[Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65095]
[DOCID:fr07no06-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-604-001]

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 30, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 25, 2006, Transwestern Pipeline
Company, LLC (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No.
5B.01, to become effective October 23, 2006.
    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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18675 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47968-47974]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19537]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75600; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus

August 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 24, 2015, 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 Rule 7039 (NASDAQ Last Sale and
NASDAQ Last Sale Plus Data Feeds) with language indicating the fees for
NASDAQ Last Sale Plus (``NLS Plus''), a comprehensive data feed offered
by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ OMX Information LLC is a subsidiary of The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this proposal is to amend Rule 7039 with language
indicating the fees for NLS Plus. NLS Plus allows data distributors to
access the three last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's
three U.S. equity markets.\4\ Thus, in offering NLS Plus, NASDAQ OMX
Information LLC is acting as a redistributor of last sale products
already offered by NASDAQ,

BX, and PSX and volume information provided by the securities
information processors for Tape A, B, and C.\5\ This proposal is being
filed by the Exchange to indicate the fees for the NLS Plus data feed
offering and in light of the recent approval order regarding NLS
Plus.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NASDAQ OMX U.S. equity markets include The NASDAQ Stock
Market (``NASDAQ''), NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX''), and NASDAQ OMX PSX
(``PSX'') (together known as the ``NASDAQ OMX equity markets''). PSX
and BX will shortly file companion proposals regarding data feeds
similar to NLS Plus. NASDAQ's last sale product, NASDAQ Last Sale,
includes last sale information from the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting
Facility (``FINRA/NASDAQ TRF''), which is jointly operated by NASDAQ
and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71350 (January 17, 2014), 79 FR
4218 (January 24, 2014) (SR-FINRA-2014-002). For proposed rule
changes submitted with respect to NASDAQ Last Sale, BX Last Sale,
and PSX Last Sale, see, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
57965 (June 16, 2008), 73 FR 35178, (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-
060) (order approving NASDAQ Last Sale data feeds pilot); 61112
(December 4, 2009), 74 FR 65569, (December 10, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-
077) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness regarding BX Last
Sale data feeds); and 62876 (September 9, 2010), 75 FR 56624,
(September 16, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-120) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness regarding PSX Last Sale data feeds).
    \5\ Tape A and Tape B securities are disseminated pursuant to
the Security Industry Automation Corporation's (``SIAC'')
Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or
CTA/CQS (``CTA''). Tape C securities are disseminated pursuant to
the NASDAQ Unlisted Trading Privileges (``UTP'') Plan.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75257 (June 22,
2015), 80 FR 36862 (June 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055) (order
approving proposed rule change regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus); and
Rule 7039(d). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74972
(May 15, 2015), 80 FR 29370 (May 21, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055)
(notice of filing of proposed rule change regarding NASDAQ Last Sale
Plus). These filings are known as ``NLS Plus Approval Order'' and
``NLS Plus notice'', respectively. NLS Plus, which is codified in
Rule 7039(d), has been offered since 2010 via NASDAQ OMX Information
LLC. NLS Plus is described online at http://nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/dataproducts/NLSPlusSpecification.pdf; and the annual administrative and other
fees for NLS Plus are noted at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPUSdata#ls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS Plus allows data distributors to access last sale products
offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three equity exchanges. NLS Plus
includes all transactions from all of NASDAQ OMX's equity markets, as
well as FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is included in the current NLS
product. In addition, NLS Plus features total cross-market volume
information at the issue level, thereby providing redistribution of
consolidated volume information (``consolidated volume'') from the
securities information processors (``SIPs'') for Tape A, B, and C
securities.\7\ Thus, NLS Plus covers all securities listed on NASDAQ
and New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') (now under the Intercontinental
Exchange (``ICE'') umbrella), as well as US ``regional'' exchanges such
as NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS (also known as BATS/Direct Edge).\8\
As noted in the NLS Plus Approval Order, the Exchange is filing this
separate proposal regarding the NLS Plus fee structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This reflects real-time trading activity for Tape C
securities and 15-minute delayed information for Tape A and Tape B
securities.
    \8\ Registered U.S. exchanges are listed at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrexchanges.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS Plus is currently codified in Rule 7039(d) \9\ in a manner
