[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1647-1651]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00413]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82462; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2017-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Fees for Certain Market Data Products on the Exchange's Equity
Options Platform

January 8, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 27, 2017, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule applicable to its equity options platform (``EDGX
Options'') to adopt fees for certain of its market data products, which
are currently offered free of charge. The Exchange also proposes to
amend the names of these market data products in Exchange Rule
21.15(b).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee
schedule applicable to EDGX Options to adopt fees for certain of its
market data products, which are currently offered free of charge. The
Exchange also proposes to amend the names of these market data products
in Exchange Rule 21.15(b).
    The Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the following market data
products: EDGX Options Depth (currently referred to as Multicast
PITCH), EDGX Options Top (currently referred to Multicast Top), and
EDGX Options Auction Feed. Each of these market data products are
currently offered free of charge. The Exchange also proposes to amend
Rule 21.15(b) to revise the names of each of these market data
products.
    Multicast Pitch, to be renamed as EDGX Options Depth, is a data
feed that offers depth of book quotations and execution information
based on options orders entered into the System.\3\ The Exchange offers
separate EDGX Options Depth data feeds for the Exchange's Simple Book
and the Exchange's Complex Order Book. The Exchange introduced Complex
Order Book functionality on October 23, 2017.\4\ The Exchange's Complex
Book is the EDGX Options electronic book of Complex Orders.\5\ The
Exchange's Simple Book is its regular electronic book of orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 21.15(b)(1).
    \4\ Exchange Rule 21.20. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 81891 (October 17, 2017), 82 FR 49058 (October 23, 2017)
(order approving the Exchange's proposal to adopt a complex order
book) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-29).
    \5\ Exchange Rule 21.20.(a)(6). A ``Complex Order'' is any order
involving the concurrent purchase and/or sale of two or more
different options in the same underlying security (the ``legs'' or
``components'' of the complex order), for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purposes of
executing a particular investment strategy. Exchange Rule
21.20(a)(5).
    \6\ Exchange Rule 21.20(a)(10). See also Exchange Rule
16.1(a)(9) (defining the EDGX Options Book).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multicast TOP, to be renamed as EDGX Options Top, is a data feed
that offers top of book quotations and execution information based on
options orders entered into the System.\7\ Like the EDGX Options Depth
feed, the Exchange offers separate EDGX Options Top data feeds for the
Exchange's Simple Book and the Exchange's Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exchange Rule 21.15(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Auction Feed, to be renamed the EDGX Options Auctions
Feed, is a data feed that provides information regarding the current
status of price and size information related to auctions conducted by
the Exchange.\8\ Like EDGX Options Depth and EDGX Options Top, the
Exchange offers separate EDGX Options Auction data feeds for the
Exchange's Simple Book and the Exchange's Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exchange Rule 21.15(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate
fees for distribution of each of the above market data products to
subscribers. The proposed fees include the following, each of which are
described in detail below: (i) Distribution Fees for both Internal and
External Distributors; \9\ and (ii) Usage Fees for both Professional
\10\ and Non-Professional \11\ Users. The Exchange is proposing
identical Distribution and Users fees for each market data product
described above. Also, Distributors and Users of any one of the market
data products subject to this proposal may receive access to any or all
of the other market data products at no additional charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Distributor'' is defined as ``any entity that receives
the Exchange Market Data product directly from the Exchange or
indirectly through another entity and then distributes it internally
or externally to a third party.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/. An ``Internal Distributor'' is defined as ``a
Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then
distributes that data to one or more Users within the Distributor's
own entity.'' Id. An ``External Distributor'' is defined as ``a
Distributor that receives the Exchange Market Data product and then
distributes that data to a third party or one or more Users outside
the Distributor's own entity.'' Id.''
    \10\ A ``Professional User'' is defined as ``any User other than
a Non-Professional User.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule available
at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \11\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is defined as ``a natural
person who is not: (i) Registered or qualified in any capacity with
the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state
securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged
as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section
202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank
or other organization exempt from registration under federal or
state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distribution Fees. As proposed, each Internal Distributor and
External Distributor that receives either the simple or complex
versions of EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and/or the EDGX
Options Auction Feed shall pay a fee of $500 per month.
    User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge Internal Distributors
and External Distributors that redistribute either the simple or
complex versions of EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and/or the
EDGX Options Auction Feed different fees for their Professional Users
and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange will assess a monthly fee for
Professional Users of $10.00 per User. Non-Professional Users will be
assessed a monthly fee of $1.00 per User.
    Distributors that receive either the simple or complex versions of
EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and/or the EDGX Options Auction
Feed will be required to count every Professional User and Non-
Professional User to which they provide the market data product(s), the
requirements for which are identical to that currently in place for
other market data products offered by the Exchange's equity trading
platform.\12\ Thus, the Distributor's count will include every person
and device that accesses the data regardless of the purpose for which
the individual or device uses the data. Distributors must report all
Professional and Non-Professional Users in accordance with the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74282 (February
18, 2015); 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09)
(proposing fees for the Bats One Feed); 75397 (July 8, 2015), 80 FR
41104 (July 14, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-28) (proposing user fees for the
EDGX Top and Last Sale data feeds); and 75788 (August 28, 2015), 80
FR 53364 (September 3, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-38) (proposing fees for
EDGX Book Viewer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In connection with a Distributor's distribution of the
market data product, the Distributor should count as one User each
unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to the
market data product. However, where a device is dedicated specifically
to a single individual, the Distributor should count only the
individual and need not count the device.
     The Distributor should identify and report each unique
User. If a User uses the same unique method to gain access to the
market data product, the Distributor should count that as one User.
However, if a unique User uses multiple methods to gain access to the
market data product (e.g., a single User has multiple passwords and
user identifications), the Distributor should report all of those
methods as an individual User.
     Distributors should report each unique individual person
who receives access through multiple devices as one User so long as
each device is dedicated specifically to that individual.
     If a Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use
the same device, the Distributor should include only the individuals,
and not the device, in the count.

