[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55427-55428]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29777; 812-13876]

Horizon Technology Finance Corporation, et al.; Notice of
Application

August 31, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission).

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act.

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

    Applicants: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (the
``Company''), Horizon Technology Finance Management LLC (the
``Investment Adviser''), Longview SBIC GP LLC (the ``General
Partner''), and Longview SBIC LP (``Horizon SBIC'').
    Summary of the Application: The Company requests an order to permit
it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 1, 2011, and
amended on August 29, 2011.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on September 26, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of
the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 312 Farmington
Avenue, Farmington, CT 06032.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file

number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicants' Representations:
    1. The Company, a Delaware corporation, is an externally managed,
non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a business development company (``BDC'')
under the Act.\1\ The Company's investment objective is to generate
current income from the loans it makes and capital appreciation from
the warrants it receives when making such loans. The Investment
Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is the external
investment adviser to the Company. The Investment Adviser is registered
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in section 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available managerial assistance with
respect to the issuers of such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Horizon SBIC, a Delaware limited liability company, submitted an
application to the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') for a
license to operate as a small business investment company (``SBIC'')
under the Small Investment Act of 1958 (``SBIA''). The application is
currently pending, and Applicants represent that they will not rely on
the order until the SBIC application has been approved. Horizon SBIC is
excluded from the definition of investment company by section 3(c)(7)
of the Act. The Company directly owns 99% of Horizon SBIC in the form
of limited partnership interests. The General Partner, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is the general partner of
Horizon SBIC and owns 1% of Horizon SBIC in the form of a general
partnership interest. The Company is the sole manager of the General
Partner and owns 100% of the General Partner's equity interests.
    Applicants' Legal Analysis:
    1. The Company requests an exemption pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Act from the provisions of sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act to
permit it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement with
respect to any direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company (each, a ``Subsidiary'') that is licensed by the SBA to operate
under the SBIA as a SBIC and relies on section 3(c)(7) for an exclusion
from the definition of ``investment company'' under the Act (each, a
``SBIC Subsidiary'').\2\ Applicants state that companies operating
under the SBIA, such as the SBIC Subsidiary, will be subject to the
SBA's substantial regulation of permissible leverage in its capital
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
order are named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the
order in the future will comply with the terms and condition of the
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits a registered closed-end
investment company from issuing any class of senior security or selling
any such security of which it is the issuer unless the company complies
with the asset coverage requirements set forth in that section. Section
61(a) of the Act makes section 18 applicable to BDCs, with certain
modifications. Section 18(k) exempts an investment company operating as
an SBIC from the asset coverage requirements for senior securities
representing indebtedness that are contained in section 18(a)(1)(A) and
(B).
    3. Applicants state that the Company may be required to comply with
the asset coverage requirements of section 18(a) (as modified by
section 61(a)) on a consolidated basis because the Company may be
deemed to be an indirect issuer of any class of senior security issued
by Horizon SBIC or another SBIC Subsidiary. Applicants state that
applying section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)) on a consolidated
basis generally would require that the Company treat as its own all
assets and any liabilities held directly either by itself, by Horizon
SBIC, or by another SBIC Subsidiary. Accordingly, the Company requests
an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting the Company from the
provisions of section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)), such that
senior securities issued by each SBIC Subsidiary that would be excluded
from the SBIC Subsidiary's asset coverage ratio by section 18(k) if it
were itself a BDC would also be excluded from the Company's
consolidated asset coverage ratio.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, permits the
Commission to exempt any transaction or class of transactions from any
provision of the Act if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief
satisfies the section 6(c) standard. Applicants contend that, because
the SBIC Subsidiary would be entitled to rely on section 18(k) if it
was a BDC itself, there is no policy reason to deny the benefit of that
exemption to the Company.
    Applicants' Condition:
    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    The Company shall not issue or sell any senior security, and the
Company shall not cause or permit Horizon SBIC or any other SBIC
Subsidiary to issue or sell any senior security of which the Company,
Horizon SBIC or any other SBIC Subsidiary is the issuer except to the
extent permitted by section 18 (as modified for BDCs by section 61) of
the Act; provided that, immediately after the issuance or sale by any
of the Company, Horizon SBIC or any other SBIC Subsidiary of any such
senior security, the Company, individually and on a consolidated basis,
shall have the asset coverage required by section 18(a) of the Act (as
modified by section 61(a)). In determining whether the Company has the
asset coverage on a consolidated basis required by section 18(a) of the
Act (as modified by section 61(a)), any senior securities representing
indebtedness of Horizon SBIC or another SBIC Subsidiary shall not be
considered senior securities and, for purposes of the definition of
``asset coverage'' in section 18(h), shall be treated as indebtedness
not represented by senior securities.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2011-22770 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


FROM:	Jeff Coburn  -  RTI International
TO:	Phil Mulrine, EPA/OAQPS
FOR:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373
DATE:	August 7, 2019
SUBJECT:	Area Source Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP
1.	Purpose
      This memorandum documents the technical support and analyses conducted for the EPA's technology review of the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for area source iron and steel foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ.
2.	Background
      Section 112(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to develop generally available control technology (GACT) standards to control HAP emissions from area sources. The term "area source" means any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source (i.e., a facility that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants). On January 2, 2008, the EPA published final standards for iron and steel foundries that are area sources of HAP emissions (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ)
      The EPA is then required, under CAA section 112(d)(6), to review these technology-based standards and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. The NESHAP for area source iron and steel foundries were promulgated over 8 years ago and are now being reviewed.
3.	Introduction to Iron and Steel Foundries
3.1	Iron and Steel Foundry Processes
      There are numerous operations conducted at a typical iron and steel foundry that are potential sources of HAP emissions as illustrated in Exhibit 1. Foundry operations start with two different paths: one path includes the metal input (e.g., scrap, ingot or other form of iron or steel) and metal melting and the other path includes sand input and mold and core making. The two paths merge and continue the production with pouring of the molten metal into the mold, followed by cooling of the casting and separation of the solid casting from the mold (commonly referred to as "shakeout" or "knockout").