similar to products of other markets.\10\ NLS Plus is offered, as
noted, through NASDAQ OMX Information LLC, which is a subsidiary of The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. that is separate and apart from The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC. NASDAQ OMX Information LLC combines publicly available data
from the three filed last sale products of the NASDAQ OMX equity
markets and from the network processors for the ease and convenience of
market data users and vendors, and ultimately the investing public. In
that role, the function of NASDAQ OMX Information LLC is analogous to
that of other market data vendors, and it has no competitive advantage
over other market data vendors. NASDAQ OMX Information LLC distributes
no data that is not equally available to all market data vendors. For
example, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC receives data from the exchange
that is available to other market data vendors, with the same
information distributed to NASDAQ OMX Information LLC at the same time
it is distributed to other vendors (that is, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC
has neither a speed nor an information differential). Through this
structure, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC performs precisely the same
functions as Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, and dozens of other market
data vendors; and the contents of the NLS Plus data stream are similar
in nature to what is distributed by other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23,
2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-
2014-030; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-EDGX-2014-25) (order approving market
data product called BATS One Feed being offered by four affiliated
exchanges). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73553
(November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-
40) (order granting approval to establish the NYSE Best Quote &
Trades (``BQT'') Data Feed). These exchanges have likewise
instituted fees for their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that market data distributors may use the NLS
Plus data feed to feed stock tickers, portfolio trackers, trade alert
programs, time and sale graphs, and other display systems. The contents
of NLS Plus are set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d).\11\ Specifically,
subsection (d) states that NASDAQ Last Sale Plus is a comprehensive
data feed produced by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC that provides last
sale data as well as consolidated volume of NASDAQ OMX equity markets
(NASDAQ, BX, and PSX) and the NASDAQ/FINRA Trade Reporting
Facility(``TRF''). NASDAQ Last Sale Plus also reflects cumulative
volume real-time trading activity across all U.S. exchanges for Tape C
securities and 15-minute delayed information for Tape A and Tape B
securities. NLS Plus also contains the following data elements: Trade
Price, Trade Size, Sale Condition Modifiers, Cumulative Consolidated
Market Volume, End of Day Trade Summary, Adjusted Closing Price, IPO
Information, and Bloomberg ID. Additionally, pertinent regulatory
information such as Market Wide Circuit Breaker, Reg SHO Short Sale
Price Test Restricted Indicator, Trading Action, Symbol Directory,
Adjusted Closing Price, and End of Day Trade Summary are included.\12\
NLS Plus may be received by itself or in combination with NASDAQ Basic.
The Exchange now proposes to add into Rule 7039(d) the fees associated
with NLS Plus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The contents of NLS Plus in large part mimic those of NLS,
which is set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7039(a)-(c). Similar to NLS, NLS
Plus offers data for all U.S. equities via two separate data
channels: The first data channel reflects NASDAQ, BX, and PSX trades
with real-time consolidated volume for NASDAQ-listed securities; and
the second data channel reflects NASDAQ, BX, and PSX trades with
delayed consolidated volume for NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca and BATS-
listed securities.
    \12\ The overwhelming majority of these data elements and
messages are exactly the same as, and in fact are sourced from, NLS,
BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. Only two data elements
(consolidated volume and Bloomberg ID) are sourced from other
publicly accessible or obtainable resources. The Reg SHO Short Sale
Price Test Restricted Indicator message is disseminated intra-day
when a security has a price drop of 10% or more from the adjusted
prior day's NASDAQ Official Closing Price. Trading Action indicates
the current trading status of a security to the trading community,
and indicates when a security is halted, paused, released for
quotation, and released for trading. Symbol Directory is
disseminated at the start of each trading day for all active NASDAQ
and non-NASDAQ-listed security symbols. Adjusted Closing Price is
disseminated at the start of each trading day for all active symbols
in the NASDAQ system. End of Day Trade Summary is disseminated at
the close of each trading day, as a summary for all active NASDAQ-
and non-NASDAQ-listed securities. IPO Information reflects IPO
general administrative messages from the UTP and CTA Level 1 feeds
for Initial Public Offerings for all NASDAQ- and non-NASDAQ-listed
securities. For additional information, see NLS Plus Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fees
    Firms that receive an NLS Plus feed today are liable for annual
administration fees for applicable NASDAQ equity exchanges: $1,000 for
NASDAQ, $1,000 for BX, and $1,000 for PSX.\13\ In addition, firms that
receive NLS Plus are liable for NLS or NASDAQ Basic fees.\14\ Finally,
firms will pay a