    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed changes to its fee
schedule on January 2, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data and that the proposed fees are competitive
with those charged by other venues and, therefore, reasonable and
equitably allocated to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \15\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\16\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis.
EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed
are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the
Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or
regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and
Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due
to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a
wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges
and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make
any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed
further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees
that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other
exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data
products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to
distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges to distribute
EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction
Feed, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease
subscribing to, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX
Options Auction Feed.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.
    Distribution Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Distribution Fees are also reasonable, equitably allocated, and not
unreasonably discriminatory. The fees for Members and non-Members are
uniform except with respect to reasonable distinctions with respect to
internal and external distribution, the fee for both are equal for each
of the market data products subject to this proposal. The Exchange
believes that the Distribution Fees for EDGX Options Depth, EDGX
Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed are reasonable and fair
in light of alternatives offered by other market centers. For example,
EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed
provides investors with alternative market data and competes with
similar market data product currently offered by Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``PHLX''). Specifically, PHLX charges a fee of $5,000 per month to
External Distributors and $4,000 per month to Internal Distributors for
the TOPO Plus Orders feed,\17\ which included PHLX's complex order
book. PHLX also charges Internal Distributors $2,000 per month and
External Distributors $2,500 per month for the Top of PHLX Options,
which includes PHLX top of book data.\18\ PHLX charges Internal
Distributors $4,000 per month and External Distributors $4,500 per
month for the PHLX Depth Data, which includes PHLX depth of book
quotations.\19\ Each of these fees charged by PHLX are higher than that
proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See a description of TOPO Plus Orders available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=topoplusorders. See also Section
IV of PHLX Rules outlining the fees for the TOPO Plus Orders feed.
    \18\ See Section IV of PHLX Rules outlining the fees for the Top
of PHLX Options feed.
    \19\ See Section IV of PHLX Rules outlining the fees for the
PHLX Depth Data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    User Fees. The Exchange believes that implementing the Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options
Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed are equitable and reasonable
because they will result in greater availability to Professional and
Non-Professional Users. Moreover, introducing a modest Non-Professional
User fee for EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options
Auction Feed is reasonable because it provides an additional method for
retail investors to access EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and
the EDGX Options Auction Feed data by providing the same data that is
available to Professional Users. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will be charged uniformly to recipient firms and Users. The fee
structure of differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees is
utilized by the Exchange for the Cboe One Feed and has long been used
by other exchanges for their proprietary data products, and by the
Nasdaq UTP and the CTA and CQ Plans in order to reduce the price of
data to retail investors and make it more broadly available.\20\
Offering EDGX

Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed to
Non-Professional Users with the same data available to Professional
Users results in greater equity among data recipients. The requirement
that Distributors count every Professional User and Non-Professional
User to which they provide the market data product(s) is also equitable
and reasonable because the requirements are identical to that currently
in place for other market data products offered by the Exchange's
equity trading platform.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-
09); 74282 (February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-
EDGX-2015-09); and 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February
24, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-09). See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 20002, File No. S7-433 (July 22, 1983) (establishing
nonprofessional fees for CTA data); and Nasdaq Rules 7023(b), 7047.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74282 (February
18, 2015); 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-09)
(proposing fees for the Bats One Feed); 75397 (July 8, 2015), 80 FR
41104 (July 14, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-28) (proposing user fees for the
EDGX Top and Last Sale data feeds); and 75788 (August 28, 2015), 80
FR 53364 (September 3, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-38) (proposing fees for
EDGX Book Viewer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to
similar fees for comparable products offered by PHLX. Specifically,
PHLX charges a fee of $40 per month to professional users and $1.00 per
month to non-professional users of TOPO Plus Orders feed, Top of PHLX
Options, and PHLX Depth Data.\22\ Each of these fees charged by PHLX
are either equal to or higher than that proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Section IV of PHLX Rules outlining the fees for each of
these PHLX market data products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and
the EDGX Options Auction Feed is constrained by: (i) Competition among
exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade Reporting Facilities
(``TRF'') that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii)
the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-
specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent
contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX
Options Auction Feed compete with a number of alternative products. For
instance, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options
Auction Feed do not provide a complete picture of all trading activity
in a security. Rather, the other national securities exchanges, the
several TRFs of FINRA, and Electronic Communication Networks (``ECN'')
that produce proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports.
Each is currently permitted to produce last sale information products,
and many currently do, including Nasdaq and NYSE. In addition, market
participants can gain access to EDGX Options last sale and depth-of-
book quotations, though integrated with the prices of other markets, on
feeds made available through the SIPs.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to EDGX Options Depth,
EDGX Options Top, and the EDGX Options Auction Feed, including existing
similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated data, and proprietary
data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to
purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is
not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would
achieve through the purchase.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeEDGX-2017-010 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 CboeEDGX-2017-010. 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
CboeEDGX-2017-010 and should be submitted on or before February 2,
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. 2018-00413 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6672-6673]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 312 and 314

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0646]