Exhibit 1. Simplified schematic of operations at a typical iron and steel foundry.
      For sand mold foundries (the most common type of foundry), sand is typically recovered from the shakeout operations, reconditioned, and reused in the mold and core making operations. The cast metal recovered from the shakeout operations goes to the cutting, grinding, finishing, and cleaning processes to make final products. Discarded or off-spec materials from the cutting, grinding, and finishing processes can be recycled and reused in the melting operations. Additional description of foundry processes and their emission points is provided in the foundry background information document (BID) (U.S. EPA, 2002). In the following sections, we will discuss each of the primary emissions sources, the current emission limits, and our review of developments in practices, processes and control technologies.
3.2 	Emission Limitations in the Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP
      During the development of the area source NESHAP, there were about 420 area source iron and steel foundries in the United States and its territories. This number was down from over 500 area source foundries initially identified from the EPA's 1998 detailed information collection request of all iron and steel foundries (EPA, 1998). Based on the expected continuation of this trend, we estimate that there are currently about 300 area source iron and steel foundries. The area source NESHAP for iron and steel foundries contains a mixture of numeric emission limits and work practice standards. The area source NESHAP defines the affected facility as the entire iron and steel foundry or that portion of the facility associated with foundry operations. The area source NESHAP for iron and steel foundries has separate standards for "large foundries" and "small foundries" A "large [area source] foundry" is an existing foundry with annual metal melt production of greater than 20,000 tons or a new foundry with annual metal melt capacity of greater than 10,000 tons. A "small foundry" is an existing foundry with annual metal melt production of 20,000 tons or less or a new foundry with annual metal melt capacity of 10,000 tons or less. The area source NESHAP has different emission limits for existing versus new iron and steel foundries. Exhibit 2 summarizes the emission limits in the NESHAP for area source iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ). A more detailed summary of the emission limits and other rule requirements in Subpart ZZZZZ has also been provided previously (Pierce, 2016).
      The emission limits in that area source NESHAP are specific to metal HAP. Foundries may elect to comply with either the particulate matter (PM) emission limit (used as a surrogate for metal HAP) or the metal HAP emission limit. Based on the PM/metal HAP emission limits in the area source rule, a variety of PM control technologies may be used including fabric filters (baghouses), cartridge filters, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), and cyclone separators. For electric induction furnaces, which have a lower potential to emit than cupolas or electric arc furnaces, it is often possible to meet the emission limits for existing sources with no control or only a suppression control (i.e., use of a lid to cover the furnace during portions of the melting cycle)
      The area source NESHAP for iron and steel foundries includes work practice standards to reduce HAP emissions from mold and core making and metal melting operations. These work practice requirements are the same for large foundries and small foundries and apply equally to new and existing iron and steel foundries. These work practices are summarized below:
 Operate using a scrap acquisition plan to limit mercury, lead, chlorinated plastic parts, and organic liquids in the scrap purchased for use in metal melting furnaces (and scrap preheaters).
 For furan (furfuryl alcohol) warm box for mold or core making, use binder formulation that does not include methanol as an ingredient in the catalyst portion of the binder system.

Exhibit 3. NESHAP emission limits applicable to area source iron and steel foundries.
                        Source / Pollutant / Format[1]
                            40 CFR 63 subpart ZZZZZ

                                Large Existing
                                   Large New
                                Small Existing
                                   Small New
Metal Melting Furnaces / Metal HAP (meet one of the following)[2]
PM, lb/ton
                                      0.8
                                      0.1
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
Metal HAP, lb/ton
                                     0.06
                                     0.008
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
Other / Metal HAP
Building Opacity
                                    20%[3]
                                    20%[3]
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
   [1]Format abbreviation: lb/ton = pound per ton metal melted.
   [2].Emissions averaging is allowed for metal melting furnaces so these emission limits may apply to each individual metal melting furnace or to the group of metal melting furnaces, as elected by the facility owner or operator.
   [3] Except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30 percent opacity.

4.	Technology Review
      For the purposes of this technology review, a "development" is considered to be a(n):

 Add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during the development of the current NESHAP for the source category;
 Improvement to an existing add-on control technology or other equipment that could result in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;
 Work practices or operational procedures that were not identified or considered during development of the current NESHAP for the source category;
 Applicable process changes or pollution prevention alternatives that were not identified and considered during the development of the current NESHAP for the source category; or
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

      We investigated developments in practices, processes, and control technologies through a review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) and a review of international best practices. The results of these analyses are presented in the following sections.
4.1	RBLC Search
      Under EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a company is planning to build a new plant or make a major modification to an existing plant such that criteria air pollution emissions will increase by a certain amount, then the company must obtain an NSR permit. The NSR permit is a construction permit, which generally requires the company to minimize air pollution emissions by changing the process to prevent air pollution and/or installing air pollution control equipment. The terms "BACT", "LAER", and "RACT" are acronyms for different program requirements relevant to the NSR program. Best Available Control Technology, or BACT, is required on new or modified major sources in areas meeting the national ambient air quality standards (i.e., attainment areas). Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or LAER, is required on new or modified major sources in non-attainment areas. Reasonably Available Control Technology, or RACT, is required on existing major sources in non-attainment areas. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies.

      The EPA established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution control technology information (including past BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that were submitted by all 50 states and several U.S. territories on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes. It was designed to help permit applicants and reviewers identify appropriate technologies and pollution prevention concepts to mitigate air pollutant emission from stationary air pollution sources.

      The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. Searches on the RBLC database were conducted using the default 10-year time frame (January 1, 2008 to October 23, 2018), which is effectively the time since EPA promulgated a NESHAP for iron and steel foundries. The search focused on process types listed in the RBLC for iron or steel foundries as shown in Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 3. Process types listed in the RBLC search function for iron and steel foundries.

