Endothall Case (002245)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: December 31, 2014

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2012.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2012.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2011.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

Date: December 31, 2014

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of

Endothall Case (002245)

Sorted Alphabetically

Reporting Years: 2004-2012

Average	Percent Crop Treated

	Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Average	Maximum

1	Alfalfa 	3,000	< 1	< 2.5

2	Cotton 	2,000	< 1	< 2.5

3	Potatoes 	4,000	< 2.5	< 2.5

All numbers are rounded.

	  <2.5: less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

	  <1: less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States

Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15212-15213]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1397-000]

PGR 2020 Lessee 8, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
PGR 2020 Lessee 8, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 5, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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 by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 16, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05893 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33876-33877]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0036]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit, Kinder Morgan Texas
Pipeline, LLC

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on
a request for special permit received from Kinder Morgan Texas
Pipeline, LLC. (KMTP). The special permit request is seeking relief
from compliance with certain requirements in the federal pipeline
safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period,
PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its
evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Note: There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at [email protected].
    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit request from
KMTP, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., seeking a waiver from the
requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and (d): Change in class location:
Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure, and
49 CFR 192.619(a): Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or
plastic pipelines.
    This special permit is being requested in lieu of pipe replacement,
pressure reduction, or new pressure tests for a Class 1 to 3 location
change on one (1) gas transmission special permit segment totaling
814.78 feet (approximately

0.154 miles) of pipeline in Harris County, Texas. The special permit
segment is on KMTP's 16-inch diameter Line Index 65-15 Pipeline, which
operates at a maximum allowable operating pressure of 1,211 pounds per
square inch gauge and was constructed in 2002.
    The special permit request, proposed special permit with
conditions, and draft environmental assessment (DEA) for the above
listed KMTP special permit segment is available for review and public
comments in Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0036. PHMSA invites interested
persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and
DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted.
Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date.
Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is
possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA
will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision
to grant or deny this special permit request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-11874 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43656]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0091]

Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a
Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides notice that on August
31, 2017, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify
a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0091.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. B.L. Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.
    NS seeks to discontinue the signal system on the Meadville Line
between Greenville, PA, milepost (MP) MI 128.6 and control point (CP)
Hubbard MP MI 150.8 at Hubbard, OH.
    This includes CP Cole, CP Sharpsville, two head block signals and
18 automatic signals. New operative approach signals will be placed at
MP Ml 148.6 in approach to CP Hubbard and at MP Ml 133.8 in approach to
Shenango.
    The main track between MP Ml 128.6 and CP Hubbard MP Ml 150.8 will
be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. The sidings within the
application limits at Cole, Budd, Clark and Sharpsville will be made
noncontrolled, other than main track.
    The reason for the proposed change is that operations no longer
require a signal system.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-19688 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13120-13121]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL00-95-179, et al.]

San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Filings

March 7, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Seller of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange

[Docket No. EL00-95-179]

    Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange

[Docket No. EL00-98-165]

    Take notice that on February 27, 2006, El Paso Marketing, L.P.
filed a supplemental Cost Recovery Analysis, or in the alternative, a
response to the Commission's Order issued January 26, 2006.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 20, 2006.

2. TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.

[Docket No. ER05-111-003]

    Take notice that on March 2, 2006, TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.
(TC Hydro NE) filed proposed revisions to its FERC Electric Tariff No.
1 pursuant to Commission's February 16, 2006 Order.
    TC Hydro NE requests a waiver of the requirements of Sec.  35.13 of
the regulations on the basis that those requirements are not relevant
to the instant filing.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2006.

3. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company

[Docket No. ER05-1165-005]

    Take notice that on February 7, 2006, South Carolina Electric and
Gas Company tendered for filing a revised compliance refund report.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 17, 2006.

