[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38507-38508]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12626]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0307; FRL-11027-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
providing notice of a proposed consent decree in Environmental Defense
Fund, et al. v. EPA, No. 3:22-cv-7731-WHO (N.D. Cal.). On December 7,
2022, Plaintiffs Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging that EPA has failed to perform its
nondiscretionary duty to ``review and, if appropriate, revise'' New
Source Performance Standard (``NSPS'') emission limits for new
stationary combustion turbines, at least every 8 years. The proposed
consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to sign a proposed and
final rule for this action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2023-0307, online at  https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Schramm, Air and Radiation Law
Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0307) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Environmental Defense Fund and
Sierra Club (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging that EPA has failed to perform its nondiscretionary duty under
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) to ``review and, if appropriate, revise'' New
Source Performance Standard (``NSPS'') nitrogen oxides (NOX)
limits for new stationary combustion turbines, 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKKK (``NSPS Subpart KKKK''), at least every 8 years. The proposed
consent decree, would require that EPA: (i) sign a determination under
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B) that ``review'' of
NSPS Subpart KKKK ``is not appropriate in light of readily available
information on the efficacy of [the] standard''; or (ii) review NSPS
Subpart KKKK under CAA

section 111(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), and sign either: (A) a
proposed rulemaking containing revisions to NSPS Subpart KKKK; or (B) a
proposed determination not to revise NSPS Subpart KKKK by November 7,
2024. In addition, the proposed consent decree would require EPA to
sign one or a combination of the following: (i) a final rule containing
revisions to NSPS Subpart KKKK pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B); or
(ii) a final determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B) not to
revise Subpart KKKK by November 12, 2025.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-
0307, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. 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. 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.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body 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.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-12626 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6477-6478]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-89]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561; FRL-7760-2]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Workgroup on Pesticide
Worker Safety Regulations; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), Workgroup
on Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations will hold a public meeting on
February 27, 2006. An agenda for this meeting is being developed and
will be posted on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/ppdc/.
 The workgroup will provide input and advice on regulatory changes

being considered to the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170)
and the Certification of Pesticide Applicators (40 CFR part 171).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, February 27, 2006, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA's offices at 1801 S. Bell
St. (formerly 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.), Crystal Mall 2, Rm.
1110 (the Fishbowl), Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Davis, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who are concerned about implementation
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and amendments; and regulation for the
Certification of Pesticide Applicators. Other potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to, agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; pest
consultants; State, local, and Tribal governments; academia; public
health organizations; food processors; and the public. Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have questions about 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561.
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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic

public docket and comment system was replaced on November 25, 2005, by
an enhanced, Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment
system located athttp://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions.
    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.regulations.gov 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. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility of ensuring the safety of the American food supply, the
protection and education of those who apply or are exposed to
pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and the general
protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential
risks posed by pesticides.
    The PPDC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995 for a 2-year term and has
been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC provides advice and
recommendations to OPP on a broad range of pesticide regulatory,
policy, and program implementation issues that are associated with
evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. The following
sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide industry and trade
associations; environmental/public interest and consumer groups; farm
worker organizations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups;
Federal and State/local/Tribal governments; the general public;
academia; and public health organizations. Copies of the PPDC charter
are filed with appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of
Congress and are available upon request.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 31, 2006
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-1711 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 1 O3 Implementation Attainment & Cost Difference Analysis Review the Bidding Number of Areas Initial Results Many Caveats Next Steps 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 2 Summary ° Most areas are projected to attain the 8 hour standard under base case conditions ° With local control strategies, most of the other areas ( 10 out of 16)

are projected to attain the standard by 2009/ 2010. Air quality improvements in the other areas.

° Initial Scope of RFP difference analysis:

  Most stringent option: at most, all of 18 areas   Least stringent option: at most, all or part of 6 areas ° Initial Scope of RACT diff. analysis only affects subpart 1 areas   Most stringent option: 6 areas   Least stringent option: 0 areas ° Next Steps. Refine attainment analysis. Begin Difference Analysis 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 3 Background ° Costs associated with the ambient standard were assessed in 1997 when the 8 hr O3 NAAQS was promulgated.

