side of the market from the Agency Order does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the amendment will apply
equally to all Members. All Members may utilize Complex PIM.
    Deleting ISE Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(vi) within Complex PIM, as
well as a related paragraph in Supplementary Material .01(b)(ii) of ISE
Options 3, Section 14, which describes Complex Order Exposure, related
to the early termination of single-leg PIM from the arrival of
unrelated marketable interest on either the same or opposite side of
the market from the Agency Order does not impose an undue burden on
inter-market competition as other options exchanges may adopt similar
rules. In addition to mirroring to MRX Options 3, Section 13, Phlx \98\
and BX \99\ do not permit unrelated marketable interest on either the
same or opposite side of the market from an Agency Order to early
terminate their simple price improvement auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See note 17 above.
    \99\ See note 18 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Complex Order Amendments
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to the
Complex Orders rule will impose any significant burden on inter-market
competition. Other exchanges today offer complex order functionalities.
These options markets may amend their rules to mirror those of ISE.
Other options exchanges offer orders similar to Complex Preferenced
Orders.\100\ Additionally, the proposed Complex Opening Process is
identical to MRX \101\ and similar to Phlx.\102\ Finally, the proposed
Complex Opening Process methodology would allow ISE to compete with
other options exchanges that offer Complex Order functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See e.g. Phlx Options 2, Section 10 and MIAX Rule 100.
    \101\ See note 3 above. MRX amendment Supplementary Material .05
to Options 3, Section 14.
    \102\ See Phlx Options 3, Section 14(d)(ii)(C)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Only Complex Order
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the word ``Limit'' within the
description of the Opening Only Complex Order Type in ISE Options 3,
Section 14(b)(10) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because this proposed change will apply to all Members.
Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to remove the word ``Limit''
within the description of the Opening Only Complex Order Type in ISE
Options 3, Section 14(b)(10) does not impose an undue burden on inter-
market competition because other options exchanges could adopt a
similar order type.

Complex QCC With Stock Orders
    The Exchange's proposal to amend an incorrect citation with ISE
Options 3, Section 14(b)(15), related to Complex QCC with Stock Orders,
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market or inter-market
competition because the amendment is non-substantive.
Complex Preferenced Orders
    The Exchange's proposal to add ``Complex Preferenced Orders'' to
the list of Complex Order Types in ISE Options 3, Section 14(b) does
not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. Preferred
Market Makers have obligations \103\ unlike other market participants.
The allocation entitlements for Preferred Market Makers are designed to
balance the obligations that the Preferred Market Makers has to the
market with corresponding benefits. In order to receive the
participation entitlement for a Complex Preferenced Order, Preferred
Market Makers are required to quote 90% of the trading day as compared
to Market Makers who are required to quote 60% of the trading day.\104\
Further, Priority Customers \105\ have priority over non-Priority
Customer interest at the same price in the same options series on the
single-leg order book. \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See ISE Options 2, Section 5.
    \104\ See ISE Options 2, Section 5.
    \105\ See note 83 above.
    \106\ See ISE Options 3, Section 10(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of receipt of the Complex Preferenced Order, a
Preferred Market Maker would have to be quoting at the NBBO, which is
intended to incentivize the Preferred Market Maker to quote
aggressively in order to execute against the Complex Preferenced Order.
Preferred Marker Makers are not able to ascertain if a particular order
is a Complex Preferenced Order. The Exchange believes the proposal will
encourage Market Makers to quote tighter and add a greater amount of
liquidity on ISE in an attempt to interact with Complex Preferenced
Orders that are sent to the Exchange. This order flow will benefit all
market participants on the Exchange because any ISE Member may interact
with that order flow. Finally, any ISE Member on the single-leg or
Complex Order Book may trade with a Complex Preferenced Order. Also,
any ISE Market Maker may elect to receive Preferenced Order.
    The Exchange's proposal to add ``Complex Preferenced Orders'' to
the list of Complex Order Types in ISE Options 3, Section 14(b) does
not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options
exchanges could adopt a similar order type.
Complex Opening Price Determination
    The Exchange's proposal to amend an incorrect citation within
Supplementary Material .05(d)(2) to Options 3, Section 14, related to
the Potential Opening Price, does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition or inter-market burden on competition because the
amendment makes clear the correct applicable text it was referring to
within the Rulebook.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .05(d)(3)
to ISE Options 3, Section 14, which describes the Complex Opening Price
Determination, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because all Members may submit interest into the Complex
Opening Process.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .05(d)(3)
to ISE Options 3, Section 14, which describes the Complex Opening Price
Determination, does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition because other options exchanges today offer complex order
functionalities. These options markets may amend their rules to mirror
those of ISE.
Complex Order Risk Protections
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the title of a Complex Order Risk
Protection in Options 3, Section 16, Complex Order Risk Protections
from ``Limit'' to ``Complex'' Order Price Protection does not impose an
undue burden on intra-market or inter-market competition because the
change in the title makes clear the contents of that rule.
Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's amendment to Options 3, Section 6(c)(2) to correct a
citation does not impose an undue burden on intra-market or inter-
market competition because it makes clear the proper ISE rule that was
being referenced.
    The Exchange's amendments to Options 3, Section 8(b)(2) and Options
3, Section 9(d)(2) related to Trading Halts does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market or inter-market competition because the
amendments make the rule clear.
    Finally, the Exchange's amendment to Options 3, Section 8(j)(3)(B)
to remove duplicative rule does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market or inter-market competition because it removes confusion from
the rule.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \107\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \108\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2022-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2022-28. This file

number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2022-28, and should be submitted on
or before January 12, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27785 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6778]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2079-079]

Placer County Water Agency; Notice of Comment Period Extension

    On January 10, 2019, the Commission issued a notice through the
FERC eLibrary system \1\ setting March 11, 2019, as the end of the
formal period to file comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, and terms and conditions on the amendment application
for the Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project No. 2079. Due
to the funding lapse at certain federal agencies between December 22,
2018 and January 25, 2019, the Commission is extending the comment
period until March 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Go to https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/intermediate.asp?link_file=yes&doclist=14735810 and select the file
link to view the document.