Change of Address; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending
its regulations to reflect a change of address for the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research's (CDER's) Office of Generic Drugs (OGD)
Document Room from Rockville, MD, to Beltsville, MD. This action is
being taken to ensure accuracy and clarity in the Agency's regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Resnick, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is amending its regulations in parts 312
and 314 (21 CFR parts 312 and 314) to reflect a change of address for
CDER's OGD Document Room from Rockville, MD, to Beltsville, MD. The new
address is as follows: Central Document Room, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale
Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266. This action is being taken to ensure
accuracy and clarity in the Agency's regulations.
    Publication of this document constitutes final action on these
changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has
determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this
amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update
a mailing address for those submissions not required to be submitted
through FDA's Electronic Submission Gateway. Unless granted a waiver or
exemption from the requirements of section 745A of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379k-1), submissions under
section 505(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) are required to be
submitted in electronic format.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See FDA guidance for industry entitled ``Providing
Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Certain Human
Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using
the eCTD Specifications'' (January 2019, Revision 6). We update
guidances periodically. For the most recent version of a guidance,
check the FDA guidance web page at https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments are as follows:
     In Sec.  312.140(a)(1), the address for applicants to
submit investigational new drug applications (INDs) for in vivo
bioavailability and bioequivalence studies to support abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs) is updated to the Beltsville Central Document
Room location.
     In Sec.  314.52(a)(2), for 505(b)(2) applicants submitting
a patent certification, the address to send written or electronic
communication to obtain the address of a new drug application (NDA)
holder or its attorney, agent, or authorized official is updated to the
Beltsville Central Document Room location.
     In Sec.  314.53(f)(1), the address for persons other than
the NDA holder to send patent listing dispute communication is updated
to the Beltsville Central Document Room location.
     In Sec.  314.95(a)(2), for ANDA applicants submitting a
patent certification, the address to send written or electronic
communication to obtain the address of an NDA holder or its attorney,
agent, or authorized official is updated to the Beltsville Central
Document Room location.
     In Sec.  314.440(a)(2), the address for applicants to
submit ANDAs, amendments, supplements, resubmissions, and
correspondence not associated with an ANDA is updated to the Beltsville
Central Document Room location.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 312

    Drugs, Exports, Imports, Investigations, Labeling, Medical
research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.

21 CFR Part 314

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts
312 and 314 are amended as follows:

PART 312--INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG APPLICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 312 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360bbb, 371;
42 U.S.C. 262.

0
2. In Sec.  312.140, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  312.140  Address for correspondence.

    (a) * * *
    (1) For drug products regulated by CDER. Send the IND submission to
the Central Document Room, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD
20705-1266.
* * * * *

PART 314--APPLICATIONS FOR FDA APPROVAL TO MARKET A NEW DRUG

0
3. The authority citation for part 314 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 355a, 355f,
356, 356a, 356b, 356c, 356e, 360cc, 371, 374, 379e, 379k-1.

Sec.  314.52  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  314.52(a)(2), remove the text ``Orange Book Staff, Office
of Generic Drugs, 7620 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855'' and add in
its place the text ``Central Document Room, Attn: Orange Book Staff,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266''.

Sec.  314.53  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  314.53(f)(1), remove the text ``Office of Generic Drugs,
OGD Document Room, Attention: Orange Book Staff, 7620 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855'' and add in its place the text ``Central Document
Room, Attn: Orange Book Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD
20705-1266''.

Sec.  314.95  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  314.95(a)(2), remove the text ``Orange Book Staff, Office
of Generic Drugs, 7620 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855'' and add in
its place the text ``Central Document Room, Attn: Orange Book Staff,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266''.

0
7. In Sec.  314.440, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  314.440  Addresses for applications and abbreviated applications.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, an
abbreviated application under Sec.  314.94, and amendments,
supplements, and resubmissions should be directed to the Central
Document Room, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266. This
includes items sent by parcel post or overnight courier service.
Correspondence not associated with an abbreviated application also
should be addressed to 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 22, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-03542 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41719-41720]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-535-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Limited
Waiver of Tariff Provisions

July 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 20, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing a petition to the Commission for a
limited waiver of its FERC Gas Tariff in order to allow Northern to
resolve prior-period imbalance trading errors by retroactively
adjustment imbalance levels for Tenaska Marketing Ventures,
Northwestern Energy Corporation, and Wisconsin Power and Light Company
to reflect imbalance trades which were agreed to but erroneously not
communicated.
    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 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing an
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not 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 on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time August 3, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14746 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40930-40935]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16876]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67352; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Distributor Fees for Two Related Options Market Data Products

July 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on June 22, 2012, NASDAQ OMX 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to establish distributor fees for two related options
market data products, PHLX Depth of Market and PHLX Orders. PHLX Depth
of Market includes full depth of quotes and orders, imbalance
information and last sale data for options listed on PHLX, and PHLX
Orders provides pricing information for options orders on the PHLX
limit order book.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/, at Phlx's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish distributor
fees for the PHLX Depth of Market (``PHLX Depth'') and PHLX Orders
options data products. PHLX Depth is a data product that provides: (i)
Order and quotation information for individual quotes and orders on the
PHLX book; (ii) last sale information for trades executed on PHLX; and
(iii) an Imbalance Message as described in prior rule filings.\3\ PHLX
Depth provides data that enhances the ability to analyze market
conditions, and to create and test trading models and analytical
strategies. PHLX Depth of Market is useful for gaining comprehensive
insight into the trading activity in a particular option series on the
PHLX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66967 (May 11,
2012); 77 FR 29440 (May 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHLX Orders is a real-time full limit order book data feed that
provides pricing information for orders on the PHLX limit order book.
PHLX Orders is currently provided as part of the Top of PHLX Options
Plus Orders (``TOPO Plus Orders'') data product; PHLX Orders data is
identical to the ``Orders'' portion of the TOPO Plus Orders product.
PHLX Orders provides real-time information to enable users to keep
track of the single order book(s), single and complex orders,\4\
imbalance information, and Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA'') \5\
for all symbols listed on PHLX. It is a compilation of data for limit
orders residing on the Exchange's limit order book for options traded
on the Exchange that the Exchange provides through a real-time data
feed. The Exchange updates the information upon receipt of each
displayed limit