° The implementation rule examines differences in alternative implementation frameworks ° The most flexible and legally defensible framework is the regulatory baseline ° The base case for air quality modeling is what would happen in the absence of 8 hr O3 SIPs and additional federal rules ( e. g. CAIR) 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 4 Review the Bidding ° Completed:

  Quantitative Difference Analysis for Proposed Rule   Qualitative Analysis for Phase I Promulgated Rule ° In Process   Attainment Analysis ( Needed for Difference Analysis)

  Difference analysis for RFP and RACT options 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 5 Attainment Analysis ° Scope: CAM X Domain.

  Excludes 18 areas ° 10 subpart 1 ° 8 subpart 2 ( 2 marginal, 2 moderate, 3 serious, 1 severe 17)

  Located in AZ, CA, CO, and NV ° Limitations   Limited set of control measures   Ignores scale effects, learning curves,

bottlenecks 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 6 2004 Designations versus 2010 Base Case Projections: Areas with 8 hr Design Values >

85ppb 11 27 Subpart 2

Moderate 4 7 Subpart 2

Marginal 1 72 Subpart 1 Base Case 2010 CAM X Projections No. of Areas Designated in 2004 Non Attainment Area Type 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 7 Local Control Strategy Methodology ° Establish emission reduction targets for each of the 16 non attainment areas NAAs ° Determine Geographic Boundaries up to 100km and 200km of the 16 NAAs ° Rank order control measures   Within NAA   For NAA + 100 to 200km beyond ° Assess cost using different targets, select lower cost strategy ° Rerun CAM X with emission reductions from lower cost strategy ° Caveat/ qualify results 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 8 2010 Base Case versus 2010 CAM X Local Control Strategy Run: Estimated NAAs 3 areas too close to call ( 86 vs 85 ppb)

~ 6 11 Subpart 2 Moderate 1 area too close to call ( 86 vs 84 ppb)

~ 0 4 Subpart 2 Marginal 1 area too close to call ( 85 vs 84 ppb)

~ 0 1 Subpart 1 Comments No. of NAAs 2010 Local Control Strategy No. of NAAs 2010 Base Case NAA Type 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 9 NAA Expected to Attain: Targets & Costs $ 930 $ 600 16% NOx $ 27 Washington $ 370 $ 350 27.3% NOx $ 2.5 Sheboygan $ 3380 $ 1700 13.3% NOx*

$ 1.6 Providence $ 60 $ 40 7.2% NOx $ 0.02 Kent/ Q. Anne $ 3110 $ 1550 19% NOx $ 51 Dallas $$ 2670 $ 1380 11% VOC $ 28 Detroit $ 740 $ 540 18.3% NOx $ 14 Cleveland $ 120 $ 120 4.7% NOx $ 0.7 Beaumont $ 1990 $ 1190 35.9% NOx $ 21 Buffalo $ 390 $ 220 7.6% NOx $ 3.3 Atlanta Max $/ ton Ave $/ ton ER Target Cost ( 106)

Area * Area did not achieve target. Reductions in upwind areas resulted in projected attainment. 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 10 Areas not simulated to attain the standard in the local control strategy case Exceeds progress requirements 99% 83%

~ 50% NOx ~ 50% VOC Philadelphia Exceeds progress requirements 19% 62%

~ 50% NOx ~ 50% VOC New York Exceeds progress requirements 72%

~ 50% NOx Milwaukee Exceeds progress requirements 80% NOx 24% VOC ~ 50% NOx ~ 50% VOC Houston Exceeds progress requirements 100% 100%

~ 50% NOx 25% VOC All Chicago Except Cook/ Lake Exceeds progress requirements Up to 73%

39.3% NOx Baltimore Comments Max Am't of Target Achieved ER Target Area 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 11 Some Preliminary Totals for the 16 Areas ° Emission Reductions: Local Control Strategy   VOC: 359,363 tons   NOx: 536,032 tons ( 181,055 tons from EGUs > 25 MW)

° Connection to CAIR:

  44 facilities in common in the 16 areas ° 15: no further control under CAIR or Local Control Strategy ° 15: CAIR has > emission reductions ° 14: O3 implementation > emission reductions   For these 44 facilities in total, CAIR has 159194 additional tons of NOx reductions 12 17 04 draft. do not quote or cite 12 Difference Analysis ° RFP: At most, 18 areas   13 of these were in the local control strategy analysis:

  All will have creditable emission reductions because of federal rules reflected in the base case   Also, some of these are expected to meet RFP in attempting to achieve the emission reduction targets.