      Search results for each process type were reviewed. The primary controls identified were the use of fabric filters to control PM emissions from melting furnaces, mold and core making, shakeout, and sand handling operations. The PM emission limits were consistent with the MACT limits (either at or between the MACT limits for new and existing sources within the major source rule). A few foundries had VOC limits, but these limits were expected to be met without the use of a control device. No specific statements were made about mold and core binder re-formulations required to meet the VOC limits. It appears that these limits were based on their normal binder formulations. The results of the RBLC search did not identify new developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the iron foundries and steel foundries source categories under section 112(d)(6).
4.2	International Best Practices Review
      An Internet search for international best practices related to air emissions from iron and steel foundries was conducted. The following reports were identified and reviewed.
 Council Decision (EU) 2016/768 of 21 April 2016 on the acceptance of Amendments to the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016D0768&from=EN
 Guidance document on best available techniques for controlling emissions of heavy metals and their compounds from the source categories listed in annex II to the Protocol on Heavy Metals. ECE/EB.AIR/116. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe. 24 July 2013. http://undocs.org/en/ECE/EB.AIR/116
 Draft proposal for a guidance document on best available techniques for controlling emissions of heavy metals and their compounds from the source categories listed in annex II. Working Group Strategies and Review, 49[th] Session. Informal document No. 16. 12-16 September 2011. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2011/eb/wg5/WGSR49/Informal%20docs/16_AnnexIIIversion_trackchanges.doc
 Final Draft BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for Ferrous Metal Foundries. Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. September 2012. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/bat/BAT%20Note%20-%20Ferrous%20Metal%20Foundries-%20Final%20Draft%20-%20August%202012%20-%20SH.pdf
 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Foundries. World Bank Group, International Finance Corporation. April 30, 2007. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/741011490086417947/pdf/113620-WP-ENGLISH-Foundries-PUBLIC.pdf
 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Smitheries and Foundry Industry. May 2005. European Commission. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/sf_bref_0505.pdf
      The first document listed above is regarding European Union (EU) requirements for heavy metal emissions from specific sources. The second and third document apply to countries that are parties to Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Protocol on Heavy Metals. The 2011 draft proposal for a guidance document on best available techniques included PM emission limits for foundry emission sources of 5 mg/Nm[3], which is equal to the new source standard for major source foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. The final guidance document as available online ends at page 33 and does not include the section for iron and steel foundries. Nonetheless, the final amendments to the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals contain emission limits of 20 mg/Nm[3], which equates to 0.008 gr/dscf, which is higher than the emission limits for existing sources in CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, but well below the emission limits in that area source NESHAP. The draft guidance also suggests an emission limit for induction furnaces of 0.2 kg/tonne, which is 0.4 lb/ton. This limit is a factor of two lower than the emission limits for existing sources at a large (area source) foundry in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, but 4 times higher than the limit for new sources at large (area source) foundries. During the development of the area source standards, the EPA specifically evaluated requiring area source foundries to meet more stringent metal HAP emissions (Chin, 2007). Based on the similarities of the emission limits in these recent updates to the EU standards, the LRTAP guidance documents, and the US EPA rules, no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies were identified from the review of these the first three documents. We also identified no significant changes in the costs of the PM control systems used at iron and steel foundries. Therefore, the information available suggests that there would be no significant change in the cost analysis conducted previously beyond a mere escalation of the previous costs to more current year (2018) dollars.
       Ireland's Final Draft BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for Ferrous Metal Foundries (2012) primarily discusses best available techniques (BAT) for induction melting furnaces. Recommendations include use of clean scrap and use of lid or hood extraction systems to capture emissions across the full "working" (melting) cycle. Recommended dust emission limits were 5-20 mg/Nm[3], consistent with the emission limits for major source foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, and the EU guidance for heavy metals from iron and steel foundries. As noted previously, application of lower metal HAP limits was considered during the development of the area source standards; no additional developments in practices, processes, and control technologies were identified from the review of this document. We did analyze the costs for developing more stringent requirements to capture other metal HAP emission sources at major source foundries, such as alloy addition and ladle transfers (Coburn, 2019b). Application of these controls at smaller foundries would be less cost-effective than at major source foundries and would likely cause adverse impacts to several small businesses.
      World Bank's Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Foundries includes PM emission limits of 20 mg/Nm[3] for dust containing heavy metals and 50 mg/Nm[3] for dust that does not contain heavy metals (presumably dust from sand handling systems). This document also contains some emission limits for specific metals, such as 1 mg/Nm[3] for lead and cadmium and 5 mg/Nm[3] for nickel and chromium. No emission limit was provided from mercury. We did not identify any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies from the review of this document.
      Europe's integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Smitheries and Foundry Industry is the most detailed review of best available techniques (BAT) for reducing emissions from iron and steel foundry operations. It included consideration of a wide variety of emission reduction techniques, including proper scrap management, operating at optimal blast rates (for cupola), and capture and controlling emissions from melting furnaces. Recommended dust emission limits were 5-20 mg/Nm[3], consistent with the major source MACT emission limits and the values used in more recent EU guidance for heavy metals from iron and steel foundries. This document had a chapter specifically devoted to emerging techniques for foundries. Most of these techniques involved energy efficiency improvements and methods to reduce solid waste generation. One technique, the use of inorganic binder systems, lowers air emissions. The US EPA did consider different "green" binder systems and formulations when developing the NESHAP for iron and steel foundries but had difficulty identifying times when the alternative system could be mandated. The new source emission limit for volatile organic HAP from automated pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is expected to promote green or low-emitting binder systems, including inorganic binder systems. We did not identify any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, including the use of inorganic or other green binder systems, that were not already considered in the development of the NESHAP based on the review of this document. We did conduct an analysis of additional organic HAP emissions control options, including the use of low-emitting binder systems, for major source iron and steel foundries (Coburn, 2019a). Application of these controls at smaller foundries would be less cost-effective than at major source foundries and would likely cause adverse impacts to several small businesses.
4.3	Mercury Switch Removal
      Based on our understanding of the types of scrap and raw materials processed, we conclude that the predominant contributor to potential mercury emissions at iron and steel foundries are probably motor vehicle switches that contain mercury (i.e., mercury switches) that are found in vehicles built before 2004 and end up in the metal scrap. The area source iron and steel foundry NESHAP has scrap management requirements to remove mercury switches and lead components from automobile scrap in the foundry input material. The EPA along with industry, environmental groups and other stakeholders developed a national voluntary mercury switch removal program known as the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP). The NVMSRP is now managed by the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS). The NVMSRP is a cooperative effort established in 2006 among vehicle manufacturers, steel manufacturers, vehicle dismantlers, scrap shredders, the EPA, and other stakeholders, to support the removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. The NVMSRP involves more than 10,000 steel recyclers. The initial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NVMSRP parties was signed in 2006. The area source NESHAP has streamlined scrap management requirements for the foundries if they use a supplier that is participating in the NVMSRP.
      The 2006 MOU was written to expire at the end of 2017. In December 2017, the NVMSRP parties signed a renewed MOU that extends the program through 2021. Given its success, the EPA continues to support the NVMSRP that already has removed and safely recycled more than 6.8 million mercury switches containing a total of more than 7.6 tons of mercury. The MOU and renewed MOU are in the docket for this rule. The renewed MOU and other information regarding the NVMSRP are available at: https://www.epa.gov/smartsectors/mercury-switch-recovery-program.
      With the phase-out of mercury in convenience switches and anti-lock braking systems by auto manufacturers in the 2004 model year, there is a limited time horizon for the need to remove mercury switches from automobile scrap. As fewer cars each year will have mercury switches that can be removed, it appears that eventually maintaining this requirement past in future years may impose unnecessary burden on the foundry (and scrap suppliers) to certify that the mercury switches have been removed from automotive scrap when only a very limited percentage of automotive scrap would still contain mercury switches. Thus, at some point in the future, this could be considered an important development in practices with respect to scrap management requirements. We conclude it is premature to make such a change in the rule at this time because there are still plenty of pre-2004 automobiles on the road that will be recycled as scrap metal in the coming years. Nevertheless, based on this development, at some future date (such as maybe the next 8-year technology review), it may be appropriate for the EPA to consider phasing out the mercury switch removal requirement in the scrap management plan.
5.	Summary
      Based on this technology review, the only potential "developments in practices, processes, and control technologies" that were identified for area source iron and steel foundries are changes to the prevalence of mercury in automotive scrap and changes to the EPA's mercury switch removal program. However, it may be premature to make any changes to the NESHAP at this time due to these potential developments. Nevertheless, based on these changes, the EPA may want to consider modifying and/or phasing out the scrap management requirements specific to mercury switch removal sometime in the future once the agency can be confident that scrap will not contain mercury switches, even without the scrap management requirements. No other developments in practices, processes, and control technologies were identified beyond those considered in the development of the original area source 2008 NESHAP for iron and steel foundries.
6.	References
Chin, C. 2007. Memorandum from Conrad Chin, U.S. EPA, to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. "Impact Estimates for Area Source Iron and Steel Foundries." September 4. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359-0006.
Coburn, J. 2019a. Memorandum from Jeff Coburn, RTI International, to Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA. "Control Cost Estimates for Organic HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries." July 2.
Coburn, J. 2019b. Memorandum from Jeff Coburn, RTI International, to Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA. "Control Cost Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries." July 3.
European Commission. 2005. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Smitheries and Foundry Industry. May. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/sf_bref_0505.pdf
European Commission. 2016. "Council Decision (EU) 2016/768 of 21 April 2016 on the acceptance of Amendments to the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals." Official Journal of the European Union. Document L 127/8. May 18.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016D0768&from=EN
Ireland Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Final Draft BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for Ferrous Metal Foundries. Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. September. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/bat/BAT%20Note%20-%20Ferrous%20Metal%20Foundries-%20Final%20Draft%20-%20August%202012%20-%20SH.pdf
Pierce, S. 2016. Memorandum from Sandra Pierce, RTI International, to Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA. "Summary of Requirements in Area Source Foundries NESHAP." August 11.
United Nations. 2013. Guidance document on best available techniques for controlling emissions of heavy metals and their compounds from the source categories listed in annex II to the Protocol on Heavy Metals. ECE/EB.AIR/116. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe. July 24. http://undocs.org/en/ECE/EB.AIR/116
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Compilation of Information from Information Collection Request Forms Submitted by Iron and Steel Foundries to the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Working Group Strategies and Review. 2011. Draft proposal for a guidance document on best available techniques for controlling emissions of heavy metals and their compounds from the source categories listed in annex II. Informal document No. 16, reviewed at the 49[th] Session, Geneva. September 12-16. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2011/eb/wg5/WGSR49/Informal%20docs/16_AnnexIIIversion_trackchanges.doc
World Bank. 2007. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Foundries. World Bank Group, International Finance Corporation. April 30. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/741011490086417947/pdf/113620-WP-ENGLISH-Foundries-PUBLIC.pdf