data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For current fees, see http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPUSdata#ls. Annual administrative fees are in BX
Rule 7035, NASDAQ Rule 7035, and NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees Chapter VIII.
    \14\ User fees for NLS and NASDAQ Basic are in NASDAQ Rules 7039
and 7047. User fees for BX Last Sale are in BX Rule 7039 (currently
there is no fee liability), and for PSX Last Sale are in NASDAQ OMX
PSX Fees Chapter VIII (currently there is no fee liability). As
currently described in NASDAQ Rule 7047, NASDAQ Basic provides two
sets of data elements: (1) the best bid and offer on the NASDAQ
Stock Market for each U.S. equity security; and (2) the last sale
information currently provided by NLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, proposed Rule 7039 states the following at sections
(d)(1) through (d)(3):
    (1) Firms that receive NLS Plus shall pay the annual administration
fees for NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, and a data consolidation
fee of $350 per month.
    (2) Firms that receive NLS Plus are in addition liable for NLS or
NASDAQ Basic fees, as applicable.
    (3) In the event that NASDAQ OMX BX and/or NASDAQ OMX PHLX adopt
user fees for BX Last Sale and/or PSX Last Sale, firms that receive NLS
Plus would also be liable for such fees.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BX Last Sale and PSX Last Sale currently are not fee
liable, as noted in BX Rule 7039 and NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees Chapter
VIII, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed fee structure is designed to
ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a
product similar to NLS Plus.\16\ The proposed fee structure reflects
the current annual administrative cost as well as the incremental cost
of the aggregation and consolidation function (generally known as the
``consolidation function'') for NLS Plus, and would not be lower than
the cost to a vendor creating a competing product, including the cost
of receiving the underlying data feeds. The proposed fee structure for
NLS Plus would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and
offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost
than the Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For discussion in addition to this proposal, see NLS Plus
Approval Order.
    \17\ See also footnote 24 in the NLS Plus notice, wherein the
Exchange indicated that it expects that the fee structure for NLS
Plus will reflect an amount that is no less than the cost to a
market data vendor to obtain all the underlying feeds, plus an
amount to be determined that would reflect the value of the
aggregation and consolidation function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee structure is reasonable and proper. First, the
proposed administration fee is essentially a codification of the
current administration fee vis a vis NASDAQ, BX and PSX. Second, NLS
Plus recipients would also be liable for fees if the Exchange adopts
user fees for BX Last Sale and/or PSX Last Sale. To that end, the
Exchange notes that it will file separate proposals to adopt NLS Plus
in the BX Last Sale and PSX Last Sale provisions,\18\ as well as
separate fee proposals that would each, like this filing, be expected
to have an administrative fee component and a consolidation component.
Third, firms receive NLS Plus by itself or in conjunction with NASDAQ
Basic.\19\ Accordingly, firms would either be liable for NLS fees or
NASDAQ Basic fees. Fourth, the Exchange proposes that NLS Plus includes
a specific monthly $350 data consolidation fee. This fee is designed to
recoup the monthly consolidation costs emanating from the aggregation
and consolidation of the data and data streams that make up the NLS
Plus data feed. Such consolidated costs include, for example, the costs
of combining the feeds, adding the Bloomberg ID, and combining the
consolidated sale info. The Exchange believes that this consolidation
fee, while in addition to the current NLS Plus fees in place, would not
be material to firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ BX Rule 7039 and NASDAQ OMX PSX Fees Chapter VIII.
    \19\ As provided in Rule 7047, NASDAQ Basic provides the
information contained in NLS, together with NASDAQ's best bid and
best offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed NLS Plus fee is a simple
codification of the existing NLS PLS [sic] fee into Rule 7039, as
discussed, with the addition of a monthly data consolidation fee, and
as such meets the requirements of the Act.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\20\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange is codifying the fees
regarding the NLS Plus data offering and the consolidation fee, as
discussed, into sections (d)(1) through (d)(3) of Rule 7039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed fees offered to firms that elect
to receive NLS Plus are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. These fees are reasonable because they are, as
discussed, simply a codification of the existing fee structure, with an
addition of the above-discussed consolidation fee, into existing Rule
7039. The proposed fee structure would apply equally to all firms that
choose to avail themselves of the NLS Plus data feed, and no firm is
required to use NLS Plus. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
consolidation fee, while in addition to the current NLS Plus fee, would
not be material to firms. The consolidation fee would, however, enable
the Exchange to recoup the monthly consolidation cost emanating from
the aggregation and consolidation of the data and data streams that
make up the NLS Plus data feed. Such consolidated costs include, for
example, the monthly the costs of combining the feeds, adding the
Bloomberg ID, and creating the consolidated sale info. The proposed fee
structure would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would apply
equally to all firms that choose to use NLS Plus.
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed fees are also consistent with the
investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ in
that they are designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market and national
market system, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the proposed fee structure will codify the fees
regarding the NLS Plus data offering into sections (d)(1) through
(d)(3) of Rule 7039, which helps to assure proper enforcement of the
rule and investor protection. NASDAQ believes also that the proposal
facilitates transactions in securities, removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
codifying into a rule the fee liability for an additional means by
which investors may access information about securities transactions,
namely NLS Plus, thereby providing investors with additional options
for accessing information that may help to inform their trading
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ notes that the Commission has recently approved data
products on several exchanges that are similar to NLS Plus, and
specifically determined that the fee-liable approved data products were
consistent with the Act.\23\ NLS Plus simply provides market
participants with an additional option for receiving market data that
has already been the subject of a proposed rule change and that is
available from myriad market data vendors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 10 regarding BATS One and NYSE BQT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers (``BDs'') increased authority and flexibility to offer new and
unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority
would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. NASDAQ
believes that its NLS Plus market data product is

precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded
that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in proprietary data--
would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the market as well.

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), 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 I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the
U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NetCoalition I, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court in NetCoalition I, while upholding the Commission's
conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the
fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case
did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the
competitive nature of the market for NYSE Arca's data product at issue
in that case. As explained below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on
Competition, however, NASDAQ believes that there is substantial
evidence of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the
record in the NetCoalition I case, and that the Commission is entitled
to rely upon such evidence in concluding fees are the product of
competition, and therefore in accordance with the relevant statutory
standards.\26\ Accordingly, any findings of the court with respect to
that product may not be relevant to the product at issue in this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ It should also be noted that Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank
Act'') has amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3), to make it clear that all exchange fees, including
fees for market data, may be filed by exchanges on an immediately
effective basis. See also NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C.
Cir. 2013) (``NetCoalition II'') (finding no jurisdiction to review
Commission's non-suspension of immediately effective fee changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, fee liable data products such as NLS Plus are a means by
which exchanges compete to attract order flow, and this proposal simply
codifies the relevant fee structure into an Exchange rule. To the
extent that exchanges are successful in such competition, they earn
trading revenues and also enhance the value of their data products by
increasing the amount of data they are able to provide. Conversely, to
the extent that exchanges are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add
value to data products are diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete
for order flow places substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their
fees for both executions and data reasonable.

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. The proposed fee structure is
designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by
allowing the Exchange to recoup costs while continuing to offer its
data products at competitive rates to firms.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided. This
rule proposal does not burden competition, which continues to offer
alternative data products and, like the Exchange, set fees,\27\ but
rather reflects the competition between data feed vendors and will
further enhance such competition. As described, NLS Plus competes
directly with existing similar products and potential products of
market data vendors. NASDAQ OMX Information LLC was constructed
specifically to establish a level playing field with market data
vendors and to preserve fair competition between them. Therefore,
NASDAQ OMX Information LLC receives NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last
Sale from each NASDAQ-operated exchange in the same manner, at the same
speed, and reflecting the same fees as for all market data vendors.
Therefore, NASDAQ Information LLC has no competitive advantage with
respect to these last sale products and NASDAQ commits to maintaining
this level playing field in the future. In other words, NASDAQ will
continue to disseminate separately the underlying last sale products to
avoid creating a latency differential between NASDAQ OMX Information
LLC and other market data vendors, and to avoid creating a pricing
advantage for NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS Plus joins the existing market for proprietary last sale data
products that is currently 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. Similarly, with respect to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF
data that is a component of NLS and NLS Plus, allowing exchanges to
operate TRFs has permitted them to earn revenues by providing
technology and data in support of the non-exchange segment of the
market. This revenue opportunity has also resulted in fierce
competition between the two current TRF operators, with both TRFs
charging extremely low trade reporting fees and rebating the majority
of the revenues they receive from core market data to the parties
reporting trades.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post

an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order
can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price,
and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions,
exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are
valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information
that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making
trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the
exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
This cost structure is common in content and content distribution
industries such as software, where developing new software typically
requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments
to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the
incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
typically small, or even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded
over the Internet after being purchased).\28\ In NASDAQ's case, it is
costly to build and maintain a trading platform, but the incremental
cost of trading each additional share on an existing platform, or
distributing an additional instance of data, is very low. Market
information and executions are each produced jointly (in the sense that
the activities of trading and placing orders are the source of the
information that is distributed) and are each subject to significant
scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost pricing is not feasible
because if all sales were priced at the margin, NASDAQ would be unable
to defray its platform costs of providing the joint products.
Similarly, data products cannot make use of TRF trade reports without
the raw material of the trade reports themselves, and therefore
necessitate the costs of operating, regulating,\29\ and maintaining a
trade reporting system, costs that must be covered through the fees
charged for use of the facility and sales of associated data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
    \29\ It should be noted that the costs of operating the FINRA/
NASDAQ TRF borne by NASDAQ include regulatory charges paid by NASDAQ
to FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions
and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD
will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected
revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction
execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD
chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of
the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product
will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading
activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does
not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its
orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing
orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Similarly, in the case of products such as NLS Plus that are
distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price
discipline for proprietary data products because they control the
primary means of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints
based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as
Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may
refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase
in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs,
such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data
only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission
revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors'
pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any
proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value.
Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
Moreover, NASDAQ believes that products such as NLS Plus can enhance
order flow to NASDAQ by providing more widespread distribution of
information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider
participation in the market by investors with access to the internet or
television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and
investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products contain
less content.
    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. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the
cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions,

