[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50023-50025]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
Northeast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish three low altitude United
States Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (T-routes) in support of the VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
The purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the National Airspace
System (NAS) by transitioning from a ground-based to a satellite-based
navigation system.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in the eastern
United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the
NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park,
GA, 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish
three low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-307, T-324, and T-335,
in the northeast United States to support the VOR MON Program and the
transition from ground-based navigation aids.
    T-307: T-307 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
PEARS, NC, Fix (located approximately 38 nautical miles southeast of
the Tar River, NC (TYI), VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air
Navigational System (VORTAC)), and the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC. T-
307 would overlay a portion of VOR Federal airway V-139 from the PEARS,
NC, Fix, to the Sea Isle, NJ (SIE), VORTAC. It would overlay airway V-
184 from the PADRE, PA, Fix, to the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC.
Also, it would overlay airway V-35 from the Philipsburg, PA (PSB),
VORTAC to the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC.
    In the description of T-307, the following waypoints (WP) are used
in place of VORTACs or VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME) facilities as indicated. The OUTLA, VA, WP replaces
the Cape Charles, VA (CCV), VORTAC. The ZJAAY, MD, WP replaces the Snow
Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC. The WNSTN, NJ, WP replaces

the Sea Isle, NJ (SIE), VORTAC. The DLMAR, PA, WP replaces the
Stonyfork, PA (SFK), VOR/DME. The STUBN, NY, WP replaces the Elmira, NY
(ULW), VOR/DME.
    T-324: T-324 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
BRVRY, WV, WP and the BRIGS, NJ, Fix. T-324 would parallel airway V-166
from the Kessel, WV (ESL), VOR/DME to the Woodstown, NJ (OOD), VORTAC.
T-324 would overlay airway V-577 from the Cedar Lake, NJ (VCN), VOR/DME
to the BRIGS, NJ, Fix.
    In the T-324 description, the BRVRY WP replaces the Kessel VOR/DME,
and the JIIMS, NJ, WP, replaces the Cedar Lake VOR/DME.
    T-335: T-335 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
ZJAAY, MD, WP and the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC. The route would
overlay portions of airway V-29 from the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC to
the Syracuse, NY (SYR), VORTAC.
    In the description of T-335, WPs will replace certain VORTACs as
follows. The ZJAAY, MD, WP replaces the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC.
The TRPOD, MD, WP replaces the Salisbury, MD (SBY), VORTAC. The BYEDN,
DE, WP replaces the Dupont, DE (DQO), VORTAC. The LIMRK, PA, WP
replaces the Pottstown, PA (PTW), VORTAC. The WLKES, PA, WP replaces
the Wilkes-Barre, PA (LVZ), VORTAC.
    The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the
proposed amendments to part 71 set forth below.
    United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The United States Area Navigation routes listed in this document would
be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 14 CFR 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-307 PEARS, NC to Syracuse, NY (SYR) [New]

PEARS, NC                                       FIX                            (Lat. 35[deg]47'12.36'' N, long. 076[deg]57'01.97'' W)
Norfolk, VA (ORF)                               VORTAC                         (Lat. 36[deg]53'30.86'' N, long. 076[deg]12'01.18'' W)
OUTLA, VA                                       WP                             (Lat. 37[deg]20'45.48'' N, long. 075[deg]59'54.08'' W)
DUNFE, VA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 37[deg]53'18.83'' N, long. 075[deg]35'29.39'' W)
ZJAAY, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 38[deg]03'09.95'' N, long. 075[deg]26'34.27'' W)
CBEAV, MD                                       FIX                            (Lat. 38[deg]22'19.01'' N, long. 075[deg]15'53.18'' W)
WNSTN, NJ                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]05'43.81'' N, long. 074[deg]48'01.20'' W)
BRIEF, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]26'55.21'' N, long. 075[deg]07'39.69'' W)
TEBEE, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]30'13.97'' N, long. 075[deg]19'37.19'' W)
CHAZR, DE                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]29'28.14'' N, long. 075[deg]44'28.13'' W)
APEER, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]37'32.94'' N, long. 075[deg]50'25.39'' W)
REESY, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]45'27.94'' N, long. 075[deg]52'07.09'' W)
PADRE, PA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]56'16.67'' N, long. 076[deg]03'18.63'' W)
DELRO, PA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]57'55.71'' N, long. 076[deg]37'31.24'' W)
Harrisburg, PA (HAR)                            VORTAC                         (Lat. 40[deg]18'08.06'' N, long. 077[deg]04'10.41'' W)
PYCAT, PA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 40[deg]26'46.59'' N, long. 077[deg]17'21.34'' W)
MCMAN, PA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 40[deg]38'16.11'' N, long. 077[deg]34'14.31'' W)
RASHE, PA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 40[deg]40'36.04'' N, long. 077[deg]38'38.94'' W)
Philipsburg, PA (PSB)                           VORTAC                         (Lat. 40[deg]54'58.53'' N, long. 077[deg]59'33.78'' W)
DLMAR, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 41[deg]41'42.56'' N, long. 077[deg]25'11.02'' W)
STUBN, NY                                       WP                             (Lat. 42[deg]05'38.58'' N, long. 077[deg]01'28.68'' W)
Syracuse, NY (SYR)                              VORTAC                         (Lat. 43[deg]09'37.87'' N, long. 076[deg]12'16.41'' W)