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70418]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2-000]

Frontier Windpower, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Frontier Windpower, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 24, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24553 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


            Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under
                          the Paperwork Reduction Act

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

		Title:	Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b)

		EPA ICR No.:  0795.15	OMB Control No.:  2070-0030

	1(b)	Short Characterization

	Section 12(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) states, in part, that any person who exports or intends to export to a foreign country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is required under TSCA section 4 or 5(b), or for which a rule, action or order has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5, 6, or 7, shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export.  The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing country the notice and of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance.

	On December 16, 1980, EPA promulgated a rule implementing TSCA section 12(b) (45 FR 82844).  This final rule requires exporters to submit an annual notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) requirements is exported.  EPA amended the regulations in July 1993 and November 2006 to reduce the overall burden of the statutory mandate on exporters (58 FR 40242, July 27, 1993; 71 FR 66324, Nov. 14, 2006). Among other things, the amendments reduced the notification requirements for exporters of chemicals subject to certain actions under TSCA sections 4 and 5 from an annual notification to a one-time notification for the first export to a particular country. Exports of chemicals subject to TSCA sections 5(f), 6, and 7 actions still require submission of annual export notifications to EPA, however. The 2006 amendments also set de minimus concentration levels below which notification would not be required and clarified that a single export notification may refer to more than one section of TSCA where the exported chemical is the subject of multiple TSCA actions. These rules are codified at 40 CFR Part 707, Subpart D.

	The export notice must include five easily ascertainable items: the name and address of the exporter, the name of the chemical, the country of import, the date of export or intended export, and the section of TSCA under which EPA has taken action (section 4, 5, 6 or 7).  There are currently over 1,000 substances or categories of substances that have been regulated or proposed to be regulated under the applicable sections of TSCA.

	In an effort to further reduce the information collection burden for TSCA section 12(b) export notification, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) developed and made available to the public on its website in 2001 a list of chemical substances subject to TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements (see "Current List of Chemical Substances Subject to TSCA Section12(b) Export Notification Requirements" at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/import-export/pubs/12_b_listFinal_08-21-2012.pdf).  In addition, OPPT made available in 2001 a comprehensive listing of the "sunset" dates for chemical substances subject to TSCA section 4 actions (i.e., the dates on which the TSCA section 4 testing, reimbursement, and reporting requirements and/or TSCA section 4-triggered TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements have terminated ("sunset") or have been calculated to sunset) (see "Sunset Date/Status of TSCA Section 4 Testing, Reimbursement, and Reporting Requirements and TSCA Section 4-Triggered TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements" at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/sunsettable.html).  EPA believes that these lists, long recommended by industry, serve as useful tools to assist industry in complying with TSCA and have resulted in an overall reduction of the information collection burden.

	Finally, this paragraph identifies EPA actions that are anticipated to occur during the collection period that could affect the information requirements and burden.  During the collection period covered by this ICR renewal, a number of actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 are anticipated that will trigger export notification under TSCA section 12(b).  Of course, should any of these anticipated actions impact this ICR, EPA will follow appropriate procedures to amend this ICR, as appropriate.

2	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	TSCA section 12(b) requires exporters to submit a notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) requirements is exported.  Specifically, TSCA section 12(b) states, in part, that any person who exports or intends to export to a foreign country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is required under TSCA section 4 or 5(b), or for which a rule, action or order has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5, 6, or 7, shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export.  The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing country of the notice and of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance.  See Attachment 1 for exact language of TSCA section 12(b), 15 U.S.C. 2611(b).

	Regulations implementing the statutory mandate in TSCA section 12(b) appear in 40 CFR Part 707, Subpart D, and include the following additional provisions:

No notice of export will be required for articles, except PCB articles, unless the Agency so requires in the context of individual TSCA section 5, 6, or 7 actions.

Any person who exports or intends to export polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or PCB articles, for any purpose other than disposal, shall notify EPA of such intent or exportation under TSCA section 12(b).  PCBs and PCB articles have the definitions published in 40 CFR 761.3.

Any person who would be prohibited by a TSCA section 5 or 6 regulation from exporting a chemical substance or mixture, but who is granted an exemption by EPA to export that chemical substance or mixture, shall notify EPA under TSCA section 12(b) of such intent to export or exportation.
An exporter will be subject to possible enforcement action (including penalties) for not complying with the applicable provisions of TSCA section 12(b).

	The full text of 40 CFR part 707 is provided in Attachment 2.

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

	As required by TSCA section 12(b), the Administrator will use the information collected under this ICR to furnish the required notice to the government of the importing country.  The importing country typically uses the information provided to ensure that chemicals imported into their country comply with their laws and regulations.

3	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

      3(a)	Non-Duplication

	The exporter submits one notice to EPA.  There is no duplication of this mandate or collection activity, and there are no viable alternate sources for the Agency to obtain the information necessary to satisfy the statutory mandate.

