[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57609-57612]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20108]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0575; FRL-10205-02-R3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for PPG Industries Springdale Plant's Case-by-Case Sources Under the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), on behalf of the
Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), to establish and require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources at PPG
Industries Springdale Plant (PPG Springdale), a major source of
volatile organic compounds (VOC), pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action,
EPA is approving source-specific RACT determinations (case-by-case or
CbC) submitted by PADEP for certain VOC sources at PPG Springdale, a
facility in Allegheny County. This RACT evaluation was submitted to
meet RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0575. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 7, 2021, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 86 FR 24564. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for sources at ten facilities in Allegheny County,
as EPA found that that the RACT controls for these sources met the CAA
RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On October 21, 2021,
EPA approved case-by-case RACT determinations for sources at nine of
these major NOX and VOC emitting facilities in Allegheny
County and noted that EPA was not taking final action on PPG Springdale
at that time. 86 FR 58220. This rule takes final action on the case-by-
case RACT determination for sources at the one remaining facility
included in the May 7, 2021 NPRM, PPG Springdale. PADEP, on behalf of
ACHD, initially submitted the revisions to its SIP to address case-by-
case VOC RACT sources at PPG Springdale on May 7, 2020.
    As more fully explained in the NPRM, under certain circumstances,
states are required to submit SIP revisions to address RACT
requirements for both major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and VOC and any source covered by control technique guidelines (CTG)
for each ozone NAAQS. Which NOX and VOC sources in
Pennsylvania are considered ``major,'' and are therefore subject to
RACT, is dependent on the location of each source within the
Commonwealth. NOX sources in Pennsylvania located in any
ozone attainment areas or in any nonattainment areas designated
moderate or below are subject to a major source threshold of 100 tons
per year (tpy) because of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) requirements
in CAA section 182(f)(1). See definition of ``Major NOX
emitting facility'' at 25 Pa. Code 121.1 and 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1).
Similarly, VOC sources located in any ozone attainment areas or in any
nonattainment areas designated serious or below are subject to a source
threshold of 50 tpy because of the OTR requirements in CAA section
184(b)(2). See definition of ``Major VOC emitting facility'' at 25 Pa.
Code 121.1 and 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding non-CTG
VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major source VOC and NOX RACT
requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested approval of

Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT Requirements for
Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the ``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior
to the adoption of the RACT II rule, Pennsylvania relied on the
NOX and VOC control measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95,
Stationary Sources of NOX and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for
non-CTG major VOC sources and major NOX sources. The
requirements of the RACT I rule remain as previously approved in
Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be implemented as RACT.\1\ On
September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental SIP revision
including a letter, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to
address various deficiencies identified by EPA in PADEP's original May
16, 2016 ``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA granted conditional limited approval of
Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT I rule on March 23, 1998 pending
Pennsylvania's submission of and EPA's determination on proposals
for facilities subject to case-by-case (source-specific) RACT
requirements. 63 FR 13789. On May 3, 2001, EPA removed the
conditional status of its 1998 approval once the state certified
that it had submitted case-by-case RACT I proposals for sources
subject to the RACT requirements, but retained the limited nature of
the approval. 66 FR 22123. EPA granted full approval on October 22,
2008 once it approved all case-by-case RACT I proposals submitted by
Pennsylvania. 73 FR 62891. Through this RACT II rule, certain
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent requirements. See Section II of the preamble to this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 letter.\2\ 84
FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA established
conditions requiring PADEP to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions
to address any facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions
averaging plans approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case
RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to
submitting these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's
final conditional approval (i.e., by May 9, 2020). Through multiple
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA for approval
the various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case
determinations and alternative NOX emissions limits. This
rule takes final action on a SIP revision for VOC sources at PPG
Springdale, based on EPA's review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020).
PPG Springdale is not subject to the presumptive RACT II provisions
at issue in that Sierra Club decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revision in this action only establishes 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements under the CAA for
sources located in Allegheny County for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
were previously satisfied. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative
NOX or VOC emissions limits and/or case-by-case RACT
requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code
129.98 or 129.99. Among the submitted SIP revisions were case-by-case
RACT determinations for sources in Allegheny County, which PADEP
submitted on behalf of ACHD. PADEP's submission included a SIP revision
pertaining to case-by-case RACT determinations for the existing VOC
emissions units at PPG Springdale that required a case-by-case RACT
determination.
    In the case-by-case RACT determinations for PPG Springdale
submitted by PADEP on behalf of ACHD, an evaluation was completed to
determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emission limits
or operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I and contained in
RACT I permits) were more stringent than the new RACT II presumptive or
case-by-case requirements. If previously SIP-approved RACT I
requirements are more stringent, such RACT I requirements continue to
apply to the applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II
requirements are more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the
RACT II requirements supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit for PPG
Springdale will remain part of the SIP, this RACT II rule will
incorporate by reference the RACT II requirements through the RACT
II permit and clarify the ongoing applicability of specific
conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, EPA is approving a SIP revision pertaining to case-by-case
RACT requirements for certain VOC sources at PPG Springdale. PPG is a
major source of VOC and was subject to RACT I under the name PPG
Industries, Inc.--Springdale. The case-by-case RACT determinations
submitted by PADEP, on behalf of ACHD, consist of an evaluation of all
reasonably available controls at the time of evaluation for each
affected emissions unit, resulting in a determination of what specific
emissions limit or control measures satisfy RACT for that particular
unit. The adoption of additional, or revised emissions limits or
control measures to existing SIP-approved RACT I requirements were
specified as requirements in a revised federally enforceable permit
(hereafter RACT II permit) issued by ACHD to PPG Springdale. The RACT
II permit was submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revision
for EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
The RACT II permit being approved in this action for PPG Industries
Springdale Plant (formerly PPG Industries, Inc.--Springdale) is permit
number 0057-OP18a, effective February 28, 2020, and is part of the
docket for this rulemaking, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0575.\4\ For certain
VOC sources at PPG Springdale, EPA is incorporating by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP the source-specific emissions limits and control
measures in the RACT II permit, and is determining that these
provisions satisfy the RACT requirement under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The RACT II permit included in the docket for this rule is a
redacted version of the facilities' federally enforceable permit. It
reflects the specific RACT requirements being approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Final Action

    This CbC RACT SIP revision incorporates determinations by ACHD of
source-specific RACT II controls for individual VOC emission units at
PPG Springdale, where those units are not covered by or cannot meet
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT regulation. After thorough review and
evaluation of the information submitted to EPA by PADEP on behalf of
ACHD, in its SIP revision submittals for sources at PPG Springdale, EPA
found that: (1) ACHD's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions
establish limits and/or controls on individual sources that are
reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically
feasible controls; and (2) ACHD's determinations are consistent with
the CAA, EPA regulations, and applicable EPA guidance.
    ACHD, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. EPA found
that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP-approved RACT I
requirements would