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03440 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13072-13073]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Seventh Annual Drug Information Association/Food and Drug
Administration Statistics Forum--2013; Public Conference

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in cosponsorship with
the Drug Information Association (DIA), is announcing a public
conference entitled ``Seventh Annual DIA/FDA Statistics Forum--2013.''
The purpose of the conference is to discuss relevant statistical issues
associated with the development and review of therapeutic drugs and
biologics. This meeting is intended to be an open forum for the timely
discussion of topics of mutual theoretical and practical interest to
statisticians and clinical investigators who are involved in the
development of new drugs and biologics. A primary focus for this
meeting will be to establish an ongoing dialogue regarding FDA's
``Critical Path'' initiative--emphasizing the regulatory and
statistical challenges associated with innovative approaches to the
design and analysis of clinical trials data and measuring the progress
being made in designing and implementing innovative solutions.

DATES: The public conference will be held on April 28, 2013, to May 1,
2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public conference will be held at the Marriott Bethesda
North Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Rd., Bethesda, MD
20852, 1-301-822-9200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Burnett, Drug Information Association, 800 Enterprise Rd.,
Horsham, PA 19044, 1-215-293-5800, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Stephen Wilson, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This annual FDA/DIA statistics forum will establish a unique, open,
international forum for statisticians and clinicians from industry,
academia, contract research organizations, and

Government Agencies. Meeting participants will learn, discuss, and
collaborate on the current and emerging statistical methodologies and
quantitative approaches used by sponsors to provide evidence for the
approval of new therapies.
    The goals of the program are to:
     Explore and implement innovative statistical solutions to
issues associated with the regulatory review of therapeutic drugs and
biologics.
     Describe the application of statistical methodologies and
thinking to the development of new therapeutic biologics and drugs.
     Assess the impact of regulations and guidance on
statistical practice.
     Discuss ideas for improving the communication between
industry statisticians and FDA reviewers.
    A description of the planned activities of the working groups can
be found at http://www.diahome.org/en/Meetings-and-Training/Find-Meetings-and-Training/Meeting-Details.aspx?ProductID=30457&EventType=Meeting.

II. Registration and Accommodations

A. Registration

    To register, please submit the registration form online at http://www.diahome.org/en/Meetings-and-Training/Find-Meetings-and-Training/Meeting-Details.aspx?ProductID=30457&EventType=Meeting (FDA has
verified the Web site address, but is not responsible for subsequent
changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.) Registration fees cover the cost of facilities, materials,
and food functions. Seats are limited, and conference space will be
filled in the order in which registrations are received. Onsite
registration will be available to the extent that space is available on
the day of the conference. The costs of registration for different
categories of attendee are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Representatives.......................................   $1,400
Charitable Nonprofit/Academic (Full time)......................      700
Government (Full time).........................................      420
Tutorial Fees..................................................      405
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Government and nonprofit attendees and exhibitors will need an
invitation code to register at the discounted rate. An invitation code
can be obtained by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
All registrants will pay a fee with the exception of a limited number
of speakers/organizers who will have a complimentary registration.

B. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. Attendees
making reservations at the Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and Conference
Center, Bethesda, MD, are eligible for a reduced conference rate of
$209, not including applicable taxes. Those making reservations online
should use the group code ``13008'' to receive the special rate. If you
need special accommodations because of disability, please contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days before the meeting.

    Dated: February 21, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-04331 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


<EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

(7/1/2007)>

<EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [Leonard
Cole<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<SUBMISSION: E-mail the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<TEMPLATE:>

<[Organic Works]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([8E7446]) from [Organic Works/
BioNet International Corp. c/o], [Interregional Research Project Number
4, 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ  08540] proposing, pursuant to
section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.1258>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for>

<	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance
exemption for the>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. microbial pesticide  [insert name of active ingredient]>

<	2. biochemical pesticide [Acetic acid]>

<	3. plant-pesticide [insert name of active ingredient] in or on [insert
commodity].>

<	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [Organic
Works c/o BioNet International Corp.] has submitted the following
summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their
pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [Interregional Research
Project Number 4,  IR-4] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of
the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the
terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material,
or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the
findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the
petitioner.>

<I. [Organic Works ]  Petition Summary>

<	[8E7446]>

<A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices>

<	[ Weed Works Weed & Grass Killer is a horticultural vinegar to manage
weeds. Use patterns will include pre plant and post plant directed
applications. Since this product is non-selective the product will be
applied either when the crop is not present or the application will be
directed away from the crop. In addition , applications will be made to
remaining vegetation after the crop has been harvested. The product is
not intended for any direct application to any harvested portion the
crop.]>

<B. Product Identity/Chemistry>

<	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [The active
ingredient is acetic acid. Product chemistry data was submitted as MRID
46958301.]>

