UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 3/ 22/ 05 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION ATTACHMENT for Unit X022 DRAFT Mr. Boyd A. Giles Authorized Account Representative Mead Coated Board P. O. Box 940 Phenix City, Alabama 36868 0940 Re: Consolidated Requirements for a NO x Predictive Emissions Monitoring System for a Combustion Turbine ( Unit X022) at the Mahrt Paper Mill ( Facility ID ( ORISPL) 54802)

Dear Mr. Giles:

To allow for easier implementation, this Attachment consolidates the requirements in Additional Quality Assurance Requirements for Conditionally Approved Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems at the Mahrt Paper Mill ( Facility ID ( ORISPL) 54802), EPA's January 28, 2003 conditional approval, and EPA's March 1, 2004 and June 3, 2004 amendments to the January 28, 2003 conditional approval.

BACKGROUND On June 17, 2002, MeadWestvaco petitioned for approval of a Pavilion Technologies Software CEM NO x and O 2 PEMS, which is a neural network based computer software system that utilizes turbine sensor inputs to produce NO x and O 2 outputs. The PEMS is installed on a 25 MW GE Frame 5, Model MS5001P combustion turbine at the Mahrt Paper Mill in Cottonton, Alabama. The Mahrt Paper Mill is owned and operated by Mead Coated Board ( MeadWestvaco). The PEMS was installed on the turbine in June 1998 to comply with New Source Performance Standards, subpart GG.

The turbine was installed in 1998 and is designed to cogenerate steam and electricity for the mill. Natural gas is the primary turbine fuel, and No. 2 fuel oil with less than 0.05% sulfur by weight is the secondary fuel. The turbine is equipped with duct burners rated at 170 mmBtu/ hr to provide supplemental energy to the heat recovery steam generator. A dry low NO x combustor controls NO x during gas firing; water injection provides NO x control during oil firing.

Unit X022 is subject to the NO x Budget Trading Program under Alabama Department of Environmental Management ( ADEM) Code R. 335 3 8, which requires MeadWestvaco to continuously monitor and report NO x mass emissions and heat input for this unit in accordance with Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 75, beginning on May 1, 2003. Code R. 335 3 8 further requires 2 1 The ozone season ends on September 30 and, for 2005 and thereafter, starts on May 1.

2 A court decision has mandated that the 2004 ozone season will begin on May 31 rather than May 1 in certain states ( including Alabama). MeadWestvaco to hold NO x allowances equal to the ozone season1 NO x mass emissions from Unit X022, beginning on May 31, 20042.

EPA'S DETERMINATION Under Subpart E, the owner or operator of a unit applying to the Administrator for approval of an AMS must demonstrate that the AMS has the same or better precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness ( PRAT) as provided by a CEMS. The demonstration must be made by comparing the AMS to a contemporaneously operating, fully certified CEMS. Sections 75.41 through 75.46 discuss the criteria for evaluating PRAT, daily quality assurance, and missing data substitution for the AMS. Section 75.48 details the information that must be included in the application in order to demonstrate that the criteria in § § 75.41 46 are met.

The following paragraphs describe how MeadWestvaco meets the requirements of a Subpart E AMS petition. As detailed below, EPA's approval applies only to the Unit X022 Mahrt turbine when firing natural gas, with no duct burner operation, and for certain PEMS outputs, i. e., lb NO x/ mmBtu, NO x ( ppm, dry), and O 2 (%, dry). If a PEMS input parameter value goes below certain minimum or above certain maximum values, MeadWestvaco shall report the maximum potential NO x emission rate ( MER). During startups, shutdowns, and lean/ lean turbine operation, oil fired operation, or if the PEMS alarms, MeadWestvaco must report the NO x MER. When the combustion turbine and duct burners fire natural gas, a conservative NO x alternative substitute data value shall be used.