                                                                      * * * * * * *
T-324 BRVRY, WV to BRIGS, NJ [New]

BRVRY, WV                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]13'22.68'' N, long. 078[deg]57'47.18'' W)
BAMMY, WV                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]24'33.13'' N, long. 078[deg]25'45.64'' W)
BUBBI, WV                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]27'03.29'' N, long. 078[deg]08'14.71'' W)
CPTAL, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]32'16.02'' N, long. 077[deg]41'55.65'' W)
TWIRK, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]34'36.70'' N, long. 077[deg]12'44.75'' W)
VMORT, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]39'14.53'' N, long. 076[deg]37'49.10'' W)
SHIKA, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]42'38.62'' N, long. 076[deg]21'13.41'' W)
TROYZ, MD                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]41'02.40'' N, long. 076[deg]07'05.67'' W)
APEER, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]37'32.94'' N, long. 075[deg]50'25.39'' W)

CHAZR, DE                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]29'28.14'' N, long. 075[deg]44'28.13'' W)
TEBEE, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]30'13.97'' N, long. 075[deg]19'37.19'' W)
JIIMS, NJ                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]32'15.62'' N, long. 074[deg]58'01.72'' W)
BRIGS, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]31'24.72'' N, long. 074[deg]08'19.67'' W)

                                                                      * * * * * * *
T-335 ZJAAY, MD to Syracuse, NY (SYR) [New]

ZJAAY, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 38[deg]03'09.95'' N, long. 075[deg]26'34.27'' W)
TRPOD, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 38[deg]20'17.30'' N, long. 075[deg]30'28.27'' W)
Smyrna, DE (ENO)                                VORTAC                         (Lat. 39[deg]13'53.93'' N, long. 075[deg]30'57.49'' W)
BYEDN, OA                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]40'41.60'' N, long. 075[deg]36'24.84'' W)
MARQI, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]55'22.30'' N, long. 075[deg]32'11.18'' W)
HOSKR, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 40[deg]05'03.94'' N, long. 075[deg]32'56.13'' W)
LIMRK, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 40[deg]13'19.44'' N, long. 075[deg]33'36.96'' W)
East Texas, PA (ETX)                            VOR/DME                        (Lat. 40[deg]34'51.74'' N, long. 075[deg]41'02.51'' W)
WLKES, PA                                       WP                             (Lat. 41[deg]16'22.57'' N, long. 075[deg]41'21.60'' W)
Binghamton, NY (CFB)                            VOR/DME                        (Lat. 42[deg]09'26.96'' N, long. 076[deg]08'11.30'' W)
CORTA, NY                                       FIX                            (Lat. 42[deg]40'25.65'' N, long. 076[deg]04'34.93'' W)
Syracuse, NY (SYR)                              VORTAC                         (Lat. 43[deg]09'37.87'' N, long. 076[deg]12'16.41'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17206 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10944-10947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80015; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Data Fees at Rule 7026