and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized
transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this
competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to
multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product,
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than
the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the
marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NLS Plus, the data provided through
that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered
by the SIPs for a fee, (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute
time delay, and (iii) individual exchange data products, and finds a
close substitute in last-sale products of competing venues.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over
40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this
space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of
the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the
market.\31\ Given the demand for trade reporting services that is
itself a by-product of the fierce competition for transaction
executions--characterized notably by a proliferation of ATSs and BDs
offering internalization--any supra-competitive increase in the fees
associated with trade reporting or TRF data would shift trade report
volumes from one of the existing TRFs to the other \32\ and create
incentives for other TRF operators to enter the space. Alternatively,
because BDs reporting to TRFs are themselves free to consolidate the
market data that they report, the market for over-the-counter data
itself, separate and apart from the markets for execution and trade
reporting services--is fully contestable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The low cost exit of two TRFs from the market is also
evidence of a contestable market, because new entrants are reluctant
to enter a market where exit may involve substantial shut-down
costs.
    \32\ It should be noted that the FINRA/NYSE TRF has, in recent
weeks, received reports for almost 10% of all over-the-counter
volume in NMS stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20-minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    In this environment, 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 I at 539. The existence of
fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in
response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the
value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume
data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market
data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business
with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower
their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening
the need for the more expensive data. Similarly, increases in the cost
of NLS Plus would impair the willingness of distributors to take a
product for which there are numerous alternatives, impacting NLS Plus
data revenues, the value of NLS Plus as a tool for attracting order
flow, and ultimately, the volume of orders routed to NASDAQ and the
value of its other data products.

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.\33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-088 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-088. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 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-2015-088 and
should be submitted on or before August 31, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-19537 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8195]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-69-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Transfer Assets under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160210-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-524-001.
    Applicants: Wolverine Holdings, L.P.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Notice of Succession to
be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160210-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-526-001.
    Applicants: Sempra Generation, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Sempra Generation, LLC Amended
Market-Based Rate Tariff Feb. 10, 2016 to be effective 12/31/2024.
    Filed Date: 2/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160210-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-921-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Forward Reserve
Market Offer Cap and Elimination of Price Netting to be effective 6/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 2/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160210-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03309 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78317]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC21-29-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1818-024; ER10-1819-027; ER10-1820-030.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power Company,
a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Public Service Company
of Colorado, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2531-011.
    Applicants: Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cedar Creek
Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1736-002.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 864 Compliance Filing--
Response to Staff Letter (ER20-1736-__) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1739-001.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: ATSI Response to Deficiency Letter
for Order No. 864 Compliance to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-116-001.
    Applicants: XO Energy CAL, LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 10/
16/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-496-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Installed Capacity
Requirement, Hydro Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits and
Related Values for the 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Annual
Reconfiguration Auctions.
    Filed Date: 11/25/20.
    Accession Number: 20201125-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 27, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26708 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71510-71511]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Substitutability of Generic Drugs: Perceptions and Reality;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with
the Johns Hopkins University Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science
and Innovation, is announcing a public workshop entitled
``Substitutability of Generic Drugs: Perceptions and Reality.'' The
objective of this workshop is to discuss FDA and industry practices
related to postmarket surveillance of generic drugs, postmarket generic
drug research activities, public perceptions of generic drug quality
and effectiveness, and verification of therapeutic equivalence of
generic drugs. This workshop will also give stakeholders, including
scientists from government, academia, and industry, patient advocacy
groups, clinicians, pharmacists, and the general public an opportunity
to provide their insights on future research needs in postmarket
surveillance of generic drugs.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on November 18, 2016, from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting
participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine

security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security
information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Thomas, Office of Regulatory
Science and Innovation, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4220, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this public workshop is to
provide an opportunity for stakeholders, including scientists from
government, academia, and industry, patient advocacy groups,
clinicians, pharmacists, and the general public to discuss marketed
generic drugs. Generic drugs account for 88 percent of prescriptions in
the United States. In light of the significant contributions of generic
drugs to public health, it is important that tools are developed to
monitor marketed generic drugs to ensure that they have the same safety
and effectiveness as their reference listed drug. Specifically, this
workshop will include presentations on: (1) Current generic drug
surveillance practices at FDA and in industry, (2) public perception of
generic drug quality and effectiveness, (3) generic drug substitution
studies in patients, and (4) development of methods and tools to
conduct postmarket surveillance of generic drugs. The workshop will
include four panel sessions for interaction and discussion among the
speakers and attendees.
    Agenda: The agenda is available at http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/specialtopics/regulatoryscience/ucm521545.htm.
    Registration: There is no registration fee to attend this public
workshop. Seats are limited and registration will be on a first-come,
first-served basis. Advance registration is required and is online only
at http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/specialtopics/regulatoryscience/ucm521545.htm. There will be no day-of, onsite registration.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be Webcast. There is no registration fee for access to the
workshop via the Webcast, but registration is still required.
Information regarding registration and access to the Webcast link is
available at http://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/specialtopics/regulatoryscience/ucm521545.htm. If you have never attended a Connect
Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a
quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified these Web site addresses, but
FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites
after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Accommodations: Attendees are responsible for their own hotel
accommodations. If you need special accommodations while at FDA's White
Oak Campus due to a disability, please contact Shari Solomon at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in advance.

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25004 Filed 10-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


I

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact:[Tony Kish,703-308-9443]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition. In cases where the outline element does not apply,please
insert  11NA-Remove" and maintain the outline.Please do not change the
margins,font,or format in your pesticide

petition.Simply replace the instructions that appear in green,i.e.,
11[insert company  name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Syngenta Crop Protection  LLC),PP# 4F8231]

EPA has received a pesticide petition PP# 4F8231from [Syngenta Crop
Protection LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,NC 27419-8300] proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the FederalFood,Drug,and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.475.