1. Precision Under § 75.41, for the normal unit operating level, MeadWestvaco must provide paired AMS and fully certified CEMS hourly data for at least 90 percent of the hours during 720 unit operating hours for the primary fuel supply and for at least 24 successive unit operating hours for all alternative fuel supplies that have significantly different sulfur content. MeadWestvaco must not use missing data substitution procedures to provide sample data. MeadWestvaco may also demonstrate, and adjust the data to account for, any lognormality and time dependency autocorrelation. MeadWestvaco must pass three statistical tests, i. e., a linear correlation coefficient ( r) > 0.8, an Ftest and a one tailed t test for bias described in appendix A to part 75. Further, MeadWestvaco must provide two separate time series plots for AMS and CEMS data. Each data plot must have a horizontal axis representing the clock hour and calendar date of the readings and must contain a separate data point for every hour for the duration of the test. One data plot must show percentage difference vs. time, and the other data plot must show AMS and CEMS readings vs. time. Finally, a plot of the paired AMS ( on the vertical axis) and CEMS ( on the horizontal axis) concentrations must be provided.

MeadWestvaco provided 889 unit operating hours of paired CEMS vs PEMS data when the 3 3 Under § 75.41( b), in preparation for conducting the required statistical tests, the data may be screened for lognormality and time dependency autocorrelation. If either is detected, certain calculation adjustments are required. MeadWestvaco detected neither lognormality nor autocorrelation. Therefore, consistent with 75.41( b), no calculation adjustments were made to the data. turbine was firing natural gas, with no duct burner operation. Since duct burners operated approximately 600 hours during the almost 1500 hour test period, only about 60% of the unit operating hours during the test period were utilized. MeadWestvaco did not technically meet the requirement of using at least 90% of 720 consecutive unit operating hours, required by § 75.41( a)( 6). However, 889 unit operating hours of valid paired data ( more than 90% of 720 hours or 648 hours) were submitted, and unit operation and testing were continuous. Therefore, the intent of the 90% requirement was met.

The table below shows the results of the statistical tests for three PEMS outputs. 3 PEMS ( NO x ppm, dry) PEMS ( lbs NO x/ mmBtu) PEMS ( O 2 %, dry)

T test: mean difference d =  1.175 abs. value of confidence coefficient cc = 0.069 Since

cc

> d, the model passed. T test: mean difference d =  0.005 abs. value of confidence coefficient cc = 0.000 Since

cc

> d, the model passed. T test: mean difference d = 0.002 abs. value of confidence coefficient cc = 0.007 Since

cc

> d, the model passed.

r coefficient correlation: r = 0.82 Since r > 0.8, the model passed. r coefficient correlation: r = 0.78 Since r > 0.8, the model passed. r coefficient correlation: r = 0.13 Since r < 0.8, the model failed.

F test: variance of PEMS = 1.519 variance of RM = 3.218 F = 0.472 Fcritical = 1.11 Since Fcritical > F, the model passed. F test: variance of PEMS = 3.497 x 10 5 variance of RM = 6.187 x 10 5 F = 0.565 Fcritical = 1.11 Since Fcritical > F, the model passed. F test: variance of PEMS = 0.004 variance of RM = 0.010 F = 0.431 Fcritical = 1.11 Since Fcritical > F, the model passed.

The PEMS NO x ppm, dry output passed all three statistics. For the second PEMS output, EPA recalculated the required statistics on a lb NO x/ mmBtu basis because MeadWestvaco uses lb NO x/ mmBtu to calculate NO x mass emissions for the turbine. EPA used the NO x and O 2 dry basis concentration data presented by MeadWestvaco, equation 19 1 in Method 19 ( 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and F factor for natural gas ( 8710 dscf/ mmBtu) to generate the lb NO x/ mmBtu data for the statistical tests. EPA finds that the PEMS NO x lb/ mmBtu output passed each of the three statistical tests. 4 The PEMS O 2 output passed the T test and F test, but failed the r correlation. However, the PEMS O 2 concentration was always within 0.5% O 2 of the reference method, except for one hourly value that was 0.8% O 2 different. Because this hourly value was the second data point collected and was more than 11 standard deviations below the mean of the PEMS O 2 concentration values, EPA considers the hourly value suspect. Further, both the part 75 calibration error and linearity check performance specifications for an O 2 monitor are 0.5% O 2. Under these circumstances, EPA finds that the PEMS O 2 output was within the error allowed by part 75 for a CEMS and is acceptable.