	The Agency carefully considered alternatives to imposing a notification requirement on the chemical exporters, but no viable alternate sources were identified that would accomplish what the statue requires or provide the required information as specified in the statute.  Prior to promulgating the TSCA section 12(b) rule, EPA considered the possibility of using export data gathered by the Bureau of the Census in lieu of imposing notification requirements in a TSCA section 12(b) rule.  However, several problems with the Census data continue to make such an approach impractical.  These problems include, among others, the fact that Census data are often not chemical-specific; Census exempts certain shipments and exporters that are not exempt from TSCA section 12(b) notifications; and Census data would not be available for up to eight weeks following export, a delay that would prevent EPA from providing an importing government the timely notice required by TSCA section 12(b).

	In addition, the Agency's activities are not duplicative of any other agency's actions.  Importing countries do not receive such notifications from any other sources.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	 In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA provided a 60-day public notice and comment period that ended on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 66000, October 28, 2015). EPA received one comment, from the American Petroleum Institute (API), during the comment period. A copy of the comment and EPA's response to the comment are included as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively.

      3(c)	Consultations

	Prior to proposing the original 1980 guidance for the submission of TSCA section 12(b) notices, EPA held informal meetings with the Manufacturing Chemists Association (now the American Chemistry Council), and with representatives of the Swedish, Canadian and British governments.  Comments were also received from exporters, environmental groups and foreign governments during the public comment period for the proposal.  Prior to issuance of the final amendments to the export notification requirements in 1993, EPA also met with stakeholders to discuss TSCA section 12(b) requirements and the possible need for some changes to the 1980 rule.  EPA also received and considered comments from exporters, environmental groups and foreign governments during the public comment period for the proposed amendments.  Finally, EPA considered comments received on an amendment to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements proposed in 2006.

	 Additionally, under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA submitted questions to nine parties via e-mail. The individuals contacted were:

      Scott Jensen, Chemical Safety, TSCA, etc.
      American Chemistry Council
      Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Jenny Gaines, Senior Manager, Communications
      SOCMA
      Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Dan Turner, Corporate Media Contact
      DuPont.com
      E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Eric Wohlschlegel, Director, Media Contacts
      American Petroleum Institute
      E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Melissa Scanlan
      Assoc. Dean of the Envtl. Law Program
      Director, Environmental Law Center
      Vermont Law School
      E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Stacy Cooks, External Affairs Coordinator
      Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America
      Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Sharyn Stein, General EDF media inquiries
      Environmental Defense
      Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Ken Cook, President
      Environmental Working Group
      E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      David Goldston, Director, Government Affairs Program
      Natural Resources Defense Council
      Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	EPA received no responses to its solicitation for consultations. A copy of EPA's consultation e-mail to the above nine potential respondents is included in Attachment 5.

      3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	In 1993 and 2006, EPA amended the regulations to reduce the notification requirement for exporters of chemicals subject to actions under TSCA sections 4 and 5 from an annual notification to a one-time notification for the first export to a particular country. (58 FR 40242, July 27, 1993; 71 FR 66324, Nov. 14, 2006.) If the collection of information was conducted less frequently, the regulatory requirements would not be met.

      3(e)	General Guidelines

	This information collection is necessary to implement statutory requirements of section 12(b) of TSCA and is consistent with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	The respondent may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA and 40 CFR part 2. In 2010, EPA initiated a broad effort to increase transparency and provide more valuable information to the public by identifying data collections under TSCA where information may have been claimed and treated as confidential in the past but is not in fact entitled to confidentiality under TSCA. (75 FR 3462, Jan. 21, 2010; 75 FR 29754, May 27, 2010.) Information submitted under specific reporting requirements of TSCA, or in support of TSCA, is subject to the provisions of section 14 of TSCA and to EPA's Regulations on the Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2). Failure to follow these procedures fully at the time of document submission to EPA is interpreted by the Agency as a waiver of confidentiality claims. Submitters may claim confidentiality for proprietary information, but should submit a detailed written explanation to substantiate all confidential business information (CBI) claims. Detailed written responses to 14 specific substantiation questions should be provided to substantiate confidentiality claim(s). Responses should be as specific as possible, with examples as appropriate, and should provide substantiation arguments for all types of information (e.g., sales, production/ importation volumes, chemical identity, company identity) claimed as confidential. However, notwithstanding any claim of confidentiality, the foreign government of the importing country will be notified of the export of the substance(s) in question.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable.  The information requested is not sensitive in nature.

4	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	4(a)	Agency Activities

	The activities routinely conducted by EPA related to the receipt and processing of TSCA section 12(b) export notices include the following:

	o	log in notices for tracking/reporting;
      o	review export notices for compliance;
	o	prepare letters with supporting documents to foreign governments;
	o	respond to follow-up inquiries from industry and foreign governments; and
	o	consult with companies on complying with the TSCA section 12(b) rule.

	4(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	The collection methodology is event-based, i.e., the respondent's decision to export a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b).  With the exception of TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must submit, on an annual basis, one TSCA section 12(b) notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) is exported.  For TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must only submit a TSCA section 12(b) notice for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The TSCA section 12(b) notice must be postmarked within seven days after the respondent accepts a definite contractual obligation or no later than the date of export.

	TSCA section 12(b) export notifications are received by EPA's Information Management Division (IMD) in OPPT.  IMD notifies appropriate foreign governments of the export of the specific TSCA-regulated chemicals to their country in accordance with the mandate in TSCA section 12(b) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 707, Subpart D.

	The following is a brief overview of the Agency's handling and tracking process for these notices:

      1)  All incoming notices are received in OPPT's Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC), which is managed by OPPT's Information Management Division (IMD).

      2)  The CBIC enters all hardcopy 12b's, both CBI and NON-CBI records by scanning the company and chemical information, enters it into the database, and prepares the notification letter and explanatory materials (e.g., Federal Register notice, TSCA section 5(e) consent order) via the Export Notification Tracking System (ENTS).  For CBI packages, CBIC via IMD/RDMB sends the notification and explanatory information to the embassy/foreign authority of the country to which the subject chemical is being exported.

      3)  If the receiving country requests further information, the request comes directly to either the CBIC or IMD, depending on the communications media, i.e., phone call, email, for hardcopy document, and RDMBand IMD/RDBM obtains and/or generates the needed information, and sends the package back to the requesting country's embassy or authority.

	The Export Notification Tracking System (ENTS) is maintained by OPPT/IMD contains approximately 162,000 records dating back to 1989. The ENTS database is modified daily with new incoming records of chemical exports to foreign countries. Updates also incorporate regulatory changes affecting the chemicals that are subject to EPA's TSCA section 12(b) export notification rule at 40 CFR 707.

	EPA is continuing to explore the feasibility of developing and implementing an optional electronic data reporting system for the ease of respondents, which could result in a significant burden reduction. The projected reporting system is designed to be a user-friendly interface for parties engaged in reporting under TSCA section 12(b).  Thus, the submission of information to EPA will be less expensive, faster, and more efficient once this technology is fully applied.

      4(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	TSCA section 12(b) does not exempt small businesses.  However, most reporting has been by large companies, because they do most of the exporting.  In any case, the burden on any exporter is minimal, averaging 16.8 hours per firm with minimal mailing costs, yielding an associated cost of $1,158.83 per firm (assuming 13 notices per firm).