order or change to any order resting on the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. See Exchange Rule 1080 08(a)(i).
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1080 08(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market data users should be free to choose the data elements they
use and purchase. Some users seek to view the full depth of market,
others the orders on the limit book, and still others just the top of
the market. The market functions most effectively when it includes
numerous participants employing varied trading strategies requiring
different use of market data products. Thus, the PHLX Orders product is
designed for users that want the order book information provided in
TOPO Plus Orders but don't need the entire TOPO Plus Orders data set.
PHLX Orders complements the Top of PHLX Options or ``TOPO'' product
that contains the best priced quotes and orders in the PHLX market. The
Depth Data product is designed for users that want a full range of data
available from the PHLX options market, and that are willing to pay for
the extra technology, telecommunications bandwidth, and other
requirements of processing such data. The Exchange makes all data
products equally available to all market participants.
    PHLX is proposing to establish distributor fees for the Depth Data
and Orders Data products. PHLX classifies distributors as either
``internal'' or ``external,'' depending upon whether the receiving
entity transmits the data only to Subscribers within its own corporate
organization or those outside that organization.\6\ Currently, PHLX
assesses distributor fees for TOPO of $2,000 per month for internal
distribution and $2,500 per month for external distribution. PHLX
assesses distributor fees for TOPO Plus Orders of $4,000 per month for
internal distribution and $5,000 per month for external distribution.
PHLX is hereby proposing to assess fees for Depth Data of $4,000 per
month for internal distribution and $4,500 per month for external
distribution. Additionally, PHLX is proposing to assess fees for PHLX
Orders of $3,000 per month for internal distribution and $3,500 per
month for external distribution. Offering the PHLX Orders feed
separately from the TOPO feed allows customers to access the specific
data they need and at a lower price. PHLX Orders distributors will pay
$1000 or $1500 per month less than TOPO Plus Orders distributors
currently pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See PHLX Fee Schedule, Section IX. Multiple exchanges use
similar internal external classifications, including the NASDAQ
Options Market, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), and
the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, PHLX fees compare favorably with fees assessed by
other exchanges for similar products:

                                                   Depth Feeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Exchange:                    PHLX                 NOM                 ISE                CBOE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PHLX depth             ITTO           Depth of market      BBO data feed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of market...................  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
Depth of market.................  Full depth........  Full depth........  Top 5 levels......  No.
Depth of orders only............  No................  No................  No................  No.
Trades..........................  Yes...............  Yes...............  No................  Yes.
Imbalance.......................  Yes...............  Yes...............  No................  No.
Complex orders..................  No................  No................  No................  Yes.
Internal........................  $4,000............  $1,500............  $5,000............  $3,500.
External........................  $4,500............  $2,000............  $5,000............  $3,500.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      Orders Feeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Exchange:                        PHLX                    PHLX                    ISE                    BATS                   CBOE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        TOPO plus orders           PHLX orders          Spread book feed       Multicast PITCH         BBO data feed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of market......................  Yes...................  No....................  No...................  No...................  Yes.
Depth of market....................  No....................  No....................  No...................  No...................  No.
Depth of orders only...............  Yes...................  Yes...................  No...................  Yes..................  No.
Trades.............................  Yes...................  Yes...................  No...................  Yes..................  Yes.
Imbalance..........................  Yes...................  Yes...................  No...................  No...................  No.
Complex orders.....................  Yes...................  Yes...................  Yes..................  No...................  Yes.
Internal Distributor Fee...........  $4,000................  $3,000................  $3,000...............  0....................  $3,500.
External Distributor Fee...........  $5,000................  $3,500................  $3,000...............  0....................  $3,500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in more detail below, PHLX believes that the proposed
fees are consistent with the Act in that they are fair and reasonable
and provide for an equitable allocation of fees among PHLX members and
other users of PHLX products.
2. Statutory Basis
    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers and recipients of PHLX
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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. PHLX Depth Data and PHLX
Orders are precisely the sort of market data products 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
Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period
beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of
the self-regulatory organization made thereby, if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of this title. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of
Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.''
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 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.' ''
NetCoalition, 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, PHLX believes that the proposed fees
are fair and equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. As
described above, the proposed fees are based on pricing conventions and
distinctions that exist in PHLX's current fee schedule, and the fee
schedules of other exchanges. These distinctions are each based on
principles of fairness and equity that have helped for many years to
maintain fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and
that apply with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
    As described in greater detail below, if PHLX 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 proprietary
data or to utilize any specific pricing alternative if they do choose
to purchase proprietary data. PHLX is not required to make Depth-of-
Book or Orders data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives
for potential purchases. PHLX 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. PHLX continues
to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness
and equitable allocation of fees among Distributors and users.
    PHLX believes that the Depth Data and Orders Data product pricing
promotes increased transparency by offering a pricing options resulting
in fees based upon distributors' and users' different levels of usage
of data elements. While PHLX may need to periodically adjust the
distributor fees to reflect market forces, it continues to view the fee
cap as a way for firms to make additional information available to the
firms' clients, thereby increasing transparency in the market.

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

    PHLX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. PHLX 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 it's 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 Subscribers only
insofar as they provide information that end Subscribers expect will
assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data

distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
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
decrease, 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 platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. 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 nine existing SRO markets (plus two more expected
this year), as well as various forms of alternative trading systems
(``ATSs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via
trade executions. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, 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,
ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Amex, and NYSEArca.
    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.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end Subscribers. 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 Subscribers 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. PHLX 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, BATS
Trading and Direct Edge.
    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
proprietary data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
PHLX believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrated that availability of data attracts order flow.
    Competition among platforms has driven PHLX continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, PHLX 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. PHLX
has created new products like Depth Data, TOPO and TOPO Plus Orders,
because offering data in multiple formatting allows PHLX to better fit
customer needs. PHLX offers data via multiple extranet providers,
thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its data products.
PHLX has developed an online administrative system to provide customers
transparency into their data feed requests and streamline data usage
reporting.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, PHLX's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as a
percent of total Subscriber costs, PHLX 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 PHLX'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 proprietary information is significant
and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly evidences
such competition. PHLX is offering a new pricing model 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. PHLX
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 PHLX 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-of-Book 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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-Phlx-2012-83 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-Phlx-2012-83. 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
a.m. and 3 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-Phlx-2012-83 and should be
submitted on or before August 1, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16876 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66717-66718]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Disposal of Aeronautical Property at
Everett-Stewart Regional Airport, Union City, TN (UCY)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on a request by Obion County, to release three parcels of land
(8.48 acres) at Everett-Stewart Regional Airport from federal
obligations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports
District Office, Attn: Tommy L. Dupree, Assistant Manager, 2600
Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Allen C. Gooch, Board Chairman, Everett-
Stewart Regional Airport at the following address: 1489 Airport Road,
Union City, TN 38261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tommy L. Dupree, Assistant Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600
Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. The
application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by
appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property for disposal at Everett-
Stewart Regional Airport, 1489 Airport Road, Union City, TN 38261,
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The FAA determined that
the request to release property at Everett-Stewart Regional Airport
(UCY) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the release of these properties
does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The
FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty
days after the publication of this notice.
    This release will be retroactive for property conveyances from
1963, 2010, and 2014. The request consists of the following:
    A 1.7 acre parcel was conveyed to the Poplar Meadows Country Club
in 1963 to improve the golf course. This property is contiguous to the
airport,