4. Teresa Conway

[Docket No. ID-4811-000]

    Take notice that on February 14, 2006, Teresa Conway filed an
Application for Authorization to Hold Interlocking Positions pursuant
to Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and part 45 of the
Commission's Regulations.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3587 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40578-40582]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83811; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-53)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate the
``PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds'' Into the Market
Data Enterprise License Proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

August 9, 2018
    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 July 27, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This amendment is immediately effective upon filing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed change was initially filed on July 3, 2018,
and became immediately effective on that date. See SR-Phlx-2018-51,
available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/. It was subsequently
refiled on July 17, 2018. See SR-Phlx-2018-52, available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/. A firm eligible to purchase the
enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq may purchase it for the month
of July, effective on July 3, 2018, and the monthly fee for the
license will be prorated for the period July 3 through July 31,
2018. Any fees owed by the purchaser of the enterprise license for
the use of NLS Plus on July 1 and July 2, 2018, will also be
prorated accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate the ``PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq
Last Sale Plus Data Feeds'' into the market data enterprise license
proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), which is designed
to lower fees, reduce administrative costs, and expand the availability
of Nasdaq Last Sale (``NLS'') Plus, NLS, Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-
of-Book products. The proposal is described in further detail below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange proposes to incorporate the ``PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq
Last Sale Plus Data Feeds'' into the market data enterprise license
proposed by Nasdaq,\4\ which is designed to lower fees, reduce
administrative costs, and expand the availability of NLS Plus, NLS,
Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-of-Book products (TotalView and Level 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NASDAQ-2018-058 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS Plus is a comprehensive data feed offered by Nasdaq that allows
distributors to access the three last sale products \5\ offered by
Nasdaq and its affiliated U.S. equity exchanges,\6\ as well as the
FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF''). It provides total
cross-market volume information at the issue level, and reflects the
cumulative consolidated volume of real-time trading activity for Tape
A, B and C securities.\7\ NLS Plus provides Trade Price, Trade Size,
Sale Condition Modifiers, Cumulative Consolidated Market Volume, End of
Day Trade Summary, Adjusted Closing Price, IPO Information, and
Bloomberg ID. Additionally, pertinent regulatory information such as
Market Wide Circuit Breaker, Regulation SHO Short Sale Price Test
Restricted Indicator, Trading Action, and Symbol Directory are
included. NLS Plus may be received by itself or in combination with
NASDAQ Basic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The three last sale products consist of Nasdaq Last Sale, BX
Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. PSX Last Sale consists of two data
feeds containing real-time last sale information for trades executed
on the Exchange. ``PSX Last Sale for Nasdaq'' contains all
transaction reports for Nasdaq-listed securities. ``PSX Last Sale
for NYSE/NYSEAmex'' contains all such transaction reports for
securities listed on NYSE, NYSE Amex, and other exchanges.
    \6\ The Nasdaq, Inc. U.S. equity markets are Nasdaq PSX, Nasdaq,
and Nasdaq BX.
    \7\ Tape A and Tape B securities are disseminated pursuant to
the Security Industry Automation Corporation's (``SIAC'')
Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or
CTA/CQS (``CTA''). Tape C securities are disseminated pursuant to
the NASDAQ Unlisted Trading Privileges (``UTP'') Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms that receive NLS Plus pay the monthly administrative fees for
PSX Last Sale, BX Last Sale and NLS, and distributors pay a data
consolidation fee of $350 per month.\8\ The Exchange does not currently
charge user fees for PSX Last Sale, but firms that receive NLS Plus
would be required to pay any user fees adopted by the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The fee applies to both Internal and External Distributors.
See PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds, Subsection
(b)(1). ``Internal Distributors'' are Distributors that receive NLS
Plus data and then distribute that data to one or more Subscribers
within the Distributor's own entity. ``External Distributors'' are
Distributors that receive NLS Plus data and then distribute that
data to one or more Subscribers outside the Distributor's own
entity.
    \9\ See PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds,
Subsection (b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate any fees owed under the PSX
Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds into the market data
enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq, which is designed to lower fees,
reduce administrative costs, and expand the availability of NLS Plus,
NLS, Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-of-Book products. These fees include
the monthly administrative fee applicable to NLS, PSX Last Sale and BX
Last Sale, a data consolidation fee for Internal or External
Distributors, and any user fees for PSX Last Sale or BX Last Sale that
may be adopted in the future.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also proposes a technical change to the PSX
Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds to reflect that PSX
administrative fees are charged on a monthly, rather than annual,
basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79654 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96140 (December 29, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-122).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in greater detail under the Nasdaq proposal, the
market data enterprise license for display usage proposed by Nasdaq
will allow Distributors who are broker-dealers or Investment Advisers
\11\ to disseminate these products to a wide audience for a monthly fee
of $600,000, with the opportunity to lower that fee further to $500,000
per month if they contract for twelve months of service in advance. As
explained in greater detail in Nasdaq's filing, the Exchange believes
that the proposed market data enterprise license will reduce exchange
fees, lower administrative costs for distributors, and help expand the
availability of market information to investors, and thereby increase
participation in financial markets. The enterprise license is being
introduced in response to competition from other exchanges,\12\ and
demonstrates both the power and the benefits of the competitive market
to spur innovation and change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Investment Adviser'' is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as ``any person who, for
compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either
directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of
securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or
selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a
regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports
concerning securities . . . .''
    \12\ See, e.g., Enterprise Fee for the Cboe Equities One Feed,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/bats_one/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to incorporate PSX Last Sale fees
into the Nasdaq market data enterprise license as a means of lowering
costs for all three equity markets. The rationale and support for this
proposal are the same as already set forth by Nasdaq in its companion
proposal.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed enterprise license is optional in that no exchange is
required to offer it and distributors are not required to purchase it.
Firms can discontinue its use at any time and for any reason, and may
decide to purchase market data products individually or substitute
products from one exchange with competing products from other
exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As described above, the proposal to cover PSX fees for NLS Plus
within the proposed market data enterprise license will lower fees,
reduce administrative costs, and expand the availability of market data
to retail investors, which the Exchange expects to improve transparency
for financial market participants and lead to increased participation
in financial markets. Discounts for broader dissemination of market
data information have routinely been adopted by exchanges and permitted
by the Commission as equitable allocations of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges.\16\ Distributors