  Other areas: Allentown, Boston, Columbus, Door,

Greater Conn. Will also have creditable emission reductions because of federal rules reflected in the base case ° RACT: At most, 6 areas. None were in the local control strategies analysis


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 14, 2012

TO:		RICE NESHAP Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

FROM:	Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

SUBJECT:	October 10, 2012 Meeting Regarding Proposed Amendments to the RICE NESHAP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between the EPA and the attendees listed below on October 10, 2012 to discuss the comments submitted by PJM on the proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. The amendments were proposed on June 7, 2012.        ATTENDEES

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Gary Helm, PJM Joe Goffman, EPA Paul Sotkiewicz, PJM Kevin Culligan, EPA Melanie King, EPA (by phone)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4200-4207]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01404]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71351; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-006]

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

January 17, 2014.
    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 9, 2014, 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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Commission a proposal to make permanent
the fee pilot program pursuant to which NASDAQ distributes the NASDAQ
Last Sale (``NLS'') market data products. NLS allows data distributors
to have access to real-time market data for a capped fee, enabling
those distributors to provide free access to the data to millions of
individual investors via the internet and television. Specifically,
NASDAQ offers the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ'' and ``NASDAQ Last
Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT'' data feeds containing last sale activity in
U.S. equities within the NASDAQ Market Center and reported to the
FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/NASDAQ TRF''), which is
jointly operated by NASDAQ and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'').
    The pilot program has supported the aspiration of Regulation NMS to
increase the availability of proprietary data by allowing market forces
to determine the amount of proprietary market data information that is
made available to the public and at what price. During the pilot
period, the program has vastly increased the availability of NASDAQ
proprietary market data to individual investors. Based upon data from
NLS distributors, NASDAQ believes that since its launch in July 2008,
the NLS data has been viewed by millions of investors on Web sites
operated by Google, Interactive Data, and Dow Jones, among others.
Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that it would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to make the product
permanent.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
7039. NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds
    (a) [For a three month pilot period commencing on January 1, 2014,]
NASDAQ [shall] offers two proprietary data feeds containing real-time
last sale information for trades executed on NASDAQ or reported to the
NASDAQ/FINRA Trade Reporting Facility.
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
    Prior to the launch of NLS, public investors that wished to view
market data to monitor their portfolios generally had two choices: (1)
pay for real-time market data or (2) use free data that is 15 to 20
minutes delayed. To increase consumer choice, NASDAQ proposed a pilot
to offer access to real-time market data to data distributors for a
capped fee, enabling those distributors to disseminate the data at no
cost to millions of internet users and television viewers. NASDAQ now
proposes to make the existing pilot program permanent, subject to the
same fee structure as is applicable today.
    NLS consists of two separate ``Level 1'' products containing last
sale activity within the NASDAQ market and reported to the jointly-
operated FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. First, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ''
data product is a real-time data feed that provides real-time last sale
information including execution price, volume, and time for executions
occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported to the
FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. Second, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT''
data product provides real-time last sale information including
execution price, volume, and time for NYSE- and NYSE MKT-securities
executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported
to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. By contrast, the securities information
processors (``SIPs'') that provide ``core'' data consolidate last sale
information from all exchanges and trade reporting facilities
(``TRFs''). Thus, NLS replicates a subset of the information provided
by the SIPs.
    In the pilot programs, NASDAQ established two different pricing
models, one for clients that are able to maintain username/password
entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms to account for
usage, and a second for those that are not. NASDAQ is proposing to
maintain this existing structure for the permanent version of the
product. Specifically, firms with the ability to maintain username/
password entitlement systems that enable them to track the number of
entitled users and/or quote counting

mechanisms that enable them to track the number of queries made for
data are eligible for a specified fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale
for NASDAQ Product and a separate fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale
for NYSE/NYSE MKT Product.
    The per query model is well suited to subscribers that expect to
access the product on a sporadic basis, while the per user model allows
unlimited usage by a fixed number of users, at a per month cost that is
less than the daily price of a major newspaper. Moreover, a per query
user may cap its fees such that they would not exceed the applicable
per user charge. The per user and per query fee schedules are as
follows:

