYSE Order
Imbalances and NYSE Alerts, 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 is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \30\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \31\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 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) \32\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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-NYSE-2016-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-08. 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 the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 22, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01712 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29361-29362]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11490]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0028; FRL-9908-52-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final
rule regarding reasonably available control technology requirements for
Massachusetts in the Federal Register on September 9, 2013. An error in
Table 52.1167 was identified and is corrected in this action.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA, 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In rule FR Doc. 2013-21618 published on
September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54960), make the following correction. On page
54962, the sixth column of Table 52.1167 incorrectly contained the
placeholder language ``Insert next available paragraph number in
sequence'' in two locations. Rather than this language, table 52.1167
should have indicated the number ``138'' instead.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 1, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by revising the entries
for ``310 CMR 7.18(8) for Solvent Metal Degreasing for 6/1/10'' and
``310 CMR 7.24(6) for Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel for 6/1/10'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1167--EPA-approved  Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                                                    Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
                                                               [See Notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Date submitted   Date approved    Federal Register                     Comments/unapproved
          State citation                 Title/subject           by State         by EPA            citation          52.1120(c)          sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.18(8)..................  Solvent Metal Degreasing.          6/1/10       9/13/2013  78 FR 54960.........             138  ....................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.24(6)..................  Dispensing of Motor                6/1/10       9/13/2013  78 FR 54960.........             138  ....................
                                    Vehicle Fuel.

                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
  date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless stated otherwise in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. 2014-11490 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25577-25579]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0258]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Figure Eight Causeway Channel; Figure Eight Island,
NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Figure Eight Causeway Channel, Figure Eight Island, NC in
support of the fireworks display for a private wedding. This action is
necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public and
spectators from the hazards posed by aerial fireworks displays. Entry
into or movement within this safety zone during the enforcement period
is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on May 31,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0258]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email BOSN4 Joseph M. Edge, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the final details for this event were
not provided to the Coast Guard until April 10, 2013. As such, it is
impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons as discussed above,
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 for comment would impracticable and
contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator
craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard
will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterways
of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts, local notice to
mariners, commercial radio stations, and area newspapers.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On May 31, 2013, East Coast Pyrotechnics will provide a fireworks
display in support of a private wedding over the waters of the Figure
Eight Causeway Channel. The fireworks will be launched from the
southern shore of Figure Eight Causeway Channel. The fireworks debris
fallout area will extend over the navigable waters of Figure Eight
Causeway Channel. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators
from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, including
accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling
hot embers or other debris, vessel traffic will be temporarily
restricted from transiting within fireworks launch and fallout area.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Figure Eight Island Channel in Figure Eight Island, NC. The
regulated area of this safety zone includes all water of the Figure
Eight Island Channel from latitude 34[deg]16'32'' N, longitude
077[deg]45'32'' W, thence east along the marsh to a position located at
latitude 34[deg]16'19'' N, longitude 077[deg]44'55'' W, thence south to
the causeway at position latitude 34[deg]16'16'' N, longitude
077[deg]44'58'' W, thence west along the shoreline to position latitude
34[deg]16'29'' N, longitude 077[deg]45'34'' W, thence back to the point
of origin.
    This safety zone will be effective from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on May
31, 2013. In the interest of public safety, general navigation within
the safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and times.
Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard

Captain of the Port or his representative, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation
restricts access to Figure Eight Causeway Channel, the effect of this
rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in
effect for a limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and
(iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories
so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the Figure Eight Causeway Channel
where fireworks events are being held. This regulation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
will be enforced only during the fireworks display event that has been
permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the
Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the
regulated area when it is safe to do so. In some cases, vessels will be
able to safely transit through the regulated area at various times,
and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander. Before the
enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security

Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(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 establishing a safety zone for a
fireworks display launch site and fallout area and is expected to have
no impact on the water or environment. This zone is designed to protect
mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with aerial
fireworks displays. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34 (g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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 165 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0258 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0258  Safety Zone, Figure Eight Causeway Channel; Figure
Eight Island, NC