<	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. [Since this product is a non-selective herbicide
the product will be applied either when the crop is not present or the
application will be directed away from the crop. The product is not
intended for any direct application to the crop therefore only a minor
amount of  inadvertent residues could occur. Acetic acid is a naturally
occurring substance found in all  plants therefore inadvertent residues
would be indistinguishable from acetic acid already in the crop.  The
petition is for an exemption from tolerance on all food commodities
therefore the magnitude and method of residue analysis is not
applicable.  A review of residue data supporting this petition was
submitted (MRID 46944103)]>

<	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [There are no known
analytical studies which have determined residue magnitudes on plant
tissues following the herbicidal application of acetic acid.  At the
upper application rate of 55 pounds of active ingredient per acre  the
resulting concentrations should be well below the 1 to 1.5% levels
predicted when acetic acid is applied to hay or grain, a use for which
acetic acid has gained an exemption from the requirements of a tolerance
40 CFR 180.1258. Since this product is a non-selective herbicide the
product will be applied either when the crop is not present or the
application will be directed away from the crop. The product is not
intended for any direct application to the crop therefore only a minor
amount of  inadvertent residues could occur. Acetic acid is a naturally
occurring substance found in all  plants therefore inadvertent residues
would be indistinguishable from acetic acid already in the crop.

The petition is for an exemption from tolerance on all food commodities
therefore the magnitude and method of residue analysis is not
applicable.]>

<C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile>

<	[The toxicological profile of acetic acid was submitted in MRID
46944102 and 46944105.  Acetic acid is a naturally occurring compound in
plants and animals with a fundamental role in cell metabolism,
particularly in the tricarboxylic acid cycle (also know as the citric
acid or Kreb’s cycle)” which is carried out in the mitochondria.  A
key feature is that “three of these food acids (citric, fumaric and
malic) are used over and over again in the production” of ATP, carbon
dioxide and water.  As it enters this catabolic cycle, the>  acetyl
molecule (acetic acid) is broken down and serves as the source of energy
transformed into ATP, the carbon converted into carbon dioxide and the
hydrogen present in the production of water molecules.   Toxicology data
was collected from information in the public literature.

) ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY  indicated that the Rat LD50 = 3310 mg/kg and the
Mouse LD50 = 4960 mg/kg

ACUTE DERMAL TOXICITY Rabbit LD50  = 1060 mg/kg (b.w.)

ACUTE INHALATION TOXICITY Mouse LC50  (1 h) = 5620 ppm/h

                                                    Rat LC50  (4 h) =
11.4 mg/l

ACUTE EYE IRRITATION Rabbit open irritation test to eye  – severe
irritation

ACUTE DERMAL IRRITATION Rabbit open administration to skin – severe
irritation effects

RABBIT SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION, lowest reported lethal concentration =
1200 mg/kg ,

Mouse intravenous injection, LD50 =  525 mg/kg (b.w.) BACTERIAL REVERSE
MUTATION	Ames Test - Bacterial Reverse Mutation assay -  No genotoxic
effects with or without metabolic activation.

Standard Ames Test - Bacterial Reverse Mutation assay -  No genotoxic
effects with or without metabolic activation

	Ames Test - Bacterial Reverse Mutation assay -  No genotoxic effects
with or without metabolic

CONTINUOUS INHALATION TEST	Rat continuous inhalation (3 to 35 days) at
11- 35 ppm: decreased activity, behavioural changes and reduced work
capacity

TERATOGENICITY 	Mouse Developmental Toxicity/Teratogenicity (17 days)
– doses up to 		1600 mg/kg bw/day – No effects on nidation or on
maternal or fetal survival

                                       Rat Developmental
Toxicity/Teratogenicity (10 days) – doses up to 1600

                                             mg/kg bw/day – No effects
on nidation or on maternal or fetal survival

		Rabbit Developmental Toxicity/Teratogenicity (23 days) – doses up to
				1600 mg/kg bw/day – No effects on nidation or on maternal or fetal
				survival

Insert text.]

<D. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [The product is not intended for any direct
application to the crop therefore only a minor amount of  inadvertent
residues could occur. Acetic acid is a naturally occurring substance
found in all  plants therefore inadvertent residues  would be
indistinguishable from acetic acid already in the crop. Acetic acid is
found in vinegar which is a widely consumed product . The use of Acetic
acid as a herbicide is not anticipated to significantly increase the
margin of exposure to acetic acid.   .]>

<	i. Food. [The product is not intended for any direct application to
the crop therefore only a minor amount of  inadvertent residues could
occur. Acetic acid is a naturally occurring substance found in all
plants therefore inadvertent residues  would be indistinguishable from
acetic acid already in the crop.  Acetic acid is found in vinegar which
is a widely consumed product  .]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [Acetic acid is not intended for use in aquatic
environment. It is not labeled for application to any body of water]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Insert text  .]>

<E. Cumulative Effects>

<	[Insert text .]>

<F. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Acetic acid is naturally occurring as the acid in
apple cider vinegar and other fruit-derived products. It and several of
its salts are commonly used as food additives (e.g., as flavor
enhancers) and are listed as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the
USFDA. Given the lack of significant toxicity, the natural occurrence in
both plants and animals, and the common use in foods, there is adequate
data available to determine that establishment on an exemption from
tolerance for acetic acid would not have any adverse effects.acid.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [Acetic acid is naturally occurring as the
acid in apple cider vinegar and other fruit-derived products. It and
several of its salts are commonly used as food additives (e.g., as
flavor enhancers) and are listed as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
by the USFDA. Given the lack of significant toxicity, the natural
occurrence in both plants and animals, and the common use in foods,
there is adequate data available to determine that establishment on an
exemption from tolerance for acetic acid would not have any adverse
effects .]>

<G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems>

<	[Acetic acid is not known to be an endocrine disruptor]>

<H. Existing Tolerances>

<	[In 40 CFR 180.1258 acetic acid has existing exemption from the
requirements of a tolerance when applied to hay or grain as a desiccant.