                                           NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Users/month                     Price                  Query                       Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-9,999...........................  $0.60/usermonth......  0-10M................  $0.003/query.
10,000-49,999.....................  $0.48/usermonth......  10M-20M..............  $0.0024/query.
50,000-99,999.....................  $0.36/usermonth......  20M-30M..............  $0.0018/query.
100,000+..........................  $0.30/usermonth......  30M+.................  $0.0015/query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Users/month                     Price                  Query                       Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-9,999...........................  $0.30/usermonth......  0-10M................  $0.0015/query.
10,000-49,999.....................  $0.24/usermonth......  10M-20M..............  $0.0012/query.
50,000-99,999.....................  $0.18/usermonth......  20M-30M..............  $0.0009/query.
100,000+..........................  $0.15/usermonth......  30M+.................  $0.000725/query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The higher price for NLS for NASDAQ, in comparison to NLS for NYSE/
NYSE MKT, reflects NASDAQ's higher market share in the securities that
it lists and the correspondingly larger amount of data made available
through the product.
    Firms that are unable to maintain username/password entitlement
systems and/or quote counting mechanisms also have multiple options for
purchasing the NASDAQ Last Sale data. These firms choose between a
``Unique Visitor'' model for internet delivery or a ``Household'' model
for television delivery. Unique Visitor and Household populations must
be reported monthly and must be validated by a third-party vendor or
ratings agency approved by NASDAQ at NASDAQ's sole discretion. In
addition, to reflect the growing confluence between these media
outlets, NASDAQ offers a reduction in television fees when a single
distributor distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via multiple
distribution mechanisms. The applicable fee schedules are as follows:

                       NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Unique visitors                        Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-100,000.................................  $0.036/Unique Visitor.
100,000-1M................................  $0.03/Unique Visitor.
1M+.......................................  $0.024/Unique Visitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Unique visitors                        Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-100,000.................................  $0.018/Unique Visitor.
100,000-1M................................  $0.015/Unique Visitor.
1M+.......................................  $0.012/Unique Visitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Household                           Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1M......................................  $0.00096/Household.
1M-5M.....................................  $0.00084/Household.
5M-10M....................................  $0.00072/Household.
10M+......................................  $0.0006/Household.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Household                           Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1M......................................  $0.00048/Household.
1M-5M.....................................  $0.00042/Household.
5M-10M....................................  $0.00036/Household.
10M+......................................  $0.0003/Household.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ also established a cap on the monthly fee, currently set at
$50,000 per month, for all NASDAQ Last Sale products. The fee cap
enables NASDAQ to compete effectively against other exchanges that also
offer last sale data for purchase or at no charge. The fee cap also
ensures that users with large numbers of users or viewers can make the
product available at a per user/viewer fee measured in fractions of a
penny per month, with the per user/viewer fee dropping as the number of
persons receiving the data increases.
    As with the distribution of other NASDAQ proprietary products, all
distributors of the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or NASDAQ Last Sale
for NYSE/NYSE MKT products pay a single $1,500/month NASDAQ Last Sale
Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage fees. The $1,500
monthly fee applies to all distributors and does not vary based on
whether the distributor distributes the data internally or externally
or distributes the data via both the internet and television.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to make permanent the pilot program under which NASDAQ
has distributed the NASDAQ Last Sale product. NLS provides a subset of
the data that is also