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: specified waters
of the Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina, as defined in 33 CFR
3.25-20, all water of the Figure Eight Island Channel from latitude
34[deg]16'32'' N, longitude 077[deg]45'32'' W, thence east along the
marsh to a position located at latitude 34[deg]16'19'' N, longitude
077[deg]44'55'' W, thence south to the causeway at position latitude
34[deg]16'16'' N, longitude 077[deg]44'58'' W, thence west along the
shoreline to position latitude 34[deg]16'29'' N, longitude
077[deg]45'34'' W, thence back to the point of origin.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 of this part apply to the area described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through any
portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or a designated representative, unless the Captain
of the Port previously announced via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on
VHF Marine Band Radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz) that this regulation will
not be enforced in that portion of the safety zone. The Captain of the
Port can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by radio on
VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on May 31,
2013 from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of
the Port.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Sector North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2013-10321 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 50204]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20484]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Star Entertainment Group, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

August 16, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Star Entertainment Group, Inc. (``Star Entertainment'') because of
questions regarding the accuracy of the company's financial statements
published with OTC Markets Group Inc. Star Entertainment's securities
are quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. under the
ticker symbol ``SETY.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-quoted company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-quoted
company is suspended for the period from August 16, 2012, 9:30 a.m.
EDT, on August 16, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on August 29, 2012.

    By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20484 Filed 8-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60363-60365]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19762]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0388; FRL-10013-77]

Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
saflufenacil in or on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, fig, chia seed and
chia straw. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 25, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 24, 2020,
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-2019-0388, is available at http://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>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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_ADDRESS>
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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2019-0388 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 24, 2020. 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-2019-0388, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2019 (84 FR 37818) (FRL-9996-
78), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E8763) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The

State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested the establishment of
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613(a) for residues of the herbicide
saflufenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities: Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at
0.03 parts per million (ppm), Chia, seed at 1 ppm, Chia, straw at 15
ppm, Fig at 0.03 ppm, and Fig, dried at 0.05 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No
comments were received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances that vary from what was requested. The reasons
for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that
``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking
water and in residential settings but does not include occupational
exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for saflufenacil including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with saflufenacil follows.
    On November 25, 2015, EPA published in the Federal Register a final
rule establishing tolerances for residues of saflufenacil in or on
pomegranate based on the Agency's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
saflufenacil is safe for the general population, including infants and
children. See (80 FR 73663) (FRL-9936-71). EPA is incorporating the
following portions of that document by reference here, as they have not
changed in the Agency's current assessment of saflufenacil tolerances:
The toxicological profile and points of departure, the conclusions
about cumulative risk, and the Agency's determination regarding the
children's safety factor. EPA's dietary (food and drinking water)
exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional
exposure from the new uses of saflufenacil on the caneberry subgroup,
fig, and chia.
    The assessment used the same assumptions concerning percent crop
treated and tolerance-level residues and the same estimated drinking
water concentrations as the November 25, 2015 final rule.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100%
of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD): They are less than 1% of
the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population subgroup
with the highest exposure estimate. Chronic dietary risks are below the
Agency's level of concern of 100% of the chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD): They are 20% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year
old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. There
is no short- or intermediate-term exposure expected since there are no
residential uses. Therefore, the acute and chronic aggregate risks
consist only of the dietary risks from food and water and, as stated
above, are below the Agency's level of concern.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to saflufenacil residues. More detailed information
about the Agency's analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
in the document titled ``Saflufenacil. Human Health Risk Assessment in
Support of Tolerances for Residues in/on Pomegranate'' dated November
5, 2015 in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640 and the document titled
``Saflufenacil. Human Health Draft Risk Assessment for a Petition to
Establish Tolerances for Residues in/on Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, Fig,
and Chia'' dated August 7, 2020 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
0388.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) Method D0603/02 is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. 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. No Codex MRLs have been
established for saflufenacil on fig, chia and caneberry.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The tolerance levels being established by EPA for the caneberry
subgroup 13-07A and fig differ from those proposed by the petitioner
due to differences in calculating the combined limits of quantitation
(LOQs) for residues of saflufenacil and its metabolites. The combined
LOQs of 0.035 ppm were rounded to 0.04 ppm by EPA versus 0.03 ppm by
the petitioner. For chia, EPA is translating from the currently
established tolerances for residues on wheat commodities rather than
barley commodities, resulting in tolerance levels of 0.6 ppm for Chia,
seed and 6 ppm for Chia, straw. Quantifiable residues were found in
dried figs; however, when residues are adjusted for the degree of
exaggeration, the residue value is below the recommended fresh fig
tolerance level (0.04 ppm). A separate tolerance for residues on dried
fig is therefore not required.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil
in or on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.04 ppm; chia, seed at 0.6
ppm; chia, straw at 6 ppm; and fig at 0.04 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). 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 and
modifications 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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit 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: August 25, 2020.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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.  180.649 amend paragraph (a)(1) by designating the table and
adding, alphabetical order, in newly designated Table 1 to paragraph
(a)(1) the entries ``Caneberry subgroup 13-07A''; ``Chia, seed'';
``Chia, straw''; and ``Fig'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.649  Saflufenacil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...............................            0.04
Chia, seed..............................................             0.6
Chia, straw.............................................               6