	4(d)	Collection Schedule

	In general, there are basically two collection schedules related to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements, i.e., a one-time collection and an annual collection.  On an annual basis, excluding TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must submit only one TSCA section 12(b) notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) is exported.  For TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must only submit one TSCA section 12(b) notice for the first export or intended export to a particular country.

	If the collection of information was conducted less frequently, the statutory requirements would not be met.

5	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	5(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Respondents to this collection are exporters of chemical substances, which are mostly chemicals companies classified under NAICS Codes 325 and 324.

	5(b)	Information Requested

		(i) Data Items

	Respondents are required to include the following information in their export notification:

 the name and address of the exporter;
 the name of the chemical;
 the country of import;
 the date of export or intended export; and
 the TSCA section 4, 5, 6 or 7 action that triggers the notice.
		(ii) Respondent Activities

	In providing the required TSCA section 12(b) export notification, the respondent (exporter) is likely to engage in the following activities:

 Compile and maintain a list of chemical products manufactured by the company that are also subject to a TSCA section 4, 5, 6 or 7 action (e.g., compare list of their chemicals with EPA's list of TSCA section 12(b) chemicals);
 Check this list against outgoing orders to determine if a product/chemical on the list is expected to be exported to a customer outside of the U.S.;
 If it is, identify whether a TSCA section 12(b) notice is required (e.g., is it the first shipment to that country this year?); and
 If product/chemical is on the list and a TSCA section 12(b) notice is required, complete the required export notice and forward it to EPA within the required time period.

6          ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the incremental cost to industry and to the EPA associated with export reports that are submitted to the Agency under the TSCA section 12(b) reporting requirements.

      6(a)	Estimating the Respondent Burden

	The burden to respondents of this information collection activity comprises the time required to perform the steps outlined in section 3 of this document.

      For the purpose of this section, a notice is a package received by the EPA by one company. One company may submit more than one notice per year. Each notice may contain several chemicals and/or countries. A notice subsequently becomes a letter of notification that EPA issues to a foreign government.

      Ever since a change in reporting requirements published on November 14, 2006, there is a one-time notification requirement for exporters of chemical substances or mixtures. In addition, the change required the Agency to notify foreign governments once after it receives the first export notification from an exporter. The shift to one-time-only export notification in the amendments affected almost all notifications received under TSCA section 5 (EPAB 2006). Note that EPA also promulgated de minimis concentration levels below which notification will not be required for the export of any chemical for which export notification under TSCA section 12(b) is otherwise required.

      For the purposes of this ICR, based on best available information, and given no known factors to change industry burden and cost, EPA assumes that the estimates for average number of submitters and notifications are the same as the estimates used for the last ICR period, and that these estimates are applicable for FY 2015-2018. EPA estimates the number of submitters (respondents) at 240 firms and the number of notices (responses) at 3,090. Note that the resultant average ratio of notices to firms is about 13. Tables 1 and 2 present unit burden and aggregate burden estimates, respectively. The activities involved and calculation details are listed below. EPA estimates the total annual burden at 4,032 hours.

	Compile List.  Since this information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA section 12(b) reporting.  Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company.  Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time).  This could vary depending on the number of products from two hours per year up to two hours per month of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time).  This will vary depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA section 12(b). EPA estimates unit burden for compiling the list estimated at an average of 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year.  Applying this unit burden across the total number of firms yields the aggregate burden (see Tables 1 and 2).

	Write or Revise Letter.  Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA section 12(b) reporting must prepare an export notice to send to EPA.  Time for initial preparation of the export notice probably varies depending on whether the company has prior experience with this program, but this step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per year for each company subject to TSCA section 12(b) reporting.
Applying this unit burden across the total number of firms yields the aggregate burden (see Tables 1 and 2).

	Check Orders and Send Notices.  The companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA section 12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above.  A form letter notifying EPA is printed out detailing where the shipment is going for a TSCA section 12(b) chemical if it is the first shipment of the year to the importing country.  This whole process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per firm. Applying this unit burden across the total number of firms yields the aggregate burden (see Tables 1 and 2).

TABLE 1: ANNUAL AVERAGE BURDEN PER RESPONDENT FACILITY
ACTIVITY
                                 BURDEN HOURS

                                   TECHNICAL
                                   CLERICAL
                                     TOTAL
Compile list
                                      9.3
                                       0
                                      9.3
Write letter
                                       1
                                       0
                                       1
Check order and send notice
                                       0
                                      6.5
                                      6.5
Total
                                     10.3
                                      6.5
                                     16.8

TABLE 2: ANNUAL AGGREGATE BURDEN
ACTIVITY
                                 BURDEN HOURS

                                   TECHNICAL
                                   CLERICAL
                                     TOTAL
Compile list
                                     2,232
                                       0
                                     2,232
Write letter
                                      240
                                       0
                                      240
Check order and send notice
                                       0
                                     1,560
                                     1,560
Total
                                     2,472
                                     1,560
                                     4,032

	6(b)	Estimating the Respondent Cost

	The costs to respondents is based on the time needed to complete the tasks listed in section 3 (hours estimated in section 6(a)), the hourly cost of labor at appropriate levels (labor rates), the number of firms affected, and/or the number of notices generated.  There are also costs for mailing. There are no specific capital or overhead costs associated directly with this information collection activity.  EPA estimates unit costs and aggregate costs in Tables 4, and 5 respectively with the total annual cost at estimated at $278,118.

	Respondent costs include labor and non-labor cost. Loaded labor rates, including fringe costs, are provided in Table 3. For non-labor (mailing) costs, postal rates total $16.29 per notice sent to EPA (U.S. domestic mail rates - USPS 2015):
 $13.00 for registered mail
 $2.80 for a return receipt
 $0.49 postage

Table 3: Industry Wage Rates
                                Labor Category
                                Data Sources a
                                     Date
                                     Wage
                                Fringe Benefit
                               Fringes as % Wage
                             Over-head % wage [b]
                         Fringe + Overhead Factor [c]
                               Loaded Wages [d]

                                      (a)
                                      (b)
                                 (c) =(b)/(a)
                                      (d)
                                 (e)=(c)+(d)+1
                                 (f)=(a)x(e)
Managerial
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Mgt, Business, and Financial"
                                    Dec-14
                                    $47.90
                                    $24.18
                                      50%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $80.22
Professional / Technical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Professional and related"
                                    Dec-14
                                    $42.19
                                    $22.86
                                      54%
                                      17%
                                     1.71
                                    $72.22
Clerical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Office and Administrative Support"
                                    Dec-14
                                    $18.68
                                    $9.40
                                      50%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $31.26
Footnotes
[a] Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006  -  December 2014 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).
[b] An overhead rate of 17% is used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (U.S. EPA, 2002).
[c] The inflation factor of "1" in the formula for calculating the fringe + overhead factor means wage data are not escalated to reflect inflation.
[d] Wage data are rounded to the closest cent in this analysis.