1 by  estab'ishing tolerance for res(ppm ; [pea,hay] at [40] (ppm);
[Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B) at [3.0] (ppm).

2.  By removing tolerance for chickpeas at [0.08] (ppm).

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
FDDCA;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.  The nature of the residues in plants is understood
for the purpose of the proposed tolerance.  The metabolism of
14C-difenoconazole has been studied using both phenyl and triazole
labels in wheat,tomatoes,potatoes,grapes,and spring rape. The metabolic
pathway was the same in these four separate and distinct

crops. Therefore,the metabolism  of difenoconazole is considered to be
adequately understood for all crops,per EPA Test Guideline 860.1300.

2. Analytical method. Syngenta Crop Protection,Inc. has submitted a
practical analytical method (AG-5758, master record identification
(MRID) No. 428065-04) for detecting and measuring levels of
difenoconazole in or on food with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that
allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in
the proposed tolerances.  EPA has validated this method  and copies have
been provided to FDA for insertion into pesticide analytical manual
(PAM) II. Method REM

147.08 BMRID 46950222) is also available for enforcement method,for the
determination of residues of difenoconazole in crops. Residues are
qualified by liquid chromatography (LC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/(MS) The
method is available to anyone who is interested,and may be obtained from
the Field Operations Division,Office  of Pesticide Programs.

ii. Livestock.  Syngenta Crop Protection,Inc.has submitted a practical
analytical method (AG-544A, MRID-43292401) for detecting and measuring
levels of difenoconazole in or on cattle tissues and milk and poultry
tissues and eggs, with a LOQ that allows monitoring of food with
residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances. EPA has
validated this method and copies have been provided to FDA for insertion
 into PAM II. The method is available to anyone who is interested, and
may be obtained from the Field Operations  Division,Office  of Pesticide
Programs. Tolerances in meat,milk, poultry  or eggs were established for
enforcement purposes.]

3. Magnitude  of residues. Syngenta conducted adequate magnitude  of
residue trials under OPPTS 860.1500 to support the requested uses of
difenoconazole. These residue trials satisfy the requested tolerance on
legumes,subgroup 6C and bushberry subgroup 13-078.

B. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated  the available toxicity  data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk.  EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability  of the sensitivities
of major  identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants  and
children.   Specific information on  the  studies  received  and  the
nature  of  the  toxic  effects  caused by difenoconazole   as  well  as
 the   no-observed-adverse-effect-level  (NOAEL) from   the toxicity
studies 	can	be 	found 	at 		the 	following 	website:     HYPERLINK
http://edocket.access.gpo/
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9759.htm	A summary  of  the
toxicological endpoints  for difenoconazole used for human risk
assessment is discussed in Umt III.A and B. of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of April 28, 2009 (75 FR pages

22256-22263) (FRL-8817-3D.

1. Acute toxicity   [Insert text.]

2.Genotoxicty. [Insert text.]

3. Reproductive and developmental  toxicity. [Insert text.]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

5. Chronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

6. Animal metabolism. [Insert text.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [Insert text.]

8. Endocrine disruption. [Insert text.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Tier Ill acute, short-term and chronic dietary
exposure evaluations were performed for
difenoconazole,1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-ylmethyi]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM

i Food. Acute exposure.  Acute (food only) risk assessments for
difenoconazole were performed for all population subgroups using an
acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.25 mg/kgBNOAEL) of 25 mg/kg-bw/day and
an uncertainty factor (UF) of lOOX. The 100X safety factor

includes intra- and inter-species variations;no additional FQPA safety
factor was applied. For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment,the
exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure
BMOE),which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for

each population subgroup. In addition,exposure was expressed as a
percent of the acute

reference dose B%aRfD). At the 99.91

percentile,acute (food only) exposure to the U.S.

population resulted in a MOE of 715 B14.0% of the aRfD of 0.25
mg/kg-bw/day). The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years
old) with a MOE of 347 (28.8% of the aRfD of

0.25 mg/kg-bw/day). Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100
and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the
Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the reference dose,Syngenta believes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute
dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from all current,pending,
and proposed uses for difenoconazole.

Chronic exposure.  Chronic (food only) risk assessment for
difenoconazole were performed for all population subgroups  using a
chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.01mg/kg-bw/day, based on

a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats with a no
observed adverse effect level

BNOAEL) of 0.96 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X. The
100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations; no
additional FQPA safety factor was applied. For the purpose of the
aggregate risk assessment,the exposure values were expressed in terms of
margin of exposure (MOE),which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by
the exposure for each population subgroup. In addition, exposure was
expressed as a percent of the chronic

reference dose (%cRfD). Chronic (food only) exposures to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE

of 1, 305 (7.4% of the cRfD of 0.01mg/kg-bw/day). The most exposed
sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 393 B24.5% of
the cRfD of 0.01mg/kg-bw/day). Since the Benchmark MOE for this
assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for
exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the reference
dose,Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from chronic dietary (food) exposure to residues arising
from all current, pending, and proposed uses for difenoconazole.