 ]>

<I. International Tolerances>

<	[There are no known international tolerances]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50816-50818]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0504; Product Identifier 2017-NE-12-AD; Amendment
39-19415; AD 2018-19-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GEVEN S.p.A. Seat Assemblies, Type D1-
02 and D1-03

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
GEVEN S.p.A. (Geven) Type D1-02 and D1-03 seat assemblies. This AD was
prompted by a report that seat belt attachment bolts were found
detached or partially detached from the seat. This AD requires
inspection, torque verification, and modification of certain model
seats. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 14, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 14,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Geven Technical Assistance Department, Via Boscofangone, Zona
Industriale Nola-Marigliano, 80035 Nola (NA), Italy; phone: +39 081 31
21 396; fax: +39 081 31 21 321; email: [email protected].
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0504.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0504; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Doh, Aerospace Engineer, Boston
ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7757; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Geven, Type D1-02
and D1-03 seat assemblies. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32494). The NPRM was prompted by a report that
seat belt attachment bolts were found detached or partially detached
from the seat. The NPRM proposed to require inspection, torque
verification, and modification of certain model seats. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2014-0187, dated August 20, 2014 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI
states:

    An operator reported that seat belt attachment bolts were found
detached or partially detached from the seat. A further check on
several aeroplanes revealed that on a large number of seats of the
same model, the seat belt attachment bolts were not properly torqued
and secured as defined. This condition, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to failure of the seats to perform their
intended function, possibly resulting in injury to occupants in case
of an emergency landing. To address this potential unsafe

condition, Geven published SB No. D103-25-004 to provide inspection
instructions to verify if the seat belt attachment bolts are
properly torqued and secured, and correction of any deficiencies. In
addition, for certain D1-03 seats, the SB provides instructions to
modify the seat belt attachment assembly. For the reasons described
above, this EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of all safety
belt attachment bolts and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
the applicable corrective action(s). This EASA AD also requires
modification of the seat belt attachment assembly on certain D1-03
seats.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0504.

Comments

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

Clarification to the Number of Affected Airplanes

    Since we issued the NPRM, we determined that we needed to identify
the specific number of affected Avions de transport regional (ATR) 42
and ATR 72 airplanes rather than list the overall number of airplanes
that are affected. The estimated costs have not changed.

Clarification to Required Actions

    We also determined that the compliance in the NPRM was not clear as
to which Geven seats required modification and which required bushing
replacement. We have clarified the Required Actions in this AD.
Additionally, all Geven Type D1-02 and D1-03 safety belt assemblies are
torque checked, but, only Geven Type D1-03 seat belt attachment
assemblies on the aisle side spreader must be modified.

Clarification of Service Information Reporting Requirements

    We also determined that Geven Service Bulletin (SB) No. D103-25-
004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016, specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer. This AD does not include that
requirement.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except
for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15,
2016. The SB describes procedures for inspection, torque verification,
and modification of certain model seats known to be installed on ATR 42
and ATR 72 airplanes. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects an unknown number of seat
assemblies installed on, but not limited to, 25 ATR 42 airplanes and 13
ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat modification--ATR 42..........  1.5 work-hours x $85 per               $302         $429.50      $10,737.50
                                      hour = $127.50.
Torque check--ATR 42...............  0.8 work-hours x $85 per                  0           68.00        1,700.00
                                      hour = $68.00.
Seat modification--ATR 72..........  2.3 work-hours x $85 per                368          563.50        7,325.50
                                      hour = $195.50.
Seat remove and replace--ATR 72....  1.2 work-hours x $85 per                  0          102.00        1,326.00
                                      hour = $102.00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-19-15 GEVEN S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19415; Docket No. FAA-2017-
0504; Product Identifier 2017-NE-12-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 14, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to certain GEVEN S.p.A. (Geven) Type D1-02
(also known as ``Lightweight AFT facing seats'') and D1-03 (also
known as ``Lightweight'' Classic and Prestige) in-arm table,
standard, and last row seats, with part numbers (P/Ns) and
Effectivity Codes listed in Table 1.1.1 of Geven Service Bulletin
(SB) No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016.
    (2) These appliances are installed on, but not limited to,
Avions de transport regional (ATR) 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that seat belt attachment bolts
were found detached or partially detached from the seat. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seats to perform their
intended function, which, if not detected and corrected, could
possibly result in injury to occupants in case of an emergency
landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within six months after the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March
15, 2016, for all Geven Type D1-03 (also known as ``Lightweight''
Classic and Prestige) in-arm table, standard, and last row seats, P/
N D1-03-()()()-()()(), modify the safety belt attachment assemblies
on the aisle side spreader, and torque check the safety belt
attachment assemblies on the central and fuselage side spreaders to
71 in-lbs. (8 nm).
    (2) Within six months after the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March
15, 2016, for all Geven Type D1-02 (also known as ``Lightweight aft
facing seats'') in-arm table, standard, and last row seats, P/N D1-
02-()()()-()()(), perform the following:
    (i) Torque check the seat belt attachment assemblies on the
aisle side, central, and fuselage side spreaders to 71 in-lbs., and
verify that the safety belt attachment is free to rotate.
    (ii) If the safety belt attachment is not free to rotate
following paragraph (g)(2)(i), replace the bushing in accordance
with paragraph 3.3.1 of Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated
March 15, 2016, or block each affected seat until the bushing
replacement is accomplished.