located south of the terminal area development and 750 feet west of
Airport Road. This property is a part of the 749.94 acre parcel
conveyed from the United States of America with obligations to Obion
County in 1947.
    A 5.84 acre parcel was conveyed to Obion County as right of way for
Airport Road construction improvements in October 2010. This property
is contiguous to the airport located approximately 400 feet south of
Tennessee Highway 431 along Airport Road. This property is part of a
109.67 acre parcel conveyed from the United States of America with
limited obligations to Obion County in 1947.
    A 0.94 acre parcel was conveyed to Stanley Chapel Church for
improvements in February 2014. This property is non-contiguous to the
airport on Stanley Chapel Church Road located 800 feet west of Airport
Road. This property is a part of a 109.67 acre parcel conveyed from the
United States of America with limited obligations to Obion County in
1947.
    This request will release these three properties from federal
obligations. This action is taken under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2).
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Everett-Stewart Regional Airport.

    Issued in Memphis, Tennessee, on September 19, 2016.
Tommy L. Dupree,
Assistant Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-23425 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D. C.  20460

	OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

September 26, 2007

									PC Code: 128968

									DP Barcode: 336179

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Drinking Water Assessment for Fluroxypyr New Uses on Pome
Fruit and Millet

FROM: 	Jonathan Angier, Ph.D.

		Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

TO:		Daniel Rosenblatt, Chief

		Room 05

		Registration Division (7505C)

THRU:	Dana Spatz, Acting Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

This memorandum evaluates the impact of new uses for Fluroxypyr
(marketed as STARANE®) on drinking water resources, based upon proposed
application rates.  The new uses include: Pome Fruit (including, but not
limited to: Apple, Pear, Asian Pear, Quince, Crabapple, Loquat, and
Mayhaw), Millet, Proso Millet, and Pearl Millet.

Results from this evaluation can be compared with previous Drinking
Water Assessments (DWA) for other uses – including new use for Onion
(5/30/06, DP Barcode #314020) and use for Rangeland and Permanent Grass
Pasture (8/13/03, DP Barcode #292471).  Thus far, the highest modeled
Environmental Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for surface water drinking
water result from uses on rangeland, with a peak EEC value of 32.9 ppb,
annual mean value of 3.28 ppb, and a 36-year overall mean of 1.76 ppb.

This assessment utilizes known physical/chemical characteristics of
fluroxypyr-MHE (the applied chemical) and the degradate fluroxypyr acid
(the active ingredient).  The OPP/EFED Tier 2 surface water model
PRZM-EXAMS was used in this assessment.  Percent Cropped Area (PCA)
corrections of 87% were applied for these crops.  A screening assessment
for the impact of fluroxypyr on potential groundwater drinking water
sources, using the Tier 1 groundwater model SciGrow, has also been
conducted.  Results and conclusions are contained herein.

STARANE® (Fluroxypyr-MHE) is an herbicide intended for postemergent
selective control of broadleaf weeds.  It is currently registered for
use on wheat, barley, oats, corn, sorghum, fallow cropland, non-cropland
(i.e., rangeland), and others.  This Drinking Water Assessment regards
the proposed new uses on pome fruit and millet.

Fluroxypyr-MHE is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate that is
mixed with water and applied as ground or aerial spray.  It may be
applied as broadcast or banded, or even as spot treatment by hand
application.  STARANE® can be used for pre-plant or post-emergent
broadleaf weed suppression.

The proposed new uses for Fluroxypyr-MHE are: Pome Fruit, Group 11;
Millet; Proso Millet; and Pearl Millet.  The proposed new use label for
Pome Fruit includes potentially higher maximum rates for this use
(specifically, application rates for “Weeds Suppressed”) than for
most already approved uses.  The proposed new use label states: “Do
not apply more than 2 2/3 pints per acre (0.5 lb ai/acre) per year.”
This assessment reflects a high-exposure scenario by assuming the
maximum application amount of 0.5 lb ai/A is used per year.