result in equivalent or additional reductions of VOC emissions.
Consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA, the revisions for this major
VOC source will not result in additional VOC emissions and thus should
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment.
    Other specific requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS case-by-
case RACT determinations for PPG Springdale and the rationale for EPA's
action are explained more thoroughly in the NPRM, and its associated
technical support document (TSD), and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received one comment relevant to PPG Springdale on the May 7,
2021 NPRM. 86 FR 24564. A summary of the comment and EPA's response are
discussed in this section. A copy of the comment can be found in the
docket for this rule action.
    Comment 1: The comment requests that EPA not take final action on
the revisions pertaining to PPG Springdale as certain RACT requirements
are involved in the appeal of the facility's permit before ACHD's
hearing officer. The comment requests EPA delay action until the appeal
is adjudicated or resolved, and any modifications to the permit are
finalized.
    Response 1: Under Clean Air Act Section 110(k), EPA has a statutory
responsibility to act on plan revisions submitted by states by
specified deadlines. EPA's failure to act within those deadlines can
subject EPA to a lawsuit for our failure to timely execute a mandatory
statutory duty. There is no provision in the Clean Air Act to toll the
statutory deadline pending the outcome of state proceedings, or for any
other reason. As long as the SIP revision is pending before EPA, our
statutory obligation to approve or disapprove that revision in whole or
part remains. Pennsylvania could formally withdraw the SIP revision
from EPA's consideration but has not done so. EPA therefore remains
under a statutory duty under section 110(k) of the Act to approve or
disapprove this SIP revision in whole or part. EPA has determined that
it will complete its statutory duty as proposed to approve this SIP
revision with respect to PPG Springdale. If the outcome of the appeal
process affects the RACT determination, Pennsylvania can then submit
any proposed SIP revision with supporting documentation for the changes
to EPA for review and appropriate agency action. At this time EPA is
finalizing these case-by-case RACT determinations for PPG Springdale.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for certain VOC
sources at PPG Springdale, as required to meet obligations pursuant to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for one
major VOC-emitting facility in Pennsylvania, as discussed in Section
II. of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rule of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC RACT
requirements for one facility for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry ``PPG Industries, Inc.--Springdale''; and
0
b. Adding an entry at the end of the table for ``PPG Industries
Springdale Plant (formerly referenced as PPG Industries, Inc.--
Springdale)''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                State                                  explanations/Sec.
           Name of source                    Permit No.                  County             effective       EPA approval date       Sec.   52.2063 and
                                                                                date                                52.2064  citations \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
PPG Industries, Inc.--Springdale....  CO-254..................  Allegheny..............        12/19/96  10/12/01, 66 FR 52050..  See also
                                                                                52.2064(l)(1).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
PPG Industries Springdale Plant       0057-OP18a..............  Allegheny..............       2/28/2020  9/21/2022 [INSERT        52.2064(l)(1).
 (formerly referenced as PPG                                                                              FEDERAL REGISTER
 Industries, Inc.--Springdale).                                                                           CITATION].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2064   EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *
    (l) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard for PPG Springdale is
incorporated as specified. (Rulemaking Docket No. EPA-OAR-2020-0575.)
    (1) PPG Industries Springdale Plant--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 0057-OP18a, effective February 28, 2020, as redacted by
ACHD, which supersedes Consent Order 254, issued December 19, 1996,
except for Conditions 1.13 through 1.22, which remain as RACT
requirements. See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(165)(i)(B)(2), for prior RACT
approval.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2022-20108 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52104-52105]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0083]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Substantive Change To Multiple Previously Approved Collections:
Aircraft Registration, Recording of Aircraft Conveyances and Security
Documents, FAA Entry Point Filing Form--International Registry, and
Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a substantive change to
multiple previously approved information collections. The FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018, section 546, requires the implementation
of systems allowing a member of the public to submit any information or
form to the Registry and conduct any transaction with the Registry by
electronic or other remote means. In response to this requirement, the
FAA created Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) and
intends to change its current information collection to accommodate
electronic registry applications.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Lefko by email at:
[email protected]. Include docket number in the subject line of the
message. By phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Numbers: 2120-0042, 2120-0043, 2120-0697, 2120-0024.
    Titles: Aircraft Registration, Recording of Aircraft Conveyances
and Security Documents, FAA Entry Point Filing Form--International
Registry, and Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: AC Forms: 8050-1; 8050-1B; 8050-2; 8050-4; 8050-5;
8050-41; 8050-88; 8050-88A; 8050-98; 8050-117; 8050-135.
    Type of Review: Substantive Change to Previously Approved
Collections:
    (1) 2120-0042, Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1
    (2) 2120-0042, Aircraft Registration Renewal Application, AC Form
8050-1B
    (3) 2120-0042, Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2
    (4) 2120-0042, Certificate of Repossession of Encumbered Aircraft,
AC Form 8050-4
    (5) 2120-0024, Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate
Application, AC Form 8050-5
    (6) 2120-0043, Notice of Recordation--Aircraft Security Conveyance,
AC Form 8050-41
    (7) 2120-0042, Affidavit of Ownership, AC Form 8050-88
    (8) 2120-0042, Affidavit of Ownership Light-Sport Aircraft, AC Form
8050-88A
    (9) 2120-0042, Aircraft Security Agreement, AC Form 8050-98
    (10) 2120-0042, Flight Hours for Corporations, AC Form 8050-117
    (11) 2120-0697, International Registry Entry Form, AC Form 8050-
135.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on January 27, 2022 (87 FR 4325). Public Law 103-272
states that all aircraft must be registered before they may be flown.
It sets forth registration eligibility requirements and provides for
application for registration as well as suspension and/or revocation of
registration. The information collected is used by the FAA to register
an aircraft and record a security interest in a registered aircraft.
    The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254 or The Act),
Section 546, ``FAA Civil Aviation Registry Upgrade'', requires:
    1. The digitization of non-digital Registry information, including
paper documents, microfilm images, and photographs, from an analog or
non-digital format to a digital format;
    2. The digitalization of Registry manual and paper-based processes,
business operations, and functions by leveraging digital technologies
and a broader use of digitized data;
    3. The implementation of systems allowing a member of the public to
submit any information or form to the Registry and conduct any
transaction with the Registry by electronic or other remote means; and
    4. Allowing more efficient, broader, and remote access to the
Registry.
    In response to The Act, the FAA has initiated the creation of Civil
Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES). CARES is intended to
modernize and streamline the way these forms are submitted by providing
online access to users wishing to submit information electronically.
Public users will continue to have the paper-based submission option by
providing the same information that is accepted today, along with the
addition of an email address.
    To accommodate the public user with these web-based services, a
dedicated