Cancer. A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted. Difenoconazole is
classified as a Group C,"possible human carcinogen," with a non-linear
BMOE) approach for human risk characterization BCPRC
Document,7/27/94,Memo,P. V. Shah, March 3,2007,HED Doc. No.

0054532).

ii.  Drinking Water: The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
of difenoconazole

BCGA169374) determined as total toxic residues of difenoconazole and
its degradate (CGA205375) were determined using Tier I models SCI-GROW
BScreening Concentration in Ground Water) to estimate pesticide
concentrations in ground  water and Tier II model PRZM/EXAMS (Pesticide
Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System) to estimate pesticide
concentration in surface water.  All registered and proposed  uses on
artichoke, ginseng,green-house cucumbers and blueberries were assessed.
Based on the SCI-GROW modeling,the currently registered golf course turf
use provided a ground  water acute and

chronic EDWC of 0.0136 ppb.  Based on the PRZM/EXAMS modeling,the
currently registered grape use provided a surface water acute EDWC of
20.0 parts per billion (ppb) and a surface water chronic EDWC of 13.5
ppb. Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, the
surface water values were used for risk assessment purposes and will be
considered protective for any ground water exposure concerns.

Acute Exposure from  Drinking Water.  The acute surface water EDWC of
20.0 ppb was input directly  into the DEEM-FCID'M software as "water,
direct  and indirect,all sources" to model the acute drinking water
exposures.  Exposure contributions at the 99th percentile of exposures
were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate (food+
drinking water) exposures and the food (alone) exposures for each
population subgroup. Acute drinking water exposure U.S. population
resulted  in a MOE of 30,084 (0.3% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).
The most exposed sub-population was children 1-2 years old with a MOE of
19,592 (0.5% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kgfday). Since the benchmark MOE for
this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the aRfD,Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute drinking water
exposure to residues arising from all registered and proposed uses for
difenoconazole.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The chronic surface water EDWC of
13.5 ppb was input directly  into the DEEM-FCID software as "water,
direct  and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water
exposures. Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population
resulted in a MOE of 3,396 (2.8% of the cRfD of 0.01mgfkg-bw/day).
Chronic drinking water exposure to the most exposed sub-population (all
infants,<1year old) resulted in a MOE of

1,317 (7.3% of the cRfD of 0.01mg/kg-bw/day). Since the Benchmark MOE
for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking
water exposure to residues arising from all registered and proposed
uses for difenoconazole.

2. Non Dietary Exposure: The use of difenoconazole on ornamentals and
flower gardens (Inspire•, Ready-to-Use spray) and golf courses
(Quadris Top'M, Heritage Top™, Briskway'M) may result in residential
handler  or post-application exposures to selected subgroups.  A
short-term toxicological dermal and inhalation endpoint of 1.25
mg/kg-bw/day was selected based upon the no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) from a 2-generation reproductive study in rats with an
uncertainty factor of lOOX,which includes intra- and interexpressed in
terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the
NOAEL by the exposure for each subgroup.  Adult gardeners 19+ years old
had a short-term residential MOE of 249 and youth gardeners had a
short-term residential MOE of 363;there were no other exposed subgroups.
 Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA
generally has no concern  for exposures above the Benchmark MOE,Syngenta
believes that

there is a reasonable  certainty that no harm will result from
short-term residential exposure to

residues arising from  all current, pending, and proposed  uses for
difenoconazole.

D. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Exposure to Substances with  a Cammon Mechanism of Toxicity.
Section

408(b)(2)(D)(v)  requires that,when considering whether to
establish,modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available
information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism
of toxicity". An ongoing  series of studies being conducted  by the U.S.
Triazole Task Force (USTTF) are designed to provide the Agency with more
complete toxicological and residue information for 1,2,4 triazole and
two conjugates,triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid, metabolites
common to most of the triazole fungicides. Upon completion of review  of
those data, EPA will prepare a more sophisticated assessment based on
the revised toxicological and exposure databases. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, the EPA has not assumed that difenoconazole has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

1.U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus water)
showed that exposure from all current,pending and proposed uses of
difenoconazole would result in a MOE of 699 (14.3% of the aRfD of 0.25
mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which exceeds the
Benchmark MOE of 100.  For the short-term aggregate exposure analysis
the corresponding food,water and residential MOEs were aggregated using
the inverse MOE approach. The short

2. Infants and children. The acute dietary  exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from  all current, pending and proposed uses
of difenoconazole would result in a MOE of 341B29.3% of the aRfD of
0.25 mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children
1-2 years old,which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  For the
short-term aggregate exposure  analysis the corresponding food, water
and residential MOEs were aggregated using the inverse MOE approach. The
short-term aggregate (food,drinking water, and residential) MOE was 438
for children (1-2 years),which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of

100.  The chronic  dietary exposure analysis (food plus water)  showed
that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed uses of
difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 337 B28.6% of the cRfD of
0.01mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children
1-2 years old, which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the
completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these
petitions,Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants  and children from aggregate exposure to
residues arising from all current,pending, and proposed uses of
difenoconazole, including anticipated dietary

exposure from food, water,and all other types of non-occupational
exposures.