(h) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information identified in paragraph (g) of
this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that reporting requirement.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the Boston ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Neil Doh,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-
0187, dated August 20, 2014, for more information. You may examine
the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2017-0504.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) GEVEN S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. D103-25-004, Revision 4,
dated March 15, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Geven
Technical Assistance Department, Via Boscofangone, Zona Industriale
Nola-Marigliano, 80035 Nola (NA), Italy; phone: +39 081 31 21 396;
fax: +39 081 31 21 321; email: [email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 27, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21872 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41447-41453]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16534]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69935; File No. SR-BYX-2013-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Impose
Fees for Market Data

July 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 26, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to
amend its fee schedule applicable to Exchange Members \3\ and other
market data recipients to assess market data fees for internal and
external distribution of the BYX PITCH (including both TCP PITCH and
Multicast PITCH), BYX TOP, and BYX Last Sale Feed data feed products
(PITCH, TOP and Last Sale Feed collectively referred to in this
proposal as the ``Data Feeds''). Although changes to the fee schedule
pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange will
implement the proposed revised fees on July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the BYX fee
schedule with respect to the fees for the BYX PITCH (including both TCP
PITCH and Multicast PITCH), BYX TOP and BYX Last Sale Feed data
products. For BYX PITCH, data recipients would pay a single fee,
regardless if the data recipient receives BYX TCP PITCH, BYX Multicast
PITCH, or both. The Exchange's other data products will continue to be
offered free of charge. Below is a description of each of the Data
Feeds, as well as a brief description of the other data products
offered by the Exchange that are impacted by this proposal.
(i) TCP PITCH
    The BYX TCP PITCH data feed provides Exchange data recipients with
depth of book quotations and execution information. The PITCH feeds
offered by BYX (including Multicast PITCH) are the data feeds through
which Exchange data recipients can receive full, real-time quotation
and execution information. Each PITCH message reflects the addition,
deletion or execution of an order in the System.\4\ TCP PITCH is the
data feed used by Exchange data recipients to receive BYX PITCH
information via a TCP/IP connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in BYX Rule 1.5(aa), the term ``System'' means
``the electronic communications and trading facility designated by
the Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated
for ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' As
defined in BYX Rule 1.5(cc), the term ``User'' means ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
[Exchange's] System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Multicast PITCH
    The BYX Multicast PITCH data feed, like TCP PITCH, offers depth of
book quotations and execution information, however, unlike TCP PITCH,
this data feed is transmitted in a manner that can be processed more
efficiently by recipients. This is achieved by using binary messages.
BYX offers both WAN-shaped and Gig-shaped versions of the Multicast
feed. Exchange data recipients may choose one or more Multicast PITCH
feed options depending on their location and connectivity to BYX.
(iii) TOP
    The BYX TOP data feed offers top of book quotations and last sale
execution information. By only providing top of book quotations and
last sale information, TOP offers data recipients a significant
reduction in required bandwidth and processing when compared to BYX's
standard TCP PITCH data feed. The quotations made available via TOP
provide an aggregated size and do not indicate the size or number of
individual orders at the best bid or ask.
(iv) Last Sale Feed
    The BYX Last Sale Feed offers real-time, intraday trade
information, including price, volume and time of executions. Because
quotes are not shown, the BYX Last Sale Feed results in much less data
than other BYX data feeds and requires less technology development for
data recipients.
(v) Other BYX Data Feeds
    The Exchange will continue to offer certain other market data
products to Members and other market data recipients free of charge.
These data products include (i) Multicast Latency Feed, which offers
real-time latency information; (ii) DROP, which contains order
execution and other information (e.g., modifications and cancellations)
specific to the Exchange activity of one or more Users; and (iii) BYX
Historical Data (PITCH, TOP and Last Sale Feed), which offers up to
three months of data on a T+1 basis available via download from the BYX
Web site or additional data beyond three months available via an
external hard drive.
    Upon the Exchange's initial offering of the BYX PITCH (including
both TCP PITCH and Multicast PITCH) and BYX TOP data products, such
services were provided at no cost. In SR-BYX-2011-012, the Exchange
stated that ``should the Exchange determine to charge fees associated
with [BYX PITCH (including both TCP PITCH and Multicast PITCH) and BYX
TOP], the Exchange will submit a proposed rule change to the Commission
in order to implement those fees.'' \5\ Although the Exchange has not
previously made a BYX Last Sale Feed available to market data
recipients, the Exchange recently filed a rule change with the
Commission to add the BYX Last Sale Feed data product to the list of
data products made available