TABLE 4: ANNUAL COST PER RESPONDENT FACILITY
ACTIVITY

                                  ANNUAL COST

                               Unit of Analysis
                 TECHNICAL                Wage Rate (per hour)
                 CLERICAL                Wage Rate (per hour)
                                     TOTAL

                                    $72.22
                                    $31.26

Compile list
per firm
                                                                       $671.65
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                       $671.65
Write letter
per firm
                                                                        $72.22
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $72.22
Check order and send notice
per firm
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                       $203.19
                                                                       $203.19
Mailing cost*
per firm

                                                                       $211.77
Total

                                                                       $743.87
                                                                       $203.19
                                                                     $1,158.83
* Postage and postal services for 13 mailings per firm.
TABLE 5: ANNUAL AGGREGATE RESPONDENT COST
ACTIVITY
                                  ANNUAL COST

                 TECHNICAL                Wage Rate (per hour)
                 CLERICAL                Wage Rate (per hour)
                                     TOTAL

                                    $72.22
                                    $31.26

Compile list
                                                                      $161,195
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                      $161,195
Write letter
                                                                       $17,333
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                       $17,333
Check order and send notice
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                       $48,766
                                                                       $48,766
Mailing cost
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                       $50,825
Total
                                                                      $178,528
                                                                       $48,766
                                                                      $278,118

	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	Agency unit costs are based on past TSCA section 12(b) analyses, including the previous ICR, and on contacts with the Environmental Assistance Division (EAD), which administered the 12(b) notification process before IMD.  EPA's cost estimates are based on past experience with these activities.  The Agency cost can be divided into three parts: (1) receiving and processing incoming notices, (2) preparing and mailing notifications to importing countries, and (3) responding to requests for information and clarification from companies and importing countries.  The allocation of burden hours and costs among these three parts is not exact, but the analysis below is reasonably accurate in terms of the overall burden estimate and the approximate allocation of that burden among these tasks. EPA presents Agency costs Tables 6 with the total annual cost at estimated at $59,659.

      Agency costs include labor and non-labor cost. Labor costs are computed from the burden estimates, using wages from the GS schedule for GS 13 step 5 and a multiplier of 1.6 (per EPA 2009) to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead, yielding a wage rate of $78.91 (OPM 2015). Agency non-labor costs entail mailing costs (discussed below). In addition to U.S. domestic rates (presented in the respondent cost section 6(b)), international rates are employed totaling $19.00 per notification sent from EPA (U.S. international mail rates - USPS 2015):

 $13.95 for registered mail
 $3.85 for a return receipt
 $1.20 postage

      Task 1: Receiving and processing incoming notices. In the first task, notices are received from firms that intend to export a product covered by this rule, the forms are checked for completeness, and the submissions are logged into a document control system.  Based on conversations with the workers responsible for this task, about ten notices can be processed per hour.  EPA projects that an average of 3,090 notices (as estimated in section 6(a)) will be received per year over the period covered by this ICR, requiring approximately 309 hours of support.  Applying the wage rate yields the result presented in Table 6.

      Task 2: Preparing and mailing notifications to importing countries. In the second task, workers prepare letters of notification which are subsequently reviewed and sent out to importing countries.  Not all notifications submitted require that a notice be sent out.  This work averages approximately 30 minutes per notice.  Based on current experience, EPA estimates an average of 65 notification letters mailed each year. This yields a burden of 32.5 hours annually. Applying the wage rate yields the result presented in Table 6.

	The cost of mailing a notification can vary depending on whether it is sent to an embassy in the U.S. or to an overseas destination. Assuming delivery via registered mail with a return receipt, costs for domestic mail total $16.29 per mailing, and costs for international mail total $19.00 per mailing. The average mailing cost of $17.65 is used and applied across the total number of notifications (3,090 as estimated as number of notices in section 6(a)) to yield the result presented in Table 6.

	Task 3: Responding to requests for information and clarification from companies and importing countries. The burden described above covers the routine tasks of handing both incoming notices and outgoing notifications.  The totals above also include a certain amount of time spent responding to routine requests for information, since data are not available to separate this out from the other tasks.  Based on EPA experience, the work of responding to non-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and handling other tasks associated with the TSCA section 12(b) program can be expected to require about 20% an EPA employee's time, or roughly 400 hours per year.  Applying the wage rate yields the result in Table 6.

TABLE 6: ESTIMATED BURDEN AND COSTS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ACTIVITY
                                BURDEN (hours)
                                     COST
Task 1. Processing of notices from companies
                                                                          309.0
                                                                        $24,383
Task 2. Processing of notifications to importing countries
                                                                           32.5
                                                                         $2,565
Task 3. EPA staff time, responding to information requests, etc.
                                                                          400.0
                                                                        $31,564
Mailing cost of notifications from EPA

                                                                         $1,147
Total
                                                                          741.5
                                                                        $59,659

      6(d)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

      Respondent Burden and Costs

      Total number of respondents = 240
      Total number of responses = 3,090
      Total respondent annual burden = 4,032 hours
      Total respondent annual costs = $278,118

		Agency Burden and Costs

		Agency burden:  741.5 hours
		Agency annual costs = $59,659

	6(e)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	There is an increase of 7 hours in the estimate of respondent burden hours compared with that identified in the information collection most recently approved by OMB (from 4,025 hours to 4,032 hours).  This increase reflects the correction of minor arithmetic errors in the previous submission. Given the absence of factors driving change, EPA believes this to be the appropriate estimate, which is based on best available information, and on EPA's most recent experience with TSCA section 12(b) notices.

	6(f)	Burden Statement

	The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0030, is estimated to have a per-response burden of 1.3 hours per notice, and a per-respondent burden of 16.8 hours per firm (at 13 notices per firm). Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control number for this information collection appears above.  In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulation, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

	The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0435, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

      Submit your comments referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0435 and OMB Control No. 2070-0030, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,  Washington, D.C. 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.
                    ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

      Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0435.  These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov.

 Attachment 1:	Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)). Also
 			available online at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-import-export-requirements.

 Attachment 2:	Chemical Imports and Exports (40 CFR 707, Subpart D).  Also available
 			online at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-import-export-requirements.

 Attachment 3:	Copy of Public Comment Received by EPA from the American
 			Petroleum Institute (API)

 Attachment 4:	Copy of EPA's Response to Public Comment from API

 Attachment 5:	Copy of Consultations Message Sent by EPA to Potential Respondents

                                    SOURCES

 40 CFR Parts 707 and 799. Federal Register: November 14, 2006. Volume 71, Number 219 Rules and Regulations 66234-66245. January 2009 <wais.access.gpo.gov>.

Rice, C. (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxic Release Inventory Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economics and Policy Analysis Branch.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006 - June 2014. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuphst.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2002). Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0279). Washington, D.C.: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economics and Policy Analysis Branch.

U.S. EPA, (2009). ICR Handbook EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Revised 10/2009 Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information.