F. International Tolerances

Codex Alimentarius Commission established Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
for difenoconazole in various agriculturalcommodities including
asparagus, banana,beans,except broad bean and soya bean,
broccoli,Brussels sprouts, cabbages, head, carrot,cauliflower, celeriac,
celery, cherries, edible offal (mammalian),eggs, garlic, ginseng,
grapes,leek, lettuce, head,lettuce, leaf,mango,meat,
milks,nectarine,olives, papaya, passion fruit,peach, peas

(pods and succulent/immature seeds), plums (including prunes), pome
fruits,potato, poultry

meat,poultry, edible  offal of, rape seed,soya bean (dry),sugar
beet,sunflower seed,tomato, tree nuts, wheat, and wheat  straw and
fodder, dry.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40958-40959]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0515; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Restricted Areas R-2504A & R-2504B; Camp Roberts,
CA, and Restricted Area R-2530; Sierra Army Depot, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the descriptions of restricted areas R-
2504A and R-2504B, Camp Roberts, CA, and restricted area R-2530, Sierra
Army Depot, CA, by removing the abbreviation ``PST'' from the time of
designation. This amendment does not change the dimensions of, or
activities conducted within, R-2504A, R-2504B, and R-2530.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The time of designation for R-2504A and R-2504B currently reads
``0600 to 2400 PST, daily'' and the time of designation for R-2530
currently reads ``0800 to 1800 PST, Monday-Friday; other times by
NOTAM.'' Since the restricted areas lie completely within the pacific
time zone, it is unnecessary to specify ``PST'' in the descriptions.
The use of ``PST'' has led to confusion about the time of designation
during that part of the year when daylight saving time is in effect.
The intended time of designation for restricted areas R-2504A and R-
2504B is 0600-2400 local time, daily, during both standard time and
daylight saving time periods and for R-2530 is 0800-1800 local time,
Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM, during both standard time and
daylight saving time periods.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by removing ``PST'' from the time of designation for restricted
areas R-2504A and R-2504B, Camp Roberts, CA, and R-2530, Sierra Army
Depot, CA, and inserting the words ``local time'' in its place. The
time of designation is amended to read ``0600 to 2400 local time,
daily'' for R-2504A and R-2504B and ``0800-1800 local time, Monday-
Friday; other times by NOTAM'' for R-2530. These changes do not alter
the current dimensions or usage of the restricted areas.
    Because this action is a minor editorial change that does not alter
the physical location or utilization of the restricted areas, I find
that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.
    Section 73.25 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order
JO 7400.8V, effective February 16, 2013.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established

body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (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 only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 amends airspace descriptions to keep them current.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311d. This action updates the technical description of
special use airspace that does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or
use of the airspace. It is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.25  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2504A Camp Roberts, CA [Amended]

    By replacing the current time of designation as follows:
    Time of designation. 0600 to 2400 local time, daily.
* * * * *

R-2504B Camp Roberts, CA [Amended]

    By replacing the current time of designation as follows:
    Time of designation. 0600 to 2400 local time, daily.
* * * * *

R-2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA [Amended]

    By replacing the current time of designation as follows:
    Time of designation. 0800 to 1800 local time, Monday-Friday; other
times by NOTAM.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 1, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-16449 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 21, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1997-3283

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA, INC., filed 2/9/06, for:

XX	Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Guam and Cairns, Australia and to integrate this authority with
its other exemption and certificate authority.

Applicant rep:	R. Bruce Keiner<PHONE_NUMBER>	DOT Analyst: Tretha
Chromey<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted, in part (subject to conditions, see below)

XX	Dismissed, in part (request for route integration authority)

The above action was effective when taken: April 21, 2006 through April
21, 2008, or until 90 days after final Department action on a
corresponding certificate application filed in Dockets OST-97-2558 and
OST-2005-22228, whichever occurs earlier.

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

Office of International Aviation

XX The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Australia.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:	XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Remarks:  The authority for which Continental Micronesia requested
renewal expired April 14, 2006, but was kept in force pursuant to the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), as
implemented by 14 CFR Part 377, pending action on its timely-filed
renewal application.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/report_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 In the present application, Continental Micronesia references a pending
application for corresponding certificate authority in Dockets
OST-97-2558 and OST-2005-22228.  We will handle the certificate request
separately.

 The carrier’s request for route integration authority has been
superseded by Order 2006-1-1, where the Department awarded the carrier a
blanket route integration certificate.