provided by the core data feeds available through the SIPs. NASDAQ
believes 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 making permanent the availability
of an additional means by which investors may access information about
securities transactions, thereby providing investors with additional
options for accessing information that may help to inform their trading
decisions. Given that Section 11A the Act \5\ requires the
dissemination of last sale reports in core data, NASDAQ believes that
the inclusion of the same data in NLS is also consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ further notes that the pilot program fees for NLS have been
previously established, and that the Commission has either specifically
determined them to be consistent with the Act or has permitted them to
become effective on an immediately effective basis.\6\ Thus, this
proposed rule change does not establish or change a fee of the
Exchange, except to the extent that it provides that the fees charged
during the current pilot period for NLS may continue to be charged on a
going-forward basis. However, in this filing, NASDAQ reiterates its
bases for concluding that the fees for NLS provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ
operates or controls, and are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57965 (June 16,
2008), 73 FR 35178 (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060) (approving
initial fees for NLS on a pilot basis). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 58894 (October 31, 2008), 73 FR 66953 (November 12,
2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-086); 59186 (December 30, 2008), 74 FR 743
(January 7, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-103); 59652 (March 30, 2009), 74
FR 15533 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-027); 60201 (June 30,
2009), 74 FR 32670 (July 8, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-062); 60990
(November 12, 2009), 74 FR 60002 (November 19, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-
2009-095); 61872 (April 8, 2010), 75 FR 19444 (April 14, 2010) (SR-
NASDAQ-2010-045); 62428 (July 1, 2010), 75 FR 39315 (July 8, 2010)
(SR-NASDAQ-2010-081); 63092 (October 13, 2010), 75 FR 64375 (October
19, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-129); 63641 (January 4, 2011), 76 FR 2164
(January 12, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-172); 64188 (April 5, 2011), 76
FR 20054 (April 11, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-044); 64856 (July 12,
2011), 76 FR 41845 (July 15, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-092); 65488
(October 5, 2011), 76 FR 63334 (October 12, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-
132); 66095 (January 4, 2012), 77 FR 1537 (January 10, 2012) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-174); 66706 (March 30, 2012), 77 FR 20666 (April 5,
2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-045); 67376 (July 9, 2012), 77 FR 41467 (July
13, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-078); 67979 (October 4, 2012), 77 FR 61810
(October 11, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-108); 68568 (January 3, 2013), 78
FR 1910 (January 9, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-145); 69245 (March 27,
2013), 78 FR 19722 (April 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-053); 69908 (July
2, 2013), 78 FR 41178 (July 9, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-089); 70575
(September 30, 2013), 78 FR 62820 (October 22, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-
2013-126); 71217 (December 31, 2013), 79 FR 875 (January 7, 2014)
(SR-NASDAQ-2013-162).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``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 market
data products are 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.' '' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.\10\ Moreover, NASDAQ further notes that the product at issue
in this filing--a NASDAQ last sale data product that replicates a
subset of the information available through ``core'' data products
whose fees have been reviewed and approved by the SEC--is quite
different from the NYSE Arca depth-of-book data product at issue in
NetCoalition I. Accordingly, any findings of the court with respect to
that product may not be relevant to the product at issue in this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the information made available through NLS is also included
in the core data feeds made available pursuant to the joint-SRO plans,
the fees for which have been approved by the Commission. As the
Commission determined in approving the initial pilot program for NASDAQ
Basic, another product that offers a subset of information also made
available through the joint-SRO plans,