Further, MeadWestvaco supplied the appropriate data plots concerning the paired AMS and CEMS data under § § 75.41( a)( 9) and ( c)( 2)( i).

2. Reliability Under § 75.42, MeadWestvaco must demonstrate that the PEMS is capable of providing valid 1 hr averages for 95.0 percent or more of unit operating hours over a 1 yr period and that the system meets the applicable requirements of appendix B of part 75. MeadWestvaco complied with the reliability requirements by submitting four quarters of excess emissions reports with monitor equipment malfunction times indicating greater than 95.0% PEMS availability. By meeting the QA/ QC requirements described in this letter, MeadWestvaco will also meet the applicable appendix B quality assurance and quality control ( QA/ QC) requirements.

3. Accessibility and Timeliness Under § § 75.43 and 75.44, MeadWestvaco must demonstrate that the PEMS meets the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subparts F and G of part 75. According to MeadWestvaco, the PEMS meets the subpart F and G requirements. For example, the PEMS " will provide a continuous, quality assured permanent record of certified emissions data on an hourly basis," and, coupled with the selected recordkeeping and reporting system, " will be capable of issuing a record of data for the previous day within 24 hours."

4. Quality Assurance Under § 75.45, MeadWestvaco must demonstrate either that daily tests equivalent to those in appendix B of part 75 can be performed on the PEMS or that such tests are unnecessary for providing quality assured data. Sections 75.48( a)( 8)( 11) require MeadWestvaco to submit: a detailed description of the process used to collect data, including location and method of ensuring an accurate assessment of operating hourly conditions on a real time basis; a detailed description of the operation, maintenance, and quality assurance procedures for the AMS as required in part 75, appendix B; a description of methods used to calculate diluent gas concentration; and results of tests and measurements necessary to substantiate the equivalency of the AMS to a fully certified CEMS. EPA finds that the PEMS will meet these requirements by meeting the following:

( a) The PEMS uses the following input parameters: splitter valve position, gas flow, load, inlet air temperature, exhaust gas temperature, and burner mode. The PEMS input parameters must stay within the minimum and maximum values ( inclusive) in the below table ( referred to as " the PEMS operating envelope"), unless the PEMS is retrained according to paragraph ( g) below, in which case, the new training values will supercede the values in the 5 below table. Except for burner mode parameter, if any PEMS input parameter value goes below the minimum or above the maximum table values by 5 percent or more, the PEMS shall be considered out of control, and the NO x MER shall be used, calculated according to paragraph ( i), starting with the hour after the sensor value goes outside of the PEMS operating envelope and ending with the hour after the sensor value is back within the PEMS operating envelope. Data from each PEMS input parameter shall be maintained on site in a form suitable for inspection for at least three ( 3) years from the date of each record. If the burner mode is not steady state ( mode 2), MeadWestvaco shall follow the procedures in paragraph ( h). PEMS Operating Envelope PEMS Input Parameter Minimum Value Maximum Value Splitter valve ( steps open) 60.0 100.8 Gas flow ( lbs/ sec) 2.0 + 0.8% of reading 4.0 + 0.8% of reading Load ( MW) 16.9 MW 27.1 MW Inlet air temp (  F) 40  F 123  F Exhaust gas temp (  F) 476  F 667  F Burner mode a 2 2 a Three modes: 0 = Startup ( 0 35% load with primary gas going in and being fired) or shutdown; 1 = Lean/ Lean ( 35 70% load with primary and secondary gas going in and both being fired); 2 = Steady state ( 70 100% load with primary and secondary gas going in, but combustion only in the secondary zone).

( b) The sensors for the PEMS' input parameters must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Further, the PEMS' Sensor Validation System identifies and reconciles failed sensors by: comparing each sensor to several other sensors; determining, based on the comparison, if a sensor has failed; and calculating a value for any failed sensor. MeadWestvaco must check, and demonstrate, that the Sensor Validation System: validates sensor data in this way every minute of PEMS operation; and computes hourly averages using at least one valid data point in each fifteen minute quadrant of an hour ( producing at least four valid data points per hour), where the unit combusted fuel during that quadrant of an hour, to comply with § 75.10( d)( 1).