online user account must first be established. CARES will leverage an
existing FAA Single Sign-On (SSO) capability known as MyAccess.
MyAccess will be used to generate online public user accounts, and also
serve as part of the user account sign-on and authentication process
after a user account has been created.
    As an alternative to the web-based services, public users will
still be permitted to send in paper forms directly to the Registry
office via conventional mail services. These paper forms will be
revised to collect the email address of the public user to help
streamline processing of the public users' request. The modified paper
forms will supersede all prior forms.
    Respondents: Approximately 162,176 applicants for 2120-0042; 3,670
applicants for 2120-0024; 22,370 applicants for 2120-0043; and 14,360
applicants for 2120-0697.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion for 2120-0042,
2120-0043 and 2120-0697; annually to maintain a certificate for 2120-
0024.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes for 2120-0042; 45
minutes for 2120-0024; 1 hour for 2120-0043; and 30 minutes for 2120-
0697.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 135,457 hours for 2120-0042; 2753
hours for 2120-0024; 22,370 hours for 2120-0043; and 7,180 hours for
2120-0697.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, OK on August 19, 2022.
Bonnie Lefko,
Program Analyst, Civil Aviation Registry, Aircraft Registration Branch,
AFB-710.
[FR Doc. 2022-18261 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46535-46539]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18999]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67539; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify Port Fees

July 30, 2012.
    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 19, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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 Nasdaq.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule 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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the port fees charged to members and non-
members for ports used to enter orders into Nasdaq systems, in
connection with the use of other trading telecommunication protocols.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