by BYX, as set forth in Rule 11.22,\6\ and is proposing to charge a fee
for such data feed through this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-64444 (May 9, 2011)
76 FR 28115 (May 13, 2011) (File No. SR-BYX-2011-012).
    \6\ See SR-BYX-2013-022, filed June 24, 2013, available at:
http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_filings/approved/2013/SR-BYX-2013-022_approved.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is designed to implement fees for the receipt of
PITCH (including both TCP PITCH and Multicast PITCH), TOP and Last Sale
Feed data products.
    The proposed amendment to the BYX fee schedule codifies such fees
associated with the receipt of PITCH (including both TCP PITCH and
Multicast PITCH), TOP and Last Sale Feed. The Exchange, like other
market centers and other data providers, intends to assess fees for
individuals and entities that receive real-time market data directly or
indirectly and act as either internal or external distributors of such
market data.
    A ``Data Recipient'' of Exchange data is any entity that receives a
Data Feed directly from the Exchange or indirectly through another
entity and then distributes such data internally (within that entity)
to ``Internal Subscribers'' or externally (outside that entity) to
``External Subscribers'' or ``Data Feed Subscribers.'' An ``Internal
Subscriber'' is any end-user of the Exchange data affiliated with the
Data Recipient where the Data Recipient can substantially control the
Exchange data for purpose of reporting usage or qualification of the
end-user. An ``External Subscriber'' is any end-user of the Exchange
data not affiliated with the Data Recipient where the Data Recipient
can substantially control the Exchange data for purpose of reporting
usage or qualification of the end-user. A ``Data Feed Subscriber'' is
any end-user of the Exchange data outside of the Data Recipient that
receives the Exchange data from a Data Recipient for which the Data
Recipient cannot substantially control the Exchange data for the
purpose of reporting usage or qualification of the end-user.
    All Data Recipients and Data Feed Subscribers must execute a BATS
Global Markets, Inc. Data Agreement with BATS Global Markets, Inc.,
acting on behalf of itself and the Exchange, and, as a result, would be
charged the applicable monthly access fee described below. All External
Subscribers must execute a BATS Global Markets, Inc. Subscriber
Agreement or equivalent with the Data Recipient that is distributing
the Exchange data to such External Subscriber; however, neither
External Subscribers nor Internal Subscribers would be charged the
monthly access fee described below for the receipt of such data.
    Data Recipients (including Data Feed Subscribers) would be charged
a separate monthly access fee to access: (i) The BYX PITCH data
product; (ii) the BYX TOP data product; and/or (iii) the BYX Last Sale
Feed data product. The amount of the monthly access fees would depend
on whether the Data Recipient is distributing the Exchange data
internally or externally. Data Recipients distributing the Exchange
data internally are proposed to be charged $500 per month for access to
the BYX PITCH data product, $500 per month for access to the BYX TOP
data product, and $500 per month for access to the BYX Last Sale Feed
data product. Data Recipients distributing the Exchange data externally
are proposed to be charged $2,500 per month for access to the BYX PITCH
data product, $2,500 per month for access to the BYX TOP data product,
and $2,500 for access to the BYX Last Sale Feed data product. The fee
paid by a Data Recipient distributing the Exchange data externally
includes the fee for distributing the Exchange data internally and thus
permits a Data Recipient distributing the Exchange data externally to
also provide the data internally (i.e., to users within their own
organization) for a single access fee. The Exchange does not propose to
charge Data Recipients a per user fee for internal or external
distribution of Exchange Data.
    The Exchange will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide at
least 60 days advance notice to Data Recipients (delivered via email
and posted to BYX' Web site) of any changes to fees for the Exchange
data, provided, however, that such notice shall be not less than 30
days prior to the effectiveness of the change. Receipt or use of the
Exchange data after the applicable notice period will constitute
acceptance of such fees.
    Data Recipients will only pay one access fee, regardless of the
number of locations or users to which the Data Feeds are received or
distributed. In addition, neither Data Recipients nor their end-users
will be charged per-user device fees when used to receive the Data
Feeds, nor will they be charged per-user display fees when used to
present the Data Feeds.
    If a Data Recipient desires to have one or more of its affiliates
\7\ be bound by the terms and conditions of the BATS Global Markets,
Inc. Data Agreement, the Data Recipient may submit a list of any such
affiliate(s) to BATS Global Markets, Inc. Including affiliates under
the same data agreement would entitle any such affiliate to access and
use data from the Exchange for no additional fee (assuming either (i)
the Data Recipient and the affiliate each are distributing the data
internally, or (ii) the Data Recipient is distributing the data
externally and the affiliate is distributing the data either internally
or externally). One or more of the entities (each a ``Connected
Entity'') that is part of the group comprised of the Data Recipient and
the affiliates included under the same agreement (collectively, the
``Affiliate Group'') is permitted to own connectivity directly with
BYX. Further, any member of the Affiliate Group that, in addition to
receiving Exchange data directly from BYX, also receives uncontrolled
Exchange data indirectly from another Data Recipient (in addition to
the Connected Entity) is not required to execute a separate data
agreement; rather, that entity is bound by the same data agreement
executed by the applicable member of the Affiliate Group. Lastly, if a
Data Recipient is receiving Exchange data from (i) multiple third-party
distributors or (ii) from one or more third-party distributors and the
Exchange, the Data Recipient would only be required to pay one access
fee--either the internal distribution access fee or the external
distribution access fee--depending on whether the Data Recipient is
distributing the Exchange data internally or externally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ``affiliate'' of a Data Recipient includes any entity
that, from time to time, directly or indirectly Controls, is
Controlled by, or is under common Control with the Data Recipient.
``Control'' means the power to direct or cause the direction of the
management of policies of another entity, whether through the
ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fees on July 1,
2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the rule change proposed in this
submission is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\
because it provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
its Members and other recipients of Exchange data and is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between them. The Exchange believes
that its proposed fees