February 10, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 30, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by 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 proposes to amend the Exchange's data fees at Rule
7026 to raise the monthly Enterprise License fee for distribution of an
Enhanced Display Solution from $30,000 to $33,500, as described further
below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on February 1, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to raise the monthly
Enterprise License fee for distribution of an Enhanced Display Solution
from $30,000 to $33,500, and to correct a cross reference to Rule 7023.
EDS Enterprise License
    An Enhanced Display Solution (``EDS'') provides a display of Nasdaq
depth-of-book data--data feeds with price quotations at more than one
price level, such as TotalView, OpenView and Level 2--with the
capability of connecting to an Application Programming Interface
(``API''). The API allows Subscribers to export the depth-of-book data
to a display application of their choosing, provided that the
Distributor controls access to the application, monitors its use, and
prevents redistribution of the data, either externally or internally.
    The Enterprise License fee allows Distributors to purchase an EDS
for professional subscribers at a fixed monthly per-subscriber rate.
The current fee of $30,000 per month permits the distribution of Nasdaq
depth-of-book data to an unlimited number of professional subscribers
at a monthly per-subscriber rate of $70 for TotalView and Level 2, and
a monthly per-subscriber rate of $6 for OpenView. The monthly per-
subscriber fees for Distributors that elect not to purchase an EDS
Enterprise License fee are $74 for TotalView and Level 2 and $6 for
OpenView, as provided in Rule 7026(a)(1)(B). All Distributors who
purchase an EDS, whether or not an Enterprise License is purchased,
must pay the distributor fees set forth in Rule 7026(a)(1)(A). The
Enterprise License is designed to provide a lower fee to the largest
Distributors of depth-of-book data to encourage distribution of such
data.
Proposed Changes
    The Exchange proposes to raise the monthly EDS Enterprise License
fee from $30,000 to $33,500, and to correct a cross reference to Rule
7023.
EDS Enterprise License
    The proposed increase in the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee is
reasonable in light of the value of EDS to Distributors and
Subscribers, which has increased significantly due to technological
advances that have occurred since EDS was introduced in January of
2012, particularly for those Distributors with sufficient volume to
purchase an Enterprise License.
    The key feature of EDS--the capability of connecting to an API--
allows the Subscriber to transfer Nasdaq data to any number of
applications. When EDS was first introduced, data was transferred to
relatively simple applications, such as spreadsheets. Since 2012, EDS
has become more valuable as the use of the API has moved from
spreadsheets to complex analytic tools, enhancing the value of EDS to
both Subscribers and Distributors.
    Distributors that purchase EDS through the Enterprise License are
among the greatest beneficiaries of EDS because they have the largest
number of Subscribers. They are also in the best position to bear the
cost of an increase in the price of EDS because of that larger
subscriber base.
    In summary, the price increase is justified by the increasing value
of EDS to Distributors that purchase an Enterprise License.
Technical Correction
    Nasdaq also proposes to correct a cross reference to Rule 7023
(Nasdaq Depth-of-Book Data).
    On January 5, 2012, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposal to amend Rule 7026 to offer an optional

tiered fee for enhanced displays.\3\ At the time of its inception, the
EDS fee exemption made reference to the previous iteration of Rule 7023
(then, Nasdaq Total View), which established, under section (a)(1)(C),
the Enterprise License fees available to a Distributor. Following the
January 2012 rule change, on March 28 of that year, Nasdaq filed with
the Commission a proposal to fully amend Rule 7023,\4\ renaming the
rule, and providing an expanded description of the Enterprise License
fees under section (c) of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66165 (January 17,
2012), 77 FR 3313 (January 23, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-005); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73807 (December 10, 2014), 79 FR
78784 [sic] (December 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-117) (clarifying,
among other changes, that the EDS Fee exemption applies to
Distributors and not Customers).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66740 (April 5,
2012), 77 FR 21609 (April 10, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange has changed Rule 7026 since then, it has not
yet updated the reference to the Enterprise License fees. The cross
reference provided under Rule 7026(a)(1)(A), establishing that
Distributors subscribing to certain enterprise depth capped fees will
be exempt from paying the EDS Distributor Fee, currently points to a
section under Rule 7023 which provides a definition for the TotalView
data feed, and not to the Enterprise License fees that would allow a
Distributor to be exempt from paying the EDS distributor fee. The
Exchange therefore proposes to correct that cross reference to Rule
7023(c) (Enterprise License Fees), and to modify the language to make
the reference clearer, without changing its application.
    The EDS Enterprise License--and the entire EDS program--is entirely
optional in that Nasdaq is not required to offer it and Distributors
are not required to pay for it. Distributors and Subscribers can
discontinue its use at any time and for any reason, including an
assessment of the fees charged.
    The proposed change does not raise the cost of any other Nasdaq
product, except to the extent that it increases the total cost of
purchasing depth-of-book data for those who obtain such data through an
EDS Enterprise License.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \8\
(``NetCoalition''), the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\9\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \9\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \10\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers. . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to raise the monthly EDS
Enterprise License fee from $30,000 to $33,500 is fair and equitable in
accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably
discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As
described above, the proposed fee increase reflects the increasing
value of EDS to Distributors and Subscribers, particularly those
Distributors with sufficient volume to purchase an Enterprise License.
Moreover, Enterprise License fees are constrained by the Exchange's
need to compete for order flow, and are subject to competition from
other exchanges and among broker-dealers for customers. If Nasdaq is
incorrect in its assessment, there is no barrier to block a competitor
from entering the market with a substantially similar product.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are an
equitable allocation and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly-situated Subscribers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed fee will raise the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee
from $30,000 to $33,500. The EDS Enterprise License is used to
distribute TotalView, Level 2, and OpenView, Nasdaq's depth-of-book
products. The question of whether the prices of depth-of-view products
are constrained by competitive forces was examined in 2016 by an
Administrative Law Judge in a petition filed by the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association for a review of certain actions by
Self-Regulatory