( c) MeadWestvaco shall implement a sensor validation alarm system to inform the operator when sensors need repair and to indicate that the PEMS is out of control. In setting up the alarm system, a demonstration shall be performed at a minimum of four different PEMS training conditions, which must be representative of the entire range of expected boiler operations. For each of the four or more training conditions, the demonstration shall consist of the following:

( 1) For all of the sensors used in the PEMS model, input a set of reference sensor values that were recorded either during the training of the PEMS or during a RATA of the 6 PEMS ( these values will all be within the PEMS operating envelope). Verify that these reference inputs produce the expected PEMS output, i. e., the expected NO x emission rate;

( 2) Perform one sensor failure analysis, as follows. Artificially fail one of the sensors and then, using the calculated replacement value for that sensor ( see paragraph ( b), above), assess the effect on the accuracy of the PEMS. Calculate the percent difference between the reference NO x emission rate from step ( 1) and the PEMS output. Repeat this procedure for each sensor, individually;

( 3) Identify the sensor failure in step ( 2) that results in the worst accuracy. If the highest percent deviation exceeds + 10.0%, then set up the PEMS to alarm when any single sensor fails. If none of the percent difference values exceeds 10.0%, proceed to step ( 4);

( 4) Perform two sensor failure analysis, as follows: Artificially fail the sensor from step ( 3) that produced the worst accuracy and also fail one of the other sensors. Then, using the calculated replacement values for both sensors, assess the accuracy of the PEMS hourly average output, as in step ( 2). Repeat this procedure, evaluating each sensor in turn with the sensor from step ( 3);

( 5) Identify the combination of dual sensor failures that results in the worst accuracy. If the highest percent deviation exceeds + 10.0%, then set up the PEMS to alarm when any two sensors fail. If none of the percent difference values exceeds 10.0%, then set up the PEMS to alarm with three sensor failures.

The results of this demonstration shall be reported in the Subpart H certification hardcopy test report and in record type 910 in the quarterly EDR submittal for the quarter in which the demonstration is performed. When the PEMS alarms, the PEMS is out of control and MeadWestvaco shall report the NO x MER, calculated according to paragraph ( h), starting with the hour after the sensor validation alarm system alarms and ending with the hour after the sensor value is back within the expected range.

( d) A daily QA/ QC test must be performed. MeadWestvaco shall input to the PEMS a set of turbine operating parameters collected during the most recent RATA or training. The resulting PEMS NO x lb/ mmBtu output shall be compared to the reference method NO x lb/ mmBtu value, measured during the most recent RATA or training. If the PEMS NO x output is within + 10.0% of the reference method value, the daily QA/ QC test is passed. If the daily QA/ QC test is failed, the PEMS is out of control. Subpart D missing data procedures shall be followed starting with the hour after the failed test or, if the test is not timely conducted, the hour after the test due date and ending with the hour in which the test is passed. No grace periods are allowed. The results of this check ( pass/ fail) shall be reported in RT 624 in EDR version 2.2. ( Note: Use code ` 04' in start column 53 ( QA test code) for the daily QA/ QC check.)

( e) MeadWestvaco shall perform the tests indicated in the ` PEMS Ongoing QA/ QC Tests' table, below, including monthly 3 run relative accuracy audits ( RAAs). A monthly RAA shall 7 4ASTM D6522 00, Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers.

5 GRI ( Gas Research Institute), Topical Report, Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer Test Method, July, 1997. be performed in every calendar month during the ozone season when NO x monitoring is required by Part 75 that the unit operates for at least 168 hours, except for a month in which a full 9 run RATA is performed. The monthly RAAs shall be done on a pounds of NO x per million Btu ( lb/ mmBtu) basis, and shall be performed using either EPA Reference Methods 7E and 3A in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A 4, or a portable electrochemical analyzer. To the extent practicable, each successive monthly RAA shall be done at different operating conditions from the previous one. Follow analyzer manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures.

The minimum time per RAA run shall be 20 minutes. The reference method traverse point selection shall be consistent with section 6.5.6 of Part 75, Appendix A. Alternatively, a single measurement point located at least 0.5 meters from the stack or duct wall may be used without