``the availability of alternatives to NASDAQ Basic significantly affect
the terms on which NASDAQ can distribute this market data. In setting
the fees for its NASDAQ Basic service, NASDAQ must consider the extent
to which market participants would choose one or more alternatives
instead of purchasing the exchange's data.'' \11\ Analogously, it
follows that the fees for NLS are reasonable, since charging
unreasonably high fees would cause market participants to rely solely
on core data rather than purchasing NLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12425 (March 16, 2009),
74 FR 12423, 12425 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as further discussed below in NASDAQ's Statement on
Burden on Competition, data products such as NLS are a means by which
exchanges compete to attract order flow. 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.
    The fees for NLS also continue to reflect an equitable allocation
and continue not to be unfairly discriminatory, because NLS is a
voluntary product for which market participants can readily substitute
core data feeds that provide additional last sale information not
available through NLS. Accordingly, NASDAQ is constrained from pricing
the product in a manner that would be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. Moreover, the fee schedule for NLS is designed to
ensure that the fees charged are tailored to the specific usage
patterns of a range of potential customers, in a manner designed to
avoid charging fees that are inequitably allocated or unfairly
discriminatory. Thus, customers that intend to distribute data through
the internet or television can avail themselves of a pricing model
under which per ``unique visitor'' or ``household'' charges drop as the
number of persons receiving the data through these media increases.
Likewise, subscribers distributing data through both television and the
internet receive a discount for their use of both media. Similarly, for
users that limit usage to a finite number of users, or that wish to
avail themselves of the data on a limited per query basis, pricing
models are available to ensure that fees bear an equitable relation to
the volume of usage, with per user and per query fees dropping as the
volume of usage increases and with per query fees subject to a cap to
ensure that users opting for this method do not exceed corresponding
per user fees in a month of high usage. In all instances, charges for
NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT are lower than charges for NASDAQ
Last Sale for NASDAQ to reflect the lower volume of data available
through the former product and to provide users with a choice of
receiving all NASDAQ Last Sale data or only a portion of it. Finally,
all fees are subject to a monthly cap. Thus, the range of fee options
ensures that customers are not charged a fee that is inequitably
disproportionate to the use that they make of the product; rather,
depending on the use that they intend to make of the product, they may
select the fee model that will best minimize their costs.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ's ability to
price its Last Sale Data Products is constrained by (1) competition
between exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with each
other in a variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive
real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed
consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary last sale data.
    The market for proprietary last sale data products 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, 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).\12\ 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,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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).
    \13\ 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 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 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.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products. Similarly, the inclusion of TRF trade reporting data in
a product such as NLS may assist in attracting customers to the
product, thereby assisting in covering the additional costs associated
with operating and regulating a TRF.
    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 thirteen 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, BATS, and 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 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, the data provided through that
product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the
SIPs for a fee, and (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute time
delay, 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 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, Markit aggregates and disseminates data from over
50 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.markit.com/en/products/data/boat/boat-boat-data.page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\15\ 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 \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
    \16\ It should be noted that the FINRA/NYSE TRF has, in recent
weeks, received reports for over 10% of all over-the-counter volume
in NMS stocks. In addition, FINRA has announced plans to update its
Alternative Display Facility, which is also able to receive over-
the-counter trade reports. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
70048 (July 26, 2013), 78 FR 46652 (August 1, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-
031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    The competitive nature of the market for products such as NLS is
borne out by the performance of the market. In May 2008, the Internet
portal Yahoo! began offering its Web site viewers real-time last sale
data (as well as best quote data) provided by BATS. In response, in
June 2008, NASDAQ launched NLS, which was initially subject to an
``enterprise cap'' of $100,000 for customers receiving only one of the
NLS products, and $150,000 for customers receiving both products. The
majority of NASDAQ's sales were at the capped level. In early 2009,
BATS expanded its offering of free data to include depth-of-book data.
Also in early 2009, NYSE Arca announced the launch of a competitive
last sale product with an enterprise price of $30,000 per month. In
response, NASDAQ combined the enterprise cap for the NLS products and
reduced the cap to $50,000 (i.e., a reduction of $100,000 per month).
Although each of these products offers only a specific subset of data
available from the SIPs, NASDAQ believes that the products are viewed
as substitutes for each other and for core last-sale data, rather than
as products that must be obtained in tandem. For example, while Yahoo!
and Google now both disseminate NASDAQ's product, several other major
content providers, including MSN and Morningstar, use the BATS product.
    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 would impair the willingness of distributors to take a product
for which there are numerous alternatives, impacting NLS data revenues,
the value of NLS as a tool for attracting order flow, and ultimately,
the volume of orders routed to NASDAQ and the value of its other data
products.
    In establishing the price for the NASDAQ Last Sale Products, NASDAQ
considered the competitiveness of the market for last sale data and all
of the

implications of that competition. NASDAQ believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to NLS, including real-
time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary
data from other sources ensures that NASDAQ cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, without losing
business to these alternatives. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the
acceptance of the NLS product in the marketplace demonstrates the
consistency of these fees with applicable statutory standards.