will be free to move from the month to month rate to the annual rate at
any time, or from the annual rate to the monthly rate, with notice, at
the expiration of the twelve month term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the Commission has permitted pricing discounts
for market data under Nasdaq Rules 7023(c) and 7047(b). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82182 (November 30, 2017), 82 FR
57627 (December 6, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-60) (changing an enterprise
fee for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal demonstrates the existence of an effective,
competitive market because it resulted from a need to generate
innovative approaches in response to competition from other exchanges
that offer enterprise licenses for market data.\17\ As the Commission
has recognized, ``[i]f competitive forces are operative, the self-
interest of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain
unreasonable or unfair behavior,'' \18\ and ``the existence of
significant competition provides a substantial basis for finding that
the terms of an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \19\ The
proposed enterprise license will be subject to significant competition
from other exchanges because each eligible distributor will have the
ability to accept or reject the license depending on whether it will or
will not lower its fees, and because other exchanges will be able to
offer their own competitive responses. As the Commission has held in
the past, the presence of competition provides a substantial basis for
a finding that the proposal will be an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See n. 12.
    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed enterprise license will not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Act
does not prohibit all distinctions among customers, but only
discrimination that is unfair, and it is not unfair discrimination to
charge those distributors that are able to reach the largest audiences
of retail investors a lower fee for incremental investors in order to
encourage the widespread distribution of market data. The proposed
change to the PSX rule book is designed to incorporate the PSX Last
Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds into the market data
enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq. As explained in the Nasdaq
filing, the market data enterprise license will be subject to
significant competition, and that competition will ensure that there is
no unfair discrimination. Each distributor will be able to accept or
reject the license depending on whether it will or will not lower costs
for that particular distributor, and, if the license is not
sufficiently competitive, the Exchange may lose market share.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers 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
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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').