Organizations.\12\ After a four-day hearing, the Administrative Law
Judge found that ``competition plays a significant role in restraining
exchange pricing of depth-of-book products'' \13\ because ``depth-of-
book products from different exchanges function as substitutes for each
other,'' \14\ and therefore ``the threat of substitution from depth-of-
book customers constrains their depth-of-book prices.'' \15\ As such,
Nasdaq's depth-of-book fees--including those fees for the distribution
of TotalView, Level 2 and OpenView--are ``constrained by significant
competitive forces.'' \16\ If the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass'n (SIFMA), Initial Decision
Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016).
    \13\ Id. at 33.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. at 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market forces specifically constrain the EDS Enterprise License fee
in three respects. First, the EDS Enterprise License is one element of
the total cost of purchasing depth-of-book data. Firms make purchasing
decisions based on the total cost of interacting with the Exchange and,
if the price of the EDS Enterprise License were set above competitive
levels, competition for order flow would be harmed. Second,
Distributors may elect to purchase EDS through per-subscriber fees in
lieu of an Enterprise License, or may reduce their purchases of Nasdaq
proprietary data. Third, the competition among Distributors for
Subscribers provides another constraint on the cost of the EDS
Enterprise License.
Competition for Order Flow
    Depth-of-book data fees are constrained by competition among
exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow. Order flow
is the ``life blood'' of the exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have
numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as well as internalizing
broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction
reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a
high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs, which may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market for order
flow is demonstrated by the numerous examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. For a variety of
reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution,
has increased dramatically over the last decade.
    Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD that competes for order flow is
permitted to produce proprietary data products. Many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca,
BATS, and IEX. This is because Regulation NMS deregulated the market
for proprietary data. While BDs had previously published their
proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data
vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a
manner never before possible. Order routers and market data vendors can
facilitate production of proprietary data products for single or
multiple BDs. The potential sources of proprietary products are
virtually limitless.
    The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably
linked: A trading platform cannot generate market information unless it
receives trade orders. As a result, the competition for order flow
constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data
products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to
consume based on the total cost of interacting with Nasdaq and other
exchanges. The cost of EDS is one factor in this total platform
analysis. A supracompetitive price for the EDS Enterprise License has
the potential to impair competition for order flow, and the need to
compete effectively for order flow will constrain its price.
Competition for Distributors
    An Enterprise License is one among several methods of purchase
available to EDS Distributors. If the price of the EDS Enterprise
License were to become too high, Distributors would use another
purchase option, such as per-subscriber fees.
    The total cost of Nasdaq depth-of-book data relative to other
options also functions as an effective constraint. If the total price
of depth-of-book data, including the EDS Enterprise License, were to
become too high, Distributors would be able to purchase similar data
from a competitor such as NYSE or BATS, or curtail their purchases of
other Nasdaq products.
    The availability of alternative payment methods to purchase EDS, as
well as the availability of depth-of-book data from other sources, will
act as effective constraints on the price of the EDS Enterprise
License.
Competition for Subscribers
    Distributors who purchase the EDS Enterprise License are in
competition for Subscribers. If the price of the Enterprise License
were set above competitive levels, the Distributors that purchase that
license would be at a disadvantage relative to their competitors. As
such, they may lower costs by paying per-subscriber fees, curtailing
their purchases of Nasdaq products, or purchasing depth-of-book data
from one of Nasdaq's competitors. The competition among Distributors
for Subscribers therefore provides another constraint on the cost of
the EDS Enterprise License.
    In summary, market forces constrain the price of the EDS Enterprise
License through competition for order flow, the availability of other
methods of delivery for depth-of-book data, and in the competition
among Distributors for Subscribers. For these reasons, the Exchange has
provided a substantial basis demonstrating that the fee is equitable,
fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory, and therefore
consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the

Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-007, and should
be submitted on or before March 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03105 Filed 2-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