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

    Three comment letters were filed regarding NLS as originally
published for comment. NASDAQ responded to these comments in a letter
dated December 13, 2007. Both the comment letters and NASDAQ's response
are available on the SEC Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2006-060/nasdaq2006060.shtml. In addition, in response to prior
filings to extend the NLS pilot,\17\ the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'') and/or NetCoalition \18\
filed comment letters contending that the SEC should suspend and
institute disapproval proceedings with respect to the filing. SIFMA and
NetCoalition had also filed petitions seeking review by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with
respect to the NLS pricing pilots in effect from July 1, 2011 through
September 30, 2011, from October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011,
from July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012, and from January 1, 2013
through March 31, 2013. These appeals were stayed pending resolution of
the consolidated NetCoalition II case. On April 30, 2013, the court
issued a decision dismissing NetCoalition II, concluding that it lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the case. Subsequently, the court issued
orders dismissing each of the pending petitions seeking review of prior
extensions of the NLS pricing pilot. On May 30, 2013, SIFMA filed with
the Commission an ``Application for an Order Setting Aside Rule Changes
of Certain Self-Regulatory Organizations Limiting Access to their
Services'' that purports to challenge prior filings under Section 19(d)
and (f) of the Act.\19\ Pursuant to a Commission procedural order,
interested parties have recently completed submission of briefs to the
Commission regarding appropriate procedures and other threshold
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70575 (September 30,
2013), 78 FR 62820 (October 22, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-126); 69245
(March 27, 2013), 78 FR 19772 (April 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-053);
68568 (January 3, 2013), 78 FR 1910 (January 9, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-
2012-145); 67376 (July 9, 2012), 77 FR 41467 (July 13, 2012) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-078); 65488 (October 5, 2011), 76 FR 63334 (October 12,
2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-132); 64856 (July 12, 2011), 76 FR 41845 (July
15, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-092); 64188 (April 5, 2011), 76 FR 20054
(April 11, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-044).
    \18\ NetCoaltion recently terminated its operations.
    \19\ Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15351. See also Admin Proc. File
No. 13-15350 (similar proceeding with respect to NYSEArca data
product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It appears to NASDAQ that SIFMA's contentions in this new
proceeding are similar to the contentions in its numerous prior comment
letters, which have repeatedly argued that market data fees are
improper unless established through public utility-style rate-making
proceedings that are nowhere contemplated by the Act. In making its
arguments, SIFMA has sought to rely upon NetCoalition I, while
repeatedly mischaracterizing the import of that case. Specifically, the
court made findings about the extent of the Commission's record in
support of determinations about a depth-of-book product offered by NYSE
Arca. In making this limited finding, the court nevertheless squarely
rejected contentions that cost-based review of market data fees was
required by the Act:

    The petitioners believe that the SEC's market-based approach is
prohibited under the Exchange Act because the Congress intended
``fair and reasonable'' to be determined using a cost-based
approach. The SEC counters that, because it has statutorily-granted
flexibility in evaluating market data fees, its market-based
approach is fully consistent with the Exchange Act. We agree with
the SEC.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NetCoalition I, 615 F.3d at 534.

    While the court noted that cost data could sometimes be relevant in
determining the reasonableness of fees, it acknowledged that submission
of cost data may be inappropriate where there are ``difficulties in
calculating the direct costs . . . of market data,'' id. at 539. That
is the case here, due to the fact that the fixed costs of market data
production are inseparable from the fixed costs of providing a trading
platform, and the marginal costs of market data production are
minimal.\21\ Because the costs of providing execution services and
market data are not unique to either of the provided services, there is
no meaningful way to allocate these costs among the two ``joint
products''--and any attempt to do so would result in inherently
arbitrary cost allocations.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Because the fees charged for products must cover these
fixed costs, however, pricing at marginal cost is impossible.
    \22\ The court also explicitly acknowledged that the ``joint
product'' theory set forth by NASDAQ's economic experts in
NetCoalition I (and also described in this filing) could explain the
competitive dynamic of the market and explain why consideration of
cost data would be unavailing. Indeed, the Commission relied on that
theory before the DC Circuit, but the court declined to reach the
question because the Commission raised it for the first time on
appeal. Id. at 541 n.16. For the purpose of providing a complete
explanation of the theory, NASDAQ is further submitting as Exhibit 3
to this filing a study that was submitted to the Commission in SR-
NASDAQ-2011-010. See Statement of Janusz Ordover and Gustavo
Bamberger at 2-17 (December 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA further contended that prior filings lacked evidence
supporting a conclusion that the market for NLS is competitive,
asserting that arguments about competition for order flow and
substitutability were rejected in NetCoalition I. While the court did
determine that the record before it was not sufficient to allow it to
endorse those theories on the facts of that case, the court did not
itself make any conclusive findings about the actual presence or
absence of competition or the accuracy of these theories: rather, it
simply made a finding about the state of the SEC's record. Moreover,
analysis about competition in the market for depth-of-book data is only
tangentially relevant to the market for last sale data. As discussed
above and in prior filings, perfect and partial substitutes for NLS
exist in the form of real-time core market data, free delayed core
market data, and the last sale products of competing venues; additional
competitive entry is possible; and evidence of competition is readily
apparent in the pricing behavior of the venues offering last sale
products and the consumption patterns of their customers. Thus,
although NASDAQ believes that the competitive nature of the market for
all market data, including depth-of-book data, will ultimately be
established, SIFMA's submissions have not only mischaracterized the
NetCoalition I decision, but have also failed to address the
characteristics of the product at issue and the evidence already
presented.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \23\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\24\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is: (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2014-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-006 and should
be submitted on or before February 14, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01404 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67142-67143]
[DOCID:fr18de09-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0934; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-29]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Georgetown, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Georgetown,
TX. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Georgetown Municipal
Airport, Georgetown, TX. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for
SIAPs at Georgetown Municipal Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before February 1,
2010.