Once fluroxypyr MHE is applied to the environment, it is expected to
degrade to its herbicidal active ingredient, fluroxypyr acid.  The fate
of fluroxypyr-MHE in the environment is complicated by uncertainty in
the formation rate and distribution of the initial degradate fluroxypyr
acid (active ingredient in STARANE® fluroxypyr-MHE) following spray
application.  Fluroxypyr-MHE application rates are established based
upon acid equivalents (ae) pursuant to fluroxypyr acid as the active
ingredient (ai).  However, the solubility of fluroxypyr-MHE is much
lower (~0.1 mg/L) than fluroxypyr acid (~8,000 mg/L); according to
mixing/application instructions, the tank must be agitated before and
during applications to allow undissolved material to remain in
suspension.  In neutral or low pH aqueous conditions, fluroxypyr-MHE is
sufficiently stable such that spray distributed on a target zone will
initially contain mostly the fluroxypyr-MHE form.  Under field
conditions it is likely that most of the MHE will convert to the active
ingredient (fluroxypyr acid) in the course of several days or weeks.  In
the EFED models, it is assumed that the initial spray contains all the
active ingredient, and that degradation rates for the ai commence
immediately after spraying.  However, there may be initial on-site
exposure to the MHE after spraying, with degradation occurring first
from the MHE to acid form, then to other (less-toxic) forms.  Actual
exposure could then potentially be longer than assessed.  Conversely,
this effect may also attenuate the impact of the active ingredient, as
it will be introduced onto the site more gradually (according to
degradation rates).  In high-pH conditions, though, degradation of both
MHE and acid forms are expected to occur more rapidly.  For the purpose
of EFED assessments, the most conservative fate and effects input
parameters are used where available; in this instance, it is more
conservative to use the values for fluroxypyr acid.  Furthermore, in the
case of potential drinking water exposure, fate parameters for
fluroxypyr acid were selected also because this compound is both more
soluble in water and more likely to be transported in an aquatic medium.

Values for the fluroxypyr acid form were used where possible, as this is
the active ingredient degradation product for which these uses are
intended.  Regardless, modeling acid-only versus MHE-only forms yielded
insignificant differences in predicted Environmental Exposure
Concentrations (EECs) for EFED baseline-assessment models (PRZM-EXAMS,
SciGrow).

‘TX Sorghum’ was used as a surrogate scenario for millet because
sorghum is very similar to millet in terms of crop type and production
methods, and is grown predominantly in the southern plains region of the
U.S. (Texas being one of the major producers of millet).  Below are the
model results for predicted surface water concentrations (using the
PRZM-EXAMS model) and groundwater concentrations (using SciGrow).

SURFACE WATER DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUROXYPYR ACID, MODELED
USING PRZM-EXAMS (PCA = 87%)

Scenario	Peak (acute)	1 in 10 Year Annual Mean		30 Year Overall Mean

NCapple

(Pome Fruit):	  18.97	ppb		   0.2507 ppb				0.090171 ppb

TXsorghum

(Millet):	  15.42	ppb		   0.2121 ppb				0.065419 ppb

TXalfalfa

(Rangeland):	  32.9 ppb		   3.28 ppb				1.76 ppb

Results for estimated (high-end) groundwater fluroxypyr concentrations
from SciGrow were obtained using the maximum proposed application rates.

GROUND WATER DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS FOR FLUROXYPYR RESULTING FROM
PRPOSED NEW USES – MODELED USING SCIGROW

SciGrow output for Pome Fruit use = 0.0503 ppb

SciGrow output for Millet, Proso Millet, Pearl Millet use = 0.0252 ppb

FATE PARAMETERS USED FOR MODELING FLUROXYPYR ACID

Parameter	Value	Comments

Molecular Weight	255.03 g/mol

	Vapor Pressure	9.4×10-7 mmHg

	Henry’s Law Constant	0.0005 atm/mol.m3

	Solubility	7950 mg/L

	Koc	68	MRID 42137319 – average of 4 values from 4 different soils

Hydrolysis	pH 5: Stable

pH 7: Stable

pH 9: Stable

MRID 40244539

Aqueous Photolysis	Stable	MRID 44080342

Aerobic Aquatic	42 days	MRID 44080345– 3X single soil (silt loam)
value of 14 days

Anaerobic Aquatic	24 days	MRID 44080344 – 3X single soil (silt loam)
value of 8 days

Aerobic Soil	14 days	MRID 42137317 – median value for 4 soil types

Application Rate: Sorghum	0.125 lb ai/A	Label

Application Method: Sorghum	Aerial Spray	Label

Number of Applications / Intervals: Sorghum	2 per year / 14 days	Label

Application Rate: Pome Fruit	0.5 lb ai/A	Label

Application Method: Pome Fruit	Ground Spray	Label

Number of Applications / Intervals: Pome Fruit	1 per year	Label

Physical/Chemical properties of both fluroxypyr-MHE (Starane®) and
fluroxypyr acid (active ingredient) are listed in the tables below.

General Environmental Fate and Physico-chemical Properties of
Fluroxypyr-MHE

  tc "Table 1.  General Environmental Fate and Physico-chemical
Properties of Terbacil " \f D  CAS Number

8140637-3

Molecular Formula	C7H5Cl2FN2O3

Parameter	Value	Source

Molecular Weight	367 g/mol	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Melting Point	N/A

	log Kow	3.788	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Water Solubility 	0.1 mg/L  @ pH 7	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Vapor Pressure (25o C)	1.07 X 10-7 mm Hg 	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Henry’s Law Constant	 5.75 X 10-7 atm m3/mol 	Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (25o C)	pH 5

pH 5

pH 7	pH 7

pH 9

	pH 9

stable

stable

3.2 days

MRID 40244539

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life 	Stable	MRID 44080342

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life	silt loam soil: 12 days

sandy loam soil: 23 days

loam soil: 13 days

silty clay soil: 7 days

	MRID 42137317

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life	silt loam soil: 8 days

	MRID 44080344

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life	silt loam sediment: 5.1 days	MRID
44080345

Soil Photolysis Half-life	152.7 days	MRID 44080343

Adsorption/Desorption	                             Kads         Koc

loam                     1.9           62

sandy loam          0.11          51

silt loam              1.7            78

silty clay loam     1.0            81	MRID 42137319

General Environmental Fate and Physico-chemical Properties of Fluroxypyr
Acid

  tc "Table 1.  General Environmental Fate and Physico-chemical
Properties of Terbacil " \f D  CAS Number

69377-81-7

Molecular Formula	C7H5Cl2FN2O3

Parameter	Value	Source

Molecular Weight	255.03 g/mol	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Melting Point	57.5 0C	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

log Kow	5.04 @ pH 7	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Water Solubility 	7950 mg/L  	OPP/Pesticide Fact Sheet/1998