26607 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2003 / Notices EIS No. 030215, FINAL EIS, FHW, SC, Dave Lyle Boulevard Extension, New Location from the S. C. Route 161/ Dave Lyle Boulevard Intersection in York County To S. C. Route 75, in the vicinity of the U. S. Route 521/ S. C., York County Metropolitan Road Corridor Project, Funding, York and Lancaster Counties, SC, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Patrick Tyndall ( 803) 765   5460. EIS No. 030216, DRAFT EIS, FHW, OH, OH   161/ 37 Improvement, from OH   161 ( New Albany Bypass) to west of OH   161/ 37 Interchange with OH   16, Funding, Franklin and Licking Counties, OH, Comment Period Ends: July 18, 2003, Contact: Larry Anderson ( 614) 469   6896. EIS No. 030217, DRAFT EIS, NSA, NM, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, Consolidation and Relocation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos County, NM, Comment Period Ends: June 30, 2003, Contact: Elizabeth Withers ( 505) 667   8690. EIS No. 030218, FINAL EIS, FRC, WY, MT, ND, Grasslands Pipeline Project, Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System Construction and Operation, Docket No. CP02   037   000, WY, ND and MT, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Rich McGuire ( 202) 502   6177. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. ferc. gov. EIS No. 030219, FINAL EIS, BLM, NV, Ivanpah Energy Center Project, 500 Megawatt ( MW) Gas Fired Electric Power Generating Station Construction and Operation, Approval, Right of Way Grant, BLM Temporary Use Permit, FHWA Permit to Cross Federal Aid Highway, U. S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits and NPDES Permit Issuance, Clark County, NV, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Jerrold E. Crockford ( 505) 599   6333. EIS No. 030220, FINAL EIS, AFS, WI, Cayuga Project Area, Various Resource Management Projects, Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest, Great Divide Ranger District, Ashland County, WI, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Debra Sigmund ( 715) 634   4821. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. fs. fed. us/ r9/ cnnf/ natres/ index. html. EIS No. 030221, FINAL EIS, NOA, Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass, Implementation, in the Western Atlantic Ocean, from Cape Harteras, NC, northward to the US Canadian Border, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Steven Kokkinakis ( 202) 482   3639. EIS No. 030222, FINAL SUPPLEMENT, COE, CA, Bel Marin Keys Unit V Expansion of the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project, New and Updated Information, Application for Approval of Permits, Novato Creek, Marin County, CA, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Eric Jolliffe ( 415) 977   8543.

This document is available on the Internet at: http:// www. coastalconservancy. ca. gov/ belmarin.

EIS No. 030223, FINAL EIS, AFS, MT, Post Fire Vegetation and Fuels Management Project, Fuel Reduction, Bark Beetle Sanitation and Maintenance, and/ or Restoration of Vegetative Communities, Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, Wisdom and Pintler Ranger Districts, Beaverhead and Deerlodge Counties, MT, Wait Period Ends: June 16, 2003, Contact: Amy Nerbun ( 406) 683   3948. EIS No. 030224, DRAFT EIS, DOE, NY, West Valley Demonstration Project, Waste Management, Onsite Management and Offsite Transportation of Radioactive Waste, West Valley, Cattaraugus County, NY, Comment Period Ends: June 30, 2003, Contact: Daniel W. Sullivan ( 800) 633   5280.

Amended Notices EIS No. 030198, DRAFT EIS, AFS, NV, Jarbidge Canyon Project, To Implement a Road Management Plan and Construct a Water Projects along the Charleston Jarbidge Road, and Reconstruct the South Canyon Road, Humbolt Toiyabe National Forest, Jarbidge Ranger District, ELko County, NV, Comment Period Ends: June 23, 2003, Contact: Jim Winfrey ( 775) 778   0229.

Revision of FR Notice Published on 5/ 9/ 2003: Correction to Contact Person Telephone Number.

EIS No. 030204, FINAL EIS, STB, TX, Bayport Loop New Rail Line, Construction and Operation, Finance Docket No. 34079, Houston, Harris County, TX, Wait Period Ends: June 9, 2003, Contact: Dana White ( 888) 229   7857.

Revision of FR Notice Published on 5/ 9/ 2003: Correction of EIS Status from Draft EIS to Final EIS. Correction of CEQ Comment Period Ending 6/ 23/ 2003 to Wait Period Ending 6/ 9/ 2003. Dated: May 13, 2003. Joseph C. Montgomery, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 03   12351 Filed 5   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0128; FRL   7303   2]

Forchlorfenuron; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0128, must be received on or before June 16, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   6742; e mail address: mcneilly. dennis@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 01: 28 May 16, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16MYN1. SGM 16MYN1 26608 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2003 / Notices assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0128. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0128. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0128. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 01: 28 May 16, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16MYN1. SGM 16MYN1 26609 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2003 / Notices 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0128. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0128. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 7, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