The Commission was speaking to the question of whether broker-dealers
should be subject to a regulatory requirement to purchase data, such as
Depth-of-Book data, that is in excess of the data provided through the
consolidated tape feeds, and the Commission concluded that the choice
should be left to them. Accordingly, Regulation NMS removed unnecessary
regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell their own
data, thereby advancing 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 broker-dealers at all, it
follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the
market as well.
    The proposed change to the PSX rule book is designed to incorporate
the PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds into the market
data enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq, and the proposed enterprise
license will compete with other enterprise licenses offered by Nasdaq,
underlying fee schedules promulgated by the Exchange, and enterprise
licenses and fee structures implemented by other exchanges. The
enterprise license is a voluntary product for which market participants
can readily find substitutes. Accordingly, both PSX and Nasdaq are
constrained from introducing a fee that would be inequitable or
unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal will eliminate
PSX fees for NLS Plus as part of a market data enterprise license
proposed by Nasdaq that is intended to lower fees, reduce
administrative costs, and expand the availability of market data to
retail investors, which the Exchange expects to lead to increased
participation in financial markets. It will not impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act, but rather will enhance competition by introducing an
innovative fee structure for market data, lowering prices and enhancing
competition.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided.
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.
    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 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 trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, 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, the cost of implementing cybersecurity to protect
the data from external threats 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, the operation of the Exchange is characterized by high
fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in
content and content distribution industries such as software, where
developing new software typically requires a large initial investment
(and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once
the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that
software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (e.g.,
if the software can be downloaded over the internet after being
purchased).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is costly for the Exchange to build and maintain a trading
platform, but the incremental cost of trading each additional share on
an existing platform, or distributing an additional instance of data,
is very low. Market information and executions are each produced
jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and placing orders
are the source of the information that is distributed) and each are
subject to significant scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost
pricing is not feasible because if all sales were priced at the margin,
the Exchange would be unable to defray its platform costs of providing
the joint products. Similarly, data products cannot make use of trade
reports from the TRF without the raw material of the trade reports
themselves, and therefore necessitate the costs of operating,
regulating, and maintaining a trade reporting system, costs that must
be covered through the fees charged for use of the facility and sales
of associated data.
    An exchange's broker-dealer customers view the costs of transaction
executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the
exchange. A broker-dealer will disfavor a particular exchange if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange do not exceed
net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the broker-
dealer 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 broker-dealer will
choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct
fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that
broker-dealer decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will
contain less information, because executions of the broker-dealer's
trading activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the
broker-dealer is directing more orders will become correspondingly more
valuable.
    Similarly, vendors provide 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 that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse
to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals impose a discipline by providing
only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute
to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers offer their retail
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. Exchanges, TRFs, 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 market data
products can enhance order flow 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 or television. Conversely, the value of such products
to Distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because
the products contain less content.
    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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Cf. Ohio v. American Express, No. 16-1454 (S. Ct. June 25,
2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
(recognizing the need to analyze both sides of a two sided platform
market in order to determine its competitiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the level of competition and contestability in the market
is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order
flow, including SRO markets, internalizing broker-dealers 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 TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this
competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to
multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market.
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, broker-dealers, 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 broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce
proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced
plans to do so, including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE Arca, IEX,
and BATS/Direct Edge.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in

the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii)
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-Phlx-2018-53 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-Phlx-2018-53. 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-Phlx-2018-53 and should be submitted on
or before September 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17492 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44073]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0855]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW), Beach Thorofare, Margate City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge
which carries Margate Boulevard across the NJICW (Beach Thorofare),
mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to
facilitate urgent bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge
to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from September
21, 2017 through 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on Monday September
18, 2017 until September 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0855] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Margate Bridge Company, owner and
operator of the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge that carries Margate
Boulevard across the NJICW (Beach Thorofare), mile 74.0, at Margate
City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating schedule to facilitate urgent maintenance of the structural
steel of the bascule spans of the double bascule drawbridge. The bridge
has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed
position and unlimited clearance in the open position.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-
navigation position from 7 a.m. on Monday, September 18, 2017, through
7 p.m. on Sunday, September 24, 2017, and from 7 a.m. on Monday,
October 2, 2017, through 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017.
    The Beach Thorofare is used by recreational vessels. The Coast
Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in
publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels will not be able to pass through the bridge in the closed-
to-navigation position, as two construction barges will be occupying
the navigation channel during the closure periods. The bridge will not
be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative
route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed
position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway
through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators
can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-20153 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P