Vapor Pressure (25o C)	9.42X10-7 mmHg	MERCK

Henry’s Law Constant	 0.00050 atm m3/mol 	Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (25o C)	pH 5

pH 5

pH 7	pH 7

pH 9

	pH 9

stable

stable

stable

MRID 40244539

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life 	Stable	MRID 44080342

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life	silt loam soil: 12 days

sandy loam soil: 23 days

loam soil: 13 days

silty clay soil: 7 days

	MRID 42137317

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life	silt loam soil: 8 days

	MRID 44080344

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life	silt loam sediment: 14 days	MRID
44080345

Soil Photolysis Half-life	152.7 days	MRID 44080343

Adsorption/Desorption	                             Kads         Koc

loam                     1.9           62

sandy loam          0.11          51

silt loam              1.7            78

silty clay loam     1.0            81	MRID 42137319

PRZM-EXAMS RUN FOR FLUROXYPYR USE ON POME FRUIT (NC Apple scenario)

stored as STAR-DWa.out

Chemical: fluroxypyr

PRZM environment: NCappleC.txt	modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
16:09:36

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12

Metfile: w03812.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:50

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1965	1.291	0.8738	0.3243	0.1342	0.08995	0.02219

1966	33.45	22.8	7.638	2.717	1.812	0.447

1967	8.673	6.719	2.376	0.8917	0.5951	0.1469

1968	14.06	9.459	3.14	1.131	0.7546	0.1857

1969	0.9485	0.6518	0.2821	0.1223	0.0816	0.02015

1970	2.211	1.503	0.5033	0.1907	0.1292	0.03232

1971	1.119	0.7596	0.2782	0.103	0.06915	0.01706

1972	3.907	2.642	0.8693	0.3621	0.2533	0.06234

1973	19.16	12.81	4.14	1.526	1.018	0.251

1974	17.49	11.97	4.026	1.437	0.9581	0.2363

1975	1.313	0.8942	0.3248	0.1457	0.09733	0.02403

1976	2.651	1.808	1.033	0.4137	0.2762	0.06794

1977	4.973	3.365	1.108	0.4489	0.2996	0.07393

1978	7.95	5.389	1.958	0.7061	0.4709	0.1162

1979	1.335	0.9138	0.3083	0.1286	0.08621	0.02128

1980	1.145	0.7872	0.2672	0.1159	0.0831	0.02045

1981	0.2584	0.1833	0.06918	0.025	0.02087	0.007089

1982	0.2043	0.1384	0.07964	0.03508	0.0314	0.007982

1983	2.822	1.955	0.7099	0.267	0.1794	0.04426

1984	2.705	1.846	1.075	0.4285	0.286	0.07038

1985	15.74	10.73	3.584	1.293	0.8626	0.2128

1986	2.283	1.558	0.5586	0.227	0.1514	0.03737

1987	2.071	1.428	0.4901	0.1884	0.1268	0.03129

1988	0.6665	0.4602	0.1756	0.07826	0.05716	0.0141

1989	9.96	6.725	2.456	0.9103	0.6073	0.1498

1990	27.97	19.12	6.37	2.278	1.52	0.3749

Sorted results

Prob.	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.037037037037037	33.45	22.8	7.638	2.717	1.812	0.447

0.0740740740740741	27.97	19.12	6.37	2.278	1.52	0.3749

0.111111111111111	19.16	12.81	4.14	1.526	1.018	0.251

0.148148148148148	17.49	11.97	4.026	1.437	0.9581	0.2363

0.185185185185185	15.74	10.73	3.584	1.293	0.8626	0.2128

0.222222222222222	14.06	9.459	3.14	1.131	0.7546	0.1857

0.259259259259259	9.96	6.725	2.456	0.9103	0.6073	0.1498

0.296296296296296	8.673	6.719	2.376	0.8917	0.5951	0.1469

0.333333333333333	7.95	5.389	1.958	0.7061	0.4709	0.1162

0.37037037037037	4.973	3.365	1.108	0.4489	0.2996	0.07393

0.407407407407407	3.907	2.642	1.075	0.4285	0.286	0.07038

0.444444444444444	2.822	1.955	1.033	0.4137	0.2762	0.06794

0.481481481481481	2.705	1.846	0.8693	0.3621	0.2533	0.06234

0.518518518518518	2.651	1.808	0.7099	0.267	0.1794	0.04426

0.555555555555556	2.283	1.558	0.5586	0.227	0.1514	0.03737

0.592592592592593	2.211	1.503	0.5033	0.1907	0.1292	0.03232

0.62962962962963	2.071	1.428	0.4901	0.1884	0.1268	0.03129

0.666666666666667	1.335	0.9138	0.3248	0.1457	0.09733	0.02403

0.703703703703704	1.313	0.8942	0.3243	0.1342	0.08995	0.02219

0.740740740740741	1.291	0.8738	0.3083	0.1286	0.08621	0.02128

0.777777777777778	1.145	0.7872	0.2821	0.1223	0.0831	0.02045

0.814814814814815	1.119	0.7596	0.2782	0.1159	0.0816	0.02015

0.851851851851852	0.9485	0.6518	0.2672	0.103	0.06915	0.01706

0.888888888888889	0.6665	0.4602	0.1756	0.07826	0.05716	0.0141

0.925925925925926	0.2584	0.1833	0.07964	0.03508	0.0314	0.007982

0.962962962962963	0.2043	0.1384	0.06918	0.025	0.02087	0.007089

0.1	21.803	14.703	4.809	1.7516	1.1686	0.28817

					Average of yearly averages:	0.103644653846154

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: STAR-DWa

Metfile:	w03812.dvf

PRZM scenario:	NCappleC.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	fluroxypyr

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.03	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	0.0005	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	9.4E-7	torr

Solubility	sol	7950	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	68	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	0	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	42	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	24	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	14	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 5	0	days	Half-life