KIM C1, LLC PP 3F6550 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 3F6550) from KIM C1, LLC, c/ o Siemer & Associates, Inc., 4672 W. Jennifer, Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93722 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of Forchlorfenuron ( CPPU) in or on the raw agricultural commodities grapes and kiwifruit and the processed commodity raisins at 0.03 parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. 14C radiolabel studies were conducted on apples, grapes, and kiwifruit. Results of these three studies showed that the metabolism of CPPU in apples, grapes, and kiwifruit is similar, if not identical. Metabolism of CPPU in these crops involved hydroxylation of the phenylring to form 3 hydroxy CPPU or 4 hydroxy CPPU followed by conjugation with glucose to form b glycosides. These studies were conducted using CPPU at 15 ppm and 75 ppm. Most of the residue remained on the treated surface and was primarily associated with pulp tissue. Very little radioactivity was found in the juice. 2. Analytical method. Two analytical methods, both based on high performance liquid chromatography ( HPLC) procedures have been developed. The first used a visible ultraviolet ( UV) detector while the second used a Mass Spec detector. Since the Mass Spec detector is capable of both qualitative as well as quantitative measurement it is the preferred method. The level of quantification ( LOQ) in whole grape fruit was 0.01 ppm; the level of detection ( LOD) was 0.003 ppm. In grape juice, the LOQ was 0.002 ppm and the LOD was 0.007 ppm ( 0.7 parts per billion ( ppb)). In raisins, the LOQ was 0.01 ppm and the LOD was 0.003 ppm. 3. Magnitude of residues. The magnitude of the residues in or on grapes, excluding outliers three standard deviations beyond the mean, are 0.03 ppm. One outlier was at 0.04 ppm. Grape juice residues are below 0.01 ppm. Raisin residues are at or below 0.02 ppm while kiwifruit will be at or below 0.1 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile A full battery of toxicology testing including studies of acute, subchronic, chronic, oncogenicity, developmental, reproductive and genotoxicity effect is available for CPPU. The acute toxicity of VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 01: 28 May 16, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16MYN1. SGM 16MYN1 26610 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2003 / Notices CPPU is low by all routes. The lowest subchronic study no observed effect level ( NOEL) value is 16.8 milligrams/ kilogram/ day ( mg/ kg/ day) obtained from the dog 90   day toxicity study. Chronic studies indicate that CPPU is not carcinogenic. The lowest chronic dietary NOEL is 7 mg/ kg/ day from male rats fed CPPU for 104 weeks. CPPU showed no evidence of developmental toxicity in rats and rabbits. In a rat reproduction study, reproductive effects were only observed at maternally toxic doses. Finally, genetic toxicity studies indicate that CPPU is not genotoxic. For the purposes of dietary risk analysis, 0.07 mg/ kg/ day is proposed for the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD). The cPAD is based on a chronic endpoint of 7 mg/ kg/ day which is the NOEL for males from the rat chronic/ oncogenicity feeding study and an uncertainty factor of 100. No acute toxicity endpoint could be identified and therefore an acute dietary risk assessment is considered unnecessary. 1. Acute toxicity. The acute toxicity of CPPU is low by all routes. The battery of acute toxicity studies place CPPU into Toxicity Category III. CPPU has low acute toxicity when administered orally, dermally or via inhalation to rats. It is not a skin irritant and is only a mild eye irritant. CPPU is not a skin sensitizer. 2. Genotoxicity. The genotoxic potential of CPPU was studied in vitro in bacteria and mammalian cells and in vivo in the unscheduled DNA synthesis test. The test systems assayed did not show any evidence of genotoxicity except in the bacterial mutagenicity assay, strain TA1535, without metabolic activation. The weight of the evidence indicates that CPPU does not possess significant genotoxicity concerns. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Developmental effects of CPPU were studied in rats and rabbits and multigenerational effects on reproduction were studied in rats. i. Rat developmental. In the developmental toxicity study conducted with rats, CPPU was administered by gavage at levels of 0, 100, 200 and 400 mg/ kg/ day. The maternal and developmental no observed adverse effect levels ( NOAELs) are 200 mg/ kg/ day based on reduced body weights, body weight gain and food consumption and an increased incidence of alopecia in dams. There were no developmental effects. ii. Rabbit developmental. In the rabbit developmental study, gavage doses of 0, 25, 50 and 100 mg/ kg/ day were administered. Maternal toxicity ( decreased body weight and body weight gains) was observed at 50 mg/ kg/ day and above. The maternal NOAEL is 25 mg/ kg/ day and the developmental NOAEL is 100 mg/ kg/ day. There were no developmental effects. iii. Reproduction. In the rat reproduction study, CPPU was administered in the diet at levels of 0, 150, 2,000, and 7,500 ppm for two generations. There were no adverse effects of CPPU on reproductive success. Parental toxicity consisted of clinical signs, inhibition of body weight gain, reduced food consumption, and macroscopic and microscopic effects in the kidney. Reproductive toxicity at the highest dose consisted of slightly reduced live litter sizes in the F2 litters. In the pups, body weights and survival ( late lactation period) were reduced and at the high dose, pup mortality and emaciation was increased. The parental, pup, and reproductive NOAELs are 150 ppm, 150 ppm, and 2,000 ppm, respectively. 4. Subchronic toxicity. Subchronic toxicity studies have been conducted with CPPU in the rat, mouse, and dog. i. Rats. CPPU technical was tested in rats in a 3   month study at dietary levels of 0, 200, 1,000 and 5,000 ppm. Observations were decreased body weight, body weight gain and food efficiency. The NOAEL in males is 5,000 ppm ( 400 mg/ kg/ day) and in females is 1,000 ppm ( 84 mg/ kg/ day). ii. Mice. A 13   week feeding study in mice was conducted at dose levels of 0, 900, 1,800, 3,500 and 7,000 ppm. Effects included decreased body weight and food consumption, increased relative liver weight and lymphocytic cell infiltration in the kidneys. The NOAEL is 3,500 ppm ( 609 mg/ kg/ day in males and 788 mg/ kg/ day in females). iii. Dogs. A 13   week dietary toxicity study was conducted in beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 50, 500 and 5,000 ppm. Effects included decreased body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency. The NOAEL for both sexes was 500 ppm ( 16.8 mg/ kg/ day in males and 19.1 mg/ kg/ day in females). 