7015. Access Services

    (a)-(f) No change.
    (g) Other Port Fees.
    The following port fees shall apply in connection with the use of
other trading telecommunication protocols:
     $500 per month for each port pair, other than Multicast
ITCH[supreg] data feed pairs, for which the fee is $1000 per month for
software-based TotalView-ITCH or $2,500 per month for combined
software- and hardware-based TotalView-ITCH.
     An additional $200 per month for each port used for
entering orders or quotes over the Internet.
     An additional $600 per month for each port used for market
data delivery over the Internet.
    (h) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Nasdaq Rule 7015 (Access Services) to
modify the monthly fee it charges for ports used to enter orders in
Nasdaq trading systems, such as the Nasdaq Market Center and the Nasdaq
Options Market [sic], in connection with the use of other trading
telecommunication protocols.
    Specifically, the fee change is to establish an optional new $2,500
per month port fee for those customers that elect to take the hardware-
based TotalView-ITCH equities depth feed that uses field-programmable
gate array (``FPGA'') technology,\4\ in addition to the software-based
TotalView-ITCH version, to receive delivery of Nasdaq Depth-of-Book
data, defined in Nasdaq Rule 7023 to include TotalView, OpenView, and
NASDAQ Level 2 (collectively, ``Nasdaq Depth data''). In offering this
new optional port fee using a hardware-delivery mechanism, Nasdaq is
serving those customers requiring a predictable latency profile
throughout the trading day. By taking advantage of hardware
parallelism, FPGA technology is capable of processing more data packets
during peak market conditions without the introduction of variable
queuing latency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67297 (June 28,
2012), 77 FR 39752 (July 5, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-063).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, in accordance with Nasdaq Rule 7015(g), customers
receiving TotalView-ITCH pay $1,000 per multicast ITCH data feed port
pair for the software-version of the depth feed. This optional new port
fee enables a customer to opt to receive both the software- and
hardware-based versions for a total of $2,500, meaning that for an
additional $1,500 per month a customer can receive the hardware-based
version. This new pricing option is available to all members and non-
members and is in response to industry demand, as well as due to
changes in the technology to distribute and consume market data.
    Competition for depth data is considerable and the Exchange
believes that this proposal clearly evidences such competition. The
Exchange is offering a new port fee in order to keep pace with changes
in the industry and evolving customer needs as new technologies emerge
and products continue to develop and change. It is entirely optional
and is geared towards attracting new customers, as well as retaining
existing customers.
    The proposed port fee is based on pricing conventions and
distinctions that exist in Nasdaq's current fee schedule, and the fee
schedules of other exchanges. These distinctions for the proposed port
fee for hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth data are based on a
careful analysis of empirical data and the application of time-tested
pricing principles already accepted by the Commission and discussed in
greater depth in the Statutory Basis section below. Also, the costs
associated with the port fee using the hardware-based delivery system
for Nasdaq Depth data are higher than a software-based solution due to
increased operating expenditures associated with creating, shipping,
installing and maintaining the new equipment and codebase. Because it
uses a distinct technology, the overall costs of creation and
maintenance of the hardware-based version of TotalView-ITCH are higher
than the software-based version.
    The proposed port fee for the hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq
Depth data is completely optional. Accordingly, Nasdaq is offering his
new port fee for the hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth data so
that customers may elect to receive Nasdaq direct data content in a
predictable manner throughout the trading day.

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of Nasdaq
data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\7\

    \7\ 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
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well. Nasdaq Depth data is
precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.

    On July 21, 2010, President Barack 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
Exchange 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.''
    Nasdaq believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress' intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. Nasdaq
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress' conclusion
that the evolution of self-regulatory organization governance and
competitive market structure have rendered the Commission's prior
policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically, many exchanges have
evolved from member-owned not-for-profit corporations into for-profit
investor-owned corporations (or subsidiaries of investor-owned
corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no longer have narrow incentives
to manage their affairs for the exclusive benefit of their members, but
rather have incentives to maximize the appeal of their products to all
customers, whether members or non-members, so as to broaden
distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, we believe that the change
also reflects an endorsement of the Commission's determinations that
reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure
equitable and reasonable prices. Simply put, the change reflects a
presumption that all fee changes should be permitted to take effect
immediately, since the level of all fees are constrained by competitive
forces.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (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.' ''
NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.
    For the reasons stated above, Nasdaq believes that the proposed fee
is fair and equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. As
described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing conventions and
distinctions that exist in Nasdaq's current fee schedule, and the fee
schedules of other exchanges. These distinctions (e.g., internal versus
external distribution and hardware-based versus software-based system
for delivering Nasdaq Depth data) are 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. The optional port fee for the hardware-based delivery
of Nasdaq Depth data is based on careful analysis of empirical data and
the application of time-tested pricing principles already accepted by
the Commission for many years.
    As described in greater detail below, if Nasdaq has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can diminish or
discontinue the use of their data because the proposed fee is entirely
optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase Nasdaq
Depth data or to utilize any specific pricing alternative if they do
choose to purchase Nasdaq Depth data. Nasdaq is not required to make
depth data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for
potential purchases. Nasdaq can discontinue offering a pricing
alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use
at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to
their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Nasdaq
continues to create new pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness
and equitable allocation of fees among users, and Nasdaq believes this
is another useful step in that direction.