U.S. EPA. (2006). Final Economic Analysis of the Amendments to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements. Washington, D.C.: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economics and Policy Analysis Branch.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2015). Salary Table 2015- DCB, Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from Pay & Leave: Salaries & Wages: www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/14Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx.
U.S. Postal Service (2015). Postage Price Calculator (web-based). Domestic and International Rates. Retrieved September 10-11, 2015 from http://postcalc.usps.com.


[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13325-13327]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55443; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Data
Entitlement Named ``Depth Feed'' Consisting of Data Feeds Nasdaq
TotalView and Nasdaq OpenView, and To Establish a Distribution Charge
for Depth Feed

March 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 16, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared substantially by Nasdaq. 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 proposes to modify the fee schedule for distribution of data
from the Nasdaq Market Center. Specifically, Nasdaq is proposing to
establish a data entitlement named ``Depth Feed'' consisting of two
data feeds: Nasdaq TotalView and Nasdaq OpenView. Nasdaq also proposes
to establish a distribution charge for Depth Feed.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq,
http://www.nasdaq.com, and the Commission's Public Reference Room.\3\

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

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://www.complinet.com/nasdaq
.

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq offers data products that firms may purchase and
redistribute either within their own organizations or to outside
parties. Nasdaq assesses ``distributor fees'' that are designed to
encourage broad distribution of the data, and to allow Nasdaq to
recover the relatively high fixed costs associated with supporting
connectivity and contractual relationships with distributors.
Currently, Nasdaq has the following approved distributor fees in place
for both TotalView and OpenView: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51814 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 35151 (June 16, 2005) (SR-NASDAQ-2004-185).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     TotalView and OpenView Direct Access Fee: $2,500 per month
each;
     TotalView and OpenView Internal Distribution Fee: $1,000
per month each;
     TotalView and OpenView External Distribution Fee: $2,500
per month each.
    Thus, for example, if a firm receives TotalView and OpenView
directly from Nasdaq and distributes the data externally, the firm
currently pays $10,000 per month in distributor fees ($2,500 for direct
access to TotalView, $2,500 for direct access to OpenView, $2,500 to
externally distribute TotalView, and $2,500 to externally distribute
OpenView).
    Nasdaq proposes to combine the distribution of TotalView and
OpenView data into a single entitlement for distribution purposes.
Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to establish the ``Depth Feed Distributor
Fees,'' a consolidated entitlement with a pricing structure comprised
of three components:
     Depth Feed Direct Access Fee: $2,500 per month for any
organization that receives an intraday Nasdaq market center depth data
product directly from Nasdaq. A distributor receiving this data
indirectly via a re-transmission vendor is not liable for the Direct
Access Fee.
     Depth Feed Internal Distribution Fee: $500 per month for
internal distributors with distribution of TotalView and/or OpenView
data to 10 or fewer subscribers, $1,000 per month for internal
distributors with distribution of TotalView and/or OpenView data to
greater than 10 subscribers. As with the current Internal Distribution
Fees, this fee will be applicable to any organization that receives an
intraday Nasdaq market center depth data product (either directly from
Nasdaq or through a retransmission vendor) and distributes the data
solely within its own organization.
     Depth Feed External Distribution Fee: $1,000 per month for
external distributors distributing TotalView and/or OpenView data to 50
or fewer subscribers; $2,500 per month for external distributors
distributing TotalView and/or OpenView data to more than 50 and less
than or equal to 100 subscribers, and $4,500 per month for external
distributors distributing TotalView and/or OpenView data to more than
100 recipients. As is the case today, this fee will be applicable to
any organization that receives an intraday Nasdaq market center depth
data product (either directly from Nasdaq or through a retransmission
vendor) and distributes the data outside its own organization.
    Under the new schedule, the firm that receives TotalView directly
from Nasdaq and distributes the data externally will pay a range of
$3,500-$7,000 per month, depending upon the number of end users, a
significant reduction from the currently approved fees. The only firms
that would be assessed higher fees would be firms that currently
distribute either TotalView or OpenView but not both, and distribute
that data to more than 100 subscribers; a resulting increase of $2,000
per month. For that incremental $2,000 per month, those firms, of which
there are currently 17, will gain the ability to distribute both NYSE-/
Amex-listed and Nasdaq-listed depth information to their subscribers
where they had previously provided only one of them.
    An organization that receives the Nasdaq Market Center full depth
data directly from Nasdaq will pay the Direct Access Fee plus the
higher of either the Internal Distribution or External Distribution Fee
(but not both). An organization that only receives the Nasdaq Market
Center full depth data indirectly from a retransmission vendor will pay
either the Internal Distribution or External Distribution fee (but not
both). As with past distributor fee structures, the External
Distribution Fee is higher than the Internal Distribution Fee to
reflect the fact that external distributors typically have broader
distribution of the data than internal distributors.
    On balance, market data distributors will pay less to distribute
the new consolidated Depth Feed than they pay today for distributing
TotalView and OpenView. Specifically, many TotalView and OpenView
distributors will receive a fee decrease, including firms that
distribute both entitlements to their external customers who pay
$10,000 monthly today but only $5,000 monthly under the proposed rule
change. Other distributors will experience no fee change, including
those that distribute either TotalView or OpenView to 10 or more
internal recipients.
    A small number of vendors will experience a small fee increase of
$2,000-specifically, those vendors that distribute only one of the two
current entitlements to more than 100 external recipients. If current
distribution patterns continue, this fee increase will apply to 11
vendors. Nasdaq notes that the number of affected vendors is a small
percentage of the total vendor population. Currently, over 1,500
vendors distribute Nasdaq proprietary data. Of those, 975 vendors
distribute real-time data, and, of those, 160 vendors distribute full
depth-of-book data. Thus, in a vendor population of over 1,500, only 11
will experience a fee increase.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable charges among the persons
distributing Nasdaq depth of book information. Nasdaq further believes
that this proposed rule change will encourage broader redistribution of
the Nasdaq depth of book information, thus improving transparency and
thereby benefiting the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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. As a general
matter, the Commission has long held the view that ``competition and
innovation are essential to the health of the securities markets.
Indeed, competition is one of the hallmarks of the national market
system.'' \7\ The Commission has also stated ``that the notion of
competition is inextricably tied with the notion of economic
efficiency, and the Act seeks to encourage market behavior that
promotes such efficiency, lower costs,

and better service in the interest of investors and the general
public.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43863 (January 19,
2001), 66 FR 8020 (January 26, 2001) (SR-NASD-99-53).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54155 (July 14, 2006),
71 FR 41291, 41298 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to increase transparency and
the efficiency of executions by enabling vendors to provide additional
market data in a cost efficient manner. There is significant
competition for the provision of market data to broker-dealers and
other market data consumers, as well as competition for the orders that
generate the data. Nasdaq fully expects its competitors to quickly
respond to this proposal as they have responded to other Nasdaq data
products in the past.
    Moreover, market forces have shaped the market data fees that
Nasdaq has charged for this product in the past and will continue to
shape those fees in the future. Over time, Nasdaq has continually
decreased the cost of data distribution to promote continued growth in
the use of depth of book data.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-048.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-2006-048 and should be submitted on or before
April 11, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5058 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P