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Hydrolysis:	pH 9	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI		cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	0.56	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.99	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.01	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	1-8	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

PRZM-EXAMS RUN FOR FLUROXYPYR USE ON POME FRUIT (TX Sorghum scenario)

stored as STAR-DWs.out

Chemical: fluroxypyr

PRZM environment: TXsorghumOP.txt	modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
17:29:44

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12

Metfile: w13958.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1961	0.9481	0.5964	0.3973	0.1629	0.1087	0.02679

1962	0.8397	0.5682	0.3276	0.189	0.126	0.03108

1963	0.8417	0.5337	0.2962	0.1207	0.08048	0.01985

1964	1.463	0.9327	0.411	0.1634	0.109	0.0268

1965	11.92	7.972	3.028	1.136	0.7578	0.1869

1966	3.253	2.221	0.897	0.3276	0.2184	0.05391

1967	2.385	1.522	0.5791	0.2735	0.1824	0.04499

1968	4.27	2.742	1.664	0.6689	0.446	0.1097

1969	1.616	1.05	0.6666	0.2591	0.1729	0.04264

1970	23.34	15.16	4.717	1.72	1.147	0.2829

1971	0.8411	0.5319	0.2823	0.1262	0.0846	0.02089

1972	20.65	13.5	4.376	1.569	1.046	0.2573

1973	0.9383	0.601	0.3401	0.1396	0.09314	0.02297

1974	5.68	3.597	1.409	0.509	0.3393	0.08384

1975	2.48	1.637	0.6949	0.3408	0.2272	0.05603

1976	3.324	2.179	1.066	0.4258	0.284	0.06984

1977	0.8453	0.5449	0.3117	0.1434	0.09562	0.02363

1978	9.338	5.933	1.979	0.7688	0.5126	0.1264

1979	12.28	7.986	2.593	1.547	1.031	0.2543

1980	1.308	0.9315	0.6496	0.2436	0.1624	0.03999

1981	2.89	1.858	0.998	0.4105	0.2737	0.0675

1982	2.233	1.428	0.8142	0.3275	0.2184	0.05385

1983	4.512	2.938	1.208	0.4796	0.3198	0.07886

1984	0.8416	0.5345	0.3034	0.1227	0.0818	0.02012

1985	0.8515	0.548	0.294	0.1234	0.08235	0.02031

1986	18.92	12.28	4.985	1.836	1.224	0.3019

1987	1.503	1.089	0.5636	0.2394	0.1596	0.03937

1988	1.824	1.186	0.5194	0.2441	0.1627	0.04002

1989	4.877	3.199	1.904	0.7291	0.4861	0.1199

1990	9.112	5.756	1.914	0.6928	0.4621	0.1139

Sorted results

Prob.	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.032258064516129	23.34	15.16	4.985	1.836	1.224	0.3019

0.0645161290322581	20.65	13.5	4.717	1.72	1.147	0.2829

0.0967741935483871	18.92	12.28	4.376	1.569	1.046	0.2573

0.129032258064516	12.28	7.986	3.028	1.547	1.031	0.2543

0.161290322580645	11.92	7.972	2.593	1.136	0.7578	0.1869

0.193548387096774	9.338	5.933	1.979	0.7688	0.5126	0.1264

0.225806451612903	9.112	5.756	1.914	0.7291	0.4861	0.1199

0.258064516129032	5.68	3.597	1.904	0.6928	0.4621	0.1139

0.290322580645161	4.877	3.199	1.664	0.6689	0.446	0.1097

0.32258064516129	4.512	2.938	1.409	0.509	0.3393	0.08384

0.354838709677419	4.27	2.742	1.208	0.4796	0.3198	0.07886

0.387096774193548	3.324	2.221	1.066	0.4258	0.284	0.06984

0.419354838709677	3.253	2.179	0.998	0.4105	0.2737	0.0675

0.451612903225806	2.89	1.858	0.897	0.3408	0.2272	0.05603

0.483870967741936	2.48	1.637	0.8142	0.3276	0.2184	0.05391

0.516129032258065	2.385	1.522	0.6949	0.3275	0.2184	0.05385

0.548387096774194	2.233	1.428	0.6666	0.2735	0.1824	0.04499

0.580645161290323	1.824	1.186	0.6496	0.2591	0.1729	0.04264

0.612903225806452	1.616	1.089	0.5791	0.2441	0.1627	0.04002

0.645161290322581	1.503	1.05	0.5636	0.2436	0.1624	0.03999

0.67741935483871	1.463	0.9327	0.5194	0.2394	0.1596	0.03937

0.709677419354839	1.308	0.9315	0.411	0.189	0.126	0.03108

0.741935483870968	0.9481	0.601	0.3973	0.1634	0.109	0.0268

0.774193548387097	0.9383	0.5964	0.3401	0.1629	0.1087	0.02679

0.806451612903226	0.8515	0.5682	0.3276	0.1434	0.09562	0.02363

0.838709677419355	0.8453	0.548	0.3117	0.1396	0.09314	0.02297

0.870967741935484	0.8417	0.5449	0.3034	0.1262	0.0846	0.02089

0.903225806451613	0.8416	0.5345	0.2962	0.1234	0.08235	0.02031

0.935483870967742	0.8411	0.5337	0.294	0.1227	0.0818	0.02012

0.967741935483871	0.8397	0.5319	0.2823	0.1207	0.08048	0.01985

0.1	18.256	11.8506	4.2412	1.5668	1.0445	0.257

					Average of yearly averages:	0.0878826666666667

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: STAR-DWs

Metfile:	w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario:	TXsorghumOP.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	fluroxypyr

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.03	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	0.0005	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	9.4E-7	torr

Solubility	sol	7950	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	68	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	0	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	42	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	24	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	14	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 5	0	days	Half-life

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Hydrolysis:	pH 9	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI		cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	0.14	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.95	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.16	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	1-5	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1	interval	14	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)