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

    Nasdaq 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
NetCoaltion 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. For the
reasons discussed above, Nasdaq believes that the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the Commission's
review of future market data filings, by creating a presumption that
all fees may take effect immediately, without prior analysis by the
Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the absence of this
important statutory change, however, Nasdaq believes that a record may
readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the
market in question.
    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 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 trade executions, 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 to 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
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer 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 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 orders 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 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'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer 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 broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    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 the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    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 platform 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. This would
be akin to strictly regulating the price that an automobile
manufacturer can charge for car sound systems despite the existence of
a highly competitive market for cars and the availability of after-
market alternatives to the manufacturer-supplied system.
    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.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including ten self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). 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 Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    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
broker-dealers' 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 BATS 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.
    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 Thomson
Reuters 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, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, 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. Nasdaq 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.
    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
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading 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 broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers 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.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
Nasdaq believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. For
example, as of July 2010, 92 of the top 100 broker-dealers by shares
executed on Nasdaq consumed Level 2/NQDS and 80 of the top 100 broker-
dealers consumed TotalView. During that month, the Level 2/NQDS-users
were responsible for 94.44% of the orders entered into Nasdaq and
TotalView users were responsible for 92.98%.
    Competition among platforms has driven Nasdaq continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, Nasdaq has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. Nasdaq offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. Nasdaq has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView-ITCH and
Level 2/NQDS, because offering data in multiple formatting allows
Nasdaq to better fit customer needs. Nasdaq offers data via multiple
extranet providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost
for its data products. Nasdaq has developed an online administrative
system to provide customers transparency into their data feed requests
and streamline data usage reporting. Nasdaq has also expanded its
Enterprise License options that reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, Nasdaq's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as
a percent of total customer costs, Nasdaq data fees have fallen
relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth,

programming, and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true
for execution services; despite numerous enhancements to Nasdaq's
trading platform, absolute and relative trading costs have declined.
Platform competition has intensified as new entrants have emerged,
constraining prices for both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for depth information is significant and
the Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. Nasdaq is offering a new port fee in order to keep pace
with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is
entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as
well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
Nasdaq continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. 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 Nasdaq 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 this depth information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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 \8\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2012-088 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-NASDAQ-2012-088. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-088 and should
be submitted on or before August 24, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18999 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 PCNB (056502)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                              Date: 26 June 2015

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 2013.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2012.
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).

                                 26 June 2015

        Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of PCNB (056502)
             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2004-2013

                                     Crop
                      Average Lbs. A.I. Applied Annually
                             Percent Crop Treated

                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
Green Beans
                                    20,000
                                      10
                                      15
                                       2
Brussels Sprouts *
                                     5,000
                                       5
                                      15
                                       3
Cabbage
                                     1,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       4
Cotton
                                    60,000
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                       5
Cotton (Seed Treatment)
                                     1,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       6
Dry Beans/Peas
                                     1,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       7
Peanuts
                                    30,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                       8
Potatoes
                                    200,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                       9
Soybeans (Seed Treatment)
                                     1,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                      10
Tomatoes
                                     5,000
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                      11
Wheat (Seed Treatment)
                                    <500
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated

                                                                              *
Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 80% or more of U.S. acres grown are in California)

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.