5. Chronic toxicity. CPPU has been tested in chronic studies in dogs, rats, and mice. i. Rats. In a 104   week chronic/ oncogenicity study in rats, CPPU was administered at dose levels of 0, 150, 2,000 and 7,500 ppm in the diet. Findings were decreased body weight, body weight gain and food consumption, and organ weight and histopathological effects in the kidney. No oncogenicity was found. The NOAEL for this study is 150 ppm ( 7 mg/ kg/ day in males and 9 mg/ kg/ day in females). ii. Mice. CPPU was administered in the diet to mice for 78   weeks at dose levels of 0, 10 and 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. Observations were decreased body weight and body weight gain, food consumption, increased kidney weights and incidence of chronic kidney histopathological lesions. The NOAEL for both sexes is 10 mg/ kg/ day. iii. Dogs. In a 12   month study, CPPU was administered in the diet to dogs at dose levels of 0, 150, 3,000 and 7,500 ppm. Observations included reduced body weight, body weight gain and food consumption and various hematology changes. The NOAEL for both sexes was 3,000 ppm ( 87 mg/ kg/ day in males and 91 mg/ kg/ day in females). iv. Carcinogenicity. CPPU did not produce carcinogenicity in chronic studies with rats or mice. The oncogenicity classification of CPPU will be `` E'' ( no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans). 6. Animal metabolism. A rat metabolism study indicates that CPPU is almost completely absorbed and most of the 14C CPPU derived radioactivity is rapidly eliminated primarily via the urine. The majority of the metabolism of CPPU was via hydroxylation of the phenyl ring. The sulfate conjugate of hyrdoxyl CPPU was the major metabolite excreted in the urine, accounting for as much as approximately 96% of the urinary radioactivity. Tissue residues accounted for less than 1% of the administered dose at 168 hours post dosing. 7. Metabolite toxicology. Metabolites occur at levels below 0.1 ppm and therefore are below levels required to be assayed in animal testing. 8. Endocrine disruption   Potential endocrine effects. No special studies to investigate the potential for endocrine effects of CPPU have been performed. However, as summarized above, a large and detailed toxicology data base exists for the compound including studies in all required categories. These studies include acute, sub chronic, chronic, developmental, and reproductive toxicology studies including detailed histology and histopathology of numerous tissues, including endocrine organs, following repeated or long term exposures. These studies are considered capable of revealing endocrine effects. The results of all of these studies show no evidence of any endocrine mediated effects and no pathology of the endocrine organs. Consequently, it is concluded that CPPU does not possess estrogenic or endocrine disrupting properties.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. This dietary risk assessment was conducted by Infoscientific. com for KIM C1, LLC. The dietary exposure assessment was VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 01: 58 May 16, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16MYN1. SGM 16MYN1 26611 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 95 / Friday, May 16, 2003 / Notices conducted for foods containing forchlorfenuron: Chemical Abstracts Service ( CAS): 68157   60   8 ( CPPU) by using the CARES ( Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System) model. The data input included the following categories of data for performing the dietary exposure assessment: Subpopulations of interest, ( infants 1 to 2 years of age and adults 20 to 49 years of age); List of foods which were: blueberry, grape, grape juice, grape raisin, grape wine/ sherry, and kiwifruit; food residues which were: 0.001 ( blueberry baby food), 0.0007 for grape juice, 0.0007 for grape juice in baby food, 0.03 for raisins, 0.007 for grape as wine/ sherry, and 0.01 for kiwifruit; and toxicological benchmarks which were 0.07 mg/ kg/ day for the oral no observed effect level ( NOEL) on a chronic ( 365   day) basis and 25 mg/ kg/ day for the oral NOEL based on an acute ( 1   day) basis. The FCID ( Food Consumption Information Database) data set was used to obtain food consumption data in grams per kilogram of body weight. i. Food. The chronic dietary exposure calculations for infants ( 1 to 2 years old) indicate that over a period of one year:   99.9% of infants would ingest less than 0.0000515 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.071% of Oral NOEL)   99.0% of infants would ingest less than 0.0000469 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.067% of Oral NOEL)   95.0% of infants would ingest less than 0.0000429 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.061% of Oral NOEL) Similar dietary exposure calculations for adults ( 20 to 49 years old) indicate that:   99.9% of adults would ingest less than 0.0000076 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.011% of Oral NOEL)   99.0% of adults would ingest less than 0.0000067 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.010% of Oral NOEL)   95% of adults would ingest less than 0.0000060 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.009% of Oral NOEL) Blueberries have not been included in the petition for registration even though they were included in the dietary risk assessment which is shown above. Even with the blueberries included in the risk assessment the total percent of the oral NOEL on a chronic basis represents only 0.0229% of the oral NOEL. On this basis, there cannot be any anticipated harmful effects to public health. Acute ( 1   day) Exposure does not represent any hazard since no acute exposure was identified in this risk assessment. ii. Drinking water. The very low use rate of CPPU, i. e. 10 grams active ingredient or less per acre if used constantly for 20 years would apply less than 0.5 pounds of CPPU per acre during that 20 year period. Computer modeling, using the conservative pesticide root zone model ( PRZM) means of analysis has shown that no CPPU would reach ground water, even in sandy loam soils. The results of this risk analysis supported an unambiguous conclusion of `` essentially zero risk to ground water'' even under reasonable worst case assumptions. Concentrations are not predicted to exceed 15 to 20 ppb of CPPU in the soil in the upper soil horizons, even following yearly applications for as long as 30 years. No secondary exposure is anticipated as a result of contamination of drinking water. 2. Non dietary exposure. No nondietary exposure is expected since CPPU is not anticipated to be found in the drinking water. This material does not translocate in plants and thus secondary exposure through plants growing in soil receiving CPPU is not anticipated. The extremely low application rates will not result in significant buildup in the environment. Data indicate that any parent material of CPPU left in the soil will be strongly bound to soil particles and will not move.

D. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects expected since CPPU is not taken up by plants from the soil. It slowly degrades to mineral end points. Its low use rates and infrequent applications are not conducive to build in the environment.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. As pointed out above in dietary exposure food the percentage of the reference dose consumed by treating the subject crops represents less than 1% of the estimated safe level for the most sensitive segment of the population, non nursing infants. 2. Infants and children. No developmental, reproductive or fetotoxic effects have been associated with CPPU. The calculation of safety margins with respect to these segments of the population were taken into consideration in the CARES ( Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System) model estimates with respect to the risk associated with the percentage of the reference dose being consumed.

F. International Tolerances There is no CODEX maximum residue level established for CPPU. However, CPPU is registered for use on grapes and other crops in Japan, Chile, Mexico, and South Africa. [ FR Doc. 03   12360 Filed 5   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0168; FRL   7306   6]

( Z, E) 3,13 octadecadienyl and ( Z, Z) 3,13 octadecadienyl; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Washington State Department of Agriculture to use the pesticides ( Z, E) 3,13 octadecadienyl and ( Z, Z) 3,13 octadecadienyl to treat up to 32,000 acres of hybrid poplar grown for pulp and saw timber to control poplar clearwig moth ( WPCM). The Applicant proposes the use of two new pheromones which have not been registered by EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0168, must be received on or before May 21, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6463; fax number: ( 703) 308   5433; e mail address: Madden. Barbara@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal or state government agency ( NAICS 9241) involved in administration of environmental quality programs ( i. e., Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 01: 28 May 16, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16MYN1. SGM 16MYN1


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15452]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1886-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1886-DR), dated March 9,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 9, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of South Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of December 23-27, 2009, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide emergency protective measures,
including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for
any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident
period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This
assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular
employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Campbell, Clay, Gregory, Jones, Lyman, Mellette, Perkins,
Shannon, Todd, Tripp, Turner, and Yankton Counties and the portions
of the Pine Ridge Reservation and Rosebud Reservation that lie
within the designated counties for Public Assistance.
    Campbell, Clay, Jones, Lyman, Perkins, Shannon, Todd, Turner,
and Yankton Counties and the portions of the Pine Ridge Reservation
and Rosebud Reservation that lie within the designated counties for
emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow
assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous
48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
    All counties and Tribes within the State of South Dakota are
eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-6951 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P