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 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0934/Airspace Docket No. 09-
ASW-29, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0934/
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-29.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking at<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for SIAPs

operations at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX. Adjustments
to the geographic coordinates would be made in accordance with the FAAs
National Aeronautical Charting Office. Controlled airspace is needed
for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    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 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 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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
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 add additional controlled airspace at Georgetown Municipal
Airport, Georgetown, TX.

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

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 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.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Georgetown, TX [Amended]

Georgetown Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]40'44'' N., long. 97[deg]40'46'' W.)
Georgetown NDB
    (Lat. 30[deg]41'04'' N., long. 97[deg]40'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal Airport, and within
2.5 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the Georgetown NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.4 miles north of the
airport, and within 2.2 miles each side of the 301[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.7 miles
northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the
003[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius
to 10.3 miles north of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on December 7, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-30195 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34484-34485]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14122]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 766

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0261; FRL-9911-88]

Receipt of Request for Waiver From Testing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Receipt of request for waiver from testing.

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

SUMMARY: EPA received from Nation Ford Chemical (NFC) a request for a
waiver from testing requirements promulgated by rule under section 4 of
the Toxic Substances Control Act to ascertain whether certain specified
chemical substances may be contaminated with halogenated dibenzodioxins
(HDDs)/dibenzofurans (HDFs). EPA will accept comments on this request
and will publish another Federal Register document on or before July
21, 2014, announcing its decision on this request.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0261, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Hiroshi Dodahara, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the
Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this
action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action
applies directly to the submitter of the request for waiver. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a request for waiver from testing from
NFC. EPA will accept comments on this request on or before July 17,
2014 and will publish another Federal Register document announcing its
decisions on this request. See 40 CFR 766.32(c).

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under 40 CFR part 766, EPA requires testing of certain chemical
substances to determine whether they may be contaminated with HDDs and
HDFs. Under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii), a waiver may be granted if, in the
judgment of EPA, the cost of testing would drive the chemical substance
off the market, or prevent resumption of manufacture or import of the
chemical substance, if it is not currently manufactured, and the
chemical substance will be produced so that no unreasonable risk will
occur due to its manufacture, import, processing, distribution, use, or
disposal. The manufacturer must submit to EPA all data supporting the
determination.
    Under 40 CFR 766.32(b), a request for a waiver must be made 60 days
before resumption of manufacture or importation of a chemical substance
not being manufactured, imported, or processed as of June 5, 1987.
    On May 21, 2014, EPA received a completed waiver request from NFC
under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii) (Ref. 1). NFC originally sent a waiver
request in a letter dated March 18, 2014 (Ref. 2), which was amended
for a technical correction in a letter resubmitted on April 2, 2014
(Ref. 3). EPA informed NFC by letter (Ref. 4) that it would need to
submit certain additional information before the submission was
complete and EPA could begin its review of the request. The resubmitted
request indicates that NFC intends to import 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-2,5-
cyclohexadienel,4-dione (Chloranil) (CASRN 118-75-2), a chemical
substance subject to testing under 40 CFR part 766, to use chloranil as
a substitute for an ingredient in the manufacture of a pigment (Ref.
1).

III. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. National Ford Chemical. Letter from Phillip McCarter to Tanya
Hodge Mottley, May 16, 2014 (Received by EPA on May 21, 2014).
2. National Ford Chemical. Letter from Phillip McCarter to Wendy
Cleland-Hamnett, March 18, 2014. (Received by EPA on March 27,
2014).
3. National Ford Chemical. Technical Correction to Letter from
Phillip McCarter to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, March 18, 2014. (Received
by EPA on April 2, 2014).
4. EPA. Letter to Phillip McCarter from Tanya Hodge Mottley, May 5,
2014.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 766

    Environmental protection, Chloranil, Dibenzofurans, Dioxins,
Hazardous substances.

    Dated: June 9, 2014.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 2014-14122 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P