                              * * * * * * *
Fig.....................................................            0.04

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-19762 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22512-22514]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0124 Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-002-AD;
Amendment 39-16274; AD 2010-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model
PIAGGIO P-180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A failure of fuel pump sealing, due to possible incorrect
maintenance procedures and subsequent testing, caused a fuel leakage
into the main landing gear bay. Presence of fuel vapours in that
zone creates a risk of fire due to presence of potential ignition
sources such as electrical equipment and connectors.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 3, 2010.
    On June 3, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal

Register on February 19, 2010 (75 FR 7409). That NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    A failure of fuel pump sealing, due to possible incorrect
maintenance procedures and subsequent testing, caused a fuel leakage
into the main landing gear bay. Presence of fuel vapours in that
zone creates a risk of fire due to presence of potential ignition
sources such as electrical equipment and connectors.
    As a consequence, this new Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires
a functional check of main and stand-by fuel pumps for absence of
leakage and an update of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 63 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $11,340 or $180 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 40 work-hours and require parts costing $7,349, for a total
cost of $10,749 per product. We have no way of determining the number
of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-09-09 Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.: Amendment 39-16274;
Docket No. FAA-2010-0124; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-002-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 3,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model PIAGGIO P-180 airplanes, all serial
numbers up to and including serial number 1192, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A failure of fuel pump sealing, due to possible incorrect
maintenance procedures and subsequent testing, caused a fuel leakage
into the main landing gear bay. Presence of fuel vapours in that
zone creates a risk of fire due to presence of potential ignition
sources such as electrical equipment and connectors.
    As a consequence, this new Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires
a functional check of main and stand-by fuel pumps for absence of
leakage and an update of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For all airplanes, within 30 days after June 3, 2010 (the
effective date of this AD), incorporate PIAGGIO P.180 AVANTI
Maintenance Manual Temporary Revisions No. 33 and 34, both dated
July 7, 2009; or PIAGGIO P.180 AVANTI II Maintenance Manual
Temporary Revisions No. 31 and 41, both dated July 7, 2009, as
applicable, in the approved operator's airplane maintenance program,
e.g., aircraft maintenance manual (AMM).
    (2) For all airplanes equipped with any main or standby fuel
pump part number

1C12-43 that has been replaced for any reason on or before doing the
action in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 150 hours time-in-
service after June 3, 2010 (the effective date of this AD) do a
functional inspection of the main and standby fuel pumps for leakage
following steps 1 through 14 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-
0278, dated July 15, 2009.
    (3) If any leakage is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fuel
pump with a serviceable unit following the Accomplishment
Instructions in PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin
(Mandatory) N.: 80-0278, dated July 15, 2009. For the purpose of
this AD, a serviceable fuel pump is a pump where no leakage is found
during the functional inspection as instructed in the Accomplishment
Instructions of PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin
(Mandatory) N.: 80-0278, dated July 15, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2009-0228, dated October 26,
2009; and PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin (Mandatory)
N.: 80-0278, dated July 15, 2009, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin
(Mandatory) N.: 80-0278, dated July 15, 2009; PIAGGIO P.180 AVANTI
Maintenance Manual Temporary Revisions No. 33 and 34, both dated
July 7, 2009; and PIAGGIO P.180 AVANTI II Maintenance Manual
Temporary Revisions No. 31 and 41, both dated July 7, 2009, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.a., Via Cibrario, 4--16154 Genoa, Italy;
fax: +39 010 6481 881; Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 19, 2010.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9609 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 15560]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC18-57-000]

Notice of Petition for Waiver; Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC

    Take notice that on March 13, 2018, Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline,
LLC filed a petition for a new two-year waiver of the requirement that
an independent certified public accountant attest to the conformity of
the content set out in Black Hills Shoshone's FERC Form No. 2-A,
reflecting activity for 2017.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 158.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2018.

    Dated: April 5, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07490 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P