for the data products described herein are reasonable in light of the
benefits to data recipients and the fact that certain other Exchange
data feeds will continue to be provided free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As described in more detail below, the proposed fees are based on
pricing conventions and distinctions that exist in the fee schedules of
other exchanges. These distinctions (depth-of-book versus top-of-book
and internal distribution versus external distribution) are each based
on principles of fairness and equity that have helped for many years to
maintain fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and
that apply with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
    For example, NASDAQ Exchange (``NASDAQ'') charges data recipients
of its NASDAQ TotalView data feed $2,000 per month for NASDAQ-listed
security depth entitlements and $1,000 per month for non NASDAQ-listed
security depth entitlements to receive the data feed directly from
NASDAQ. If the data recipient then distributes the data, it pays an
additional internal or external distribution fee depending on the
method of distribution. NASDAQ charges $1,000 per month for internal
distribution of NASDAQ-listed security depth entitlements and $500 per
month for internal distribution of non NASDAQ-listed security depth
entitlements, and $2,500 per month for external distribution of NASDAQ-
listed security depth entitlements and $1,250 per month for external
distribution of non NASDAQ-listed security depth entitlements. NASDAQ
also charges end-user fees per professional and non-professional
subscriber for NASDAQ TotalView.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NASDAQ OMX Rule 7019 and NASDAQ OMX Rule 7023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ charges data recipients that distribute its NASDAQ Basic
data feed $1,500 per month for best bid and offer and last sale
information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities. Data recipients
that subscribe to the NASDAQ Basic web service must pay a fee of $1,500
per month, plus the applicable distribution and subscriber fees. NASDAQ
also charges end-user fees per professional and non-professional
subscriber or, in the alternative, NASDAQ charges per query fees for
NASDAQ Basic.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') charges data recipients of its book feed,
PSX TotalView, a $1,000 monthly fee to receive its data feed directly
from PSX. If the data recipient then distributes the data, it pays an
additional internal or external distribution fee depending on the
method of distribution. These distribution fees are $500 per month for
internal distribution and $1,250 per month for external distribution.
PSX also charges end-user fees per professional and non-professional
subscriber for PSX TotalView.\12\ NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') charges data
recipients of its book feed, BX TotalView, the same access fees and
distribution fees as PSX, and also charges end-user fees per
professional and non-professional subscriber for BX TotalView.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NASDAQ PSX Pricing Schedule.
    \13\ See NASDAQ OMX BX Rule 7019 and NASDAQ OMX BX Rule 7023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE charges data recipients of its book feed, NYSE OpenBook, a
$5,000 monthly fee to receive its data feed directly or indirectly from
NYSE. NYSE also charges end-user fees per professional and non-
professional subscriber for NYSE OpenBook. NYSE charges data recipients
of its last sale feed, NYSE Real-Time Reference Prices, a $60,000
monthly fee to receive this feed containing only NYSE data directly or
indirectly from NYSE. If a data recipient wishes to receive NYSE, NYSE
Arca and NYSE MKT data, NYSE charges the data recipient a $100,000
monthly fee to receive this feed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of EDGX Exchange (``EDGX'') and EDGA Exchange (``EDGA'')
charge $500 per month for internal distribution and $2,500 per month
for external distribution of their EDGX and EDGA book feeds,
respectively. In addition, each of EDGX and EDGA charge $2,500 per
month for internal distribution and $5,000 per month for external
distribution of their EdgeBook Attributed feeds.\15\ Neither EDGX nor
EDGA charge a per user fee for internal or external distribution of its
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EDGX Exchange Fee Schedule; See also EDGA Exchange Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revenue generated from Exchange data fees will help offset the
costs that the Exchange incurs in operating and regulating a highly
efficient and reliable platform for the trading of U.S. equities. This
increased revenue stream will permit the Exchange to offer an
innovative service at a reasonable rate, structured in a manner
comparable to and consistent with other market centers that provide
similar market data products.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See infra note 21 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to make such data available until such
time as it changes its rule.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is also consistent with
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \17\ in that it does not impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The fees charged would be the same for all
similarly-situated market participants, and therefore do not
unreasonably discriminate among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker-dealers (``BDs'') increased
authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the
public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of
data available to consumers and also spur innovation and competition
for the provision of market data.
    The Exchange believes that its Data Feeds are precisely the sort of
market data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted
Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by
deregulating the market in proprietary data--would itself further the
Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barak [sic] Obama signed into law H.R.
4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among
other things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A)
of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are

immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues,
fees, or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members,
or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3)
of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day
period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)],
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the
rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    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), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for 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.' '' \19\
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.' '' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NetCoalition, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. no. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair and
equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that the fees proposed for the Data Feeds are fair
and equitable in that they are optional and apply uniformly to all data
recipients irrespective of each recipient's relationship to the
Exchange (e.g., Member, non-Member data recipient, etc.) except with
respect to reasonable distinctions as between internal and external
distribution.\21\ The proposed fees are based on pricing conventions
and distinctions (e.g., internal versus external distribution and
controlled versus uncontrolled data feed) based on established
principles of fairness and equity that have helped to maintain fair,
equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply
with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange notes that distinctions based on internal
versus external distribution have been previously filed with the
Commission by NASDAQ, BX, PSX, and EDGX. See Nasdaq Rule 7019(b).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62876 (September 9,
2010), 75 FR 56624 (September 16, 2010) (File No. SR-PHLX-2010-120);
62907 (September 14, 2010), 75 FR 57314 (September 20, 2010) (File
No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-110); 63442 (December 6, 2010), FR 77029
(December 10, 2010) (File No. SR-BX-2010-081); 66864 (April 26,
2012), 77 FR 26064 (May 2, 2012) (File No. SR-EDGX-2012-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of a Data Recipient's reasons for subscribing to the
Data Feeds, the fees for such feeds apply equally to all Data
Recipients that wish to use the feeds for internal use only and equally
to all Data Recipients that wish to redistribute the feeds.
    The Exchange proposes charging Data Recipients that distribute
Exchange data externally more than Data Recipients that distribute
Exchange data internally because of higher administrative costs
associated with monitoring methods of distribution and ongoing
reporting by those Data Recipients distributing the data externally, as
required in the BATS Global Markets, Inc. Data Agreement and Exchange
requirements referenced therein. The Exchange believes that the access
fees for the Data Feeds are reasonable and fair in light of
alternatives offered by other market centers, as described above.
    Efficiency is promoted when Members who do not need the Data Feeds
are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Exchange also
believes that efficiency is promoted when Members may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data. Only those consumers that deem such
products to be of sufficient overall value and usefulness will purchase
them. The Exchange is not required to make the Data Feeds available or
to offer specific pricing alternatives for potential purchases. The
Exchange has chosen to make the Data Feeds available to improve market
quality, attract order flow, and increase transparency. The Exchange
can discontinue offering a pricing alternative and firms can
discontinue their use at any time and for any reason, including due to
their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged.
    Lastly, competition is promoted as the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees without losing business to its competitors.\22\ The
Exchange continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at
increasing fairness and equitable allocation of fees among data
recipients. If the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair or
inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue their use of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See infra discussion in Section 4 [sic], ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. The
Exchange believes that a record may readily be established to
demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
    The proposal is, as described below, pro-competitive. There is
intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction
execution and routing services and proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution
service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic
example [sic] of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether
and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of
the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution
fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data products.
Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to a posted
order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without orders entered and trades executed, exchange
data products cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end
users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect
will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's BD
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD will direct
orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from
executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs
and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading
decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is,
in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable
trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected
value, the BD will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular
exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two
reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because
executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and
perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is
directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a
super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions
or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products.
    ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.''
\23\ However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow
implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with
order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders
toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow
from one platform to another in response to order execution price
differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market
data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored
platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the
change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the
platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their
trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the
need for the more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NetCoalition, at 24 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. 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.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information 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 information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary
because an ``excessive'' price for one of the joint products will
ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold
by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume
of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In
other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to
be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume
of both data and executions will fall.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    BDs currently have numerous alternative venues for their order
flow, including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and
various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including, but not limited to, NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca,
Direct Edge and International Securities Exchange.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as the Exchange and Arca did before registering as exchanges
by publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Indeed,
in the case of the Data Feeds, the data provided through these products
appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the SIPs
for a fee, and (ii) free SIP data products

with a 15-minute delay, and find close substitutes in products of
competing venues.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data that they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs, such as Schwab and
Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes
trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the
business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the
same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product
that fails to provide sufficient value. The Exchange and other
producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to
these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to
market proprietary data products successfully. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that products such as the Data Feeds can enhance order flow to
the Exchange by providing more widespread distribution of information
about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider
participation in the market by investors with access to the Internet
and television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors
and investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products
contain less content.
    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, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants,
including the Exchange, that swiftly grew into some of the largest
electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers:
Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN and
Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate
profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg, and Thomson
Reuters.
    Competition among platforms has driven the Exchange continually to
improve its market data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, the Exchange has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms that enable customers to receive data in the form
and manner they prefer and at the lowest cost to them.
    The Exchange offers data via multiple extranet providers, thereby
helping to reduce network and total cost for its data products. Despite
these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message traffic, to date
the Exchange has been able to offer most of its market data without
charge. Moreover, platform competition has intensified as new entrants
have emerged, constraining prices for both executions and for data.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the last few years. In all cases,
firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on
the basis of the total cost of interacting with the Exchange or other
exchanges. Of course, the explicit data fees are but one factor in a
total platform analysis. Some competitors have lower transactions fees
and higher data fees, and others are vice versa. The market for the
proposed data is highly competitive and continually evolves as products
develop and change.
    In establishing the fees for the Data Feeds, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for the type of data being
offered and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange
believes that it has considered all relevant 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 Data Feeds, including real-time
consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data
from other sources ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, without losing
business to these alternatives.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\25\
because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by BYX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2013-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2013-23. 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 BYX. 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-BYX-2013-23 and should be submitted on
or before July 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16534 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 13893]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2533-062]

Brainerd Public Utilities; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2533-062.
    c. Date Filed: March 1, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Brainerd Public Utilities.
    e. Name of Project: Brainerd Hydroelectric Project (Brainerd
Project).
    f. Location: The Brainerd Project is located on the Mississippi
River, in the City of Brainerd, in Crow Wing County, Minnesota. The
project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Magnuson, Superintendent, Brainerd
Public Utilities, 8027 Highland Scenic Road, P.O. Box 273, Brainerd, MN
56401. Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Patrick Ely at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Brainerd Project consists of: (1) A short left embankment;
(2) a 256-foot-long powerhouse containing five turbine generators with
a totaled installed capacity of 2.9425 megawatts (MW); (3) a 78-foot-
long slide gate section; (4) a 207-foot-long bascule (crest) gate
section; (5) a single 20-foot-wide steel Tainter gate; (6) a 200-foot-
long right embankment; (7) a 236-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt overhead
transmission line; (8) a 25-foot-high dam; and (9) 2,500-acre
impoundment.
    The Brainerd Project is operated in a run-of-river mode with an
estimated annual energy production of approximately 19,392 megawatt
hours. Brainerd Public Utilities proposes to continue operating the
project as a run-of-river facility and does not propose any new
construction to the project. A license amendment allows for a sixth
turbine generator unit, which would increase the total installed
capacity to 3.5425 MW. The sixth turbine generator unit has not yet
been installed. See 156 FERC ] 62,045 (2016).
    l. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)....  April 2021.
Request Additional Information............  April 2021.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for    August 2021.
 Environmental Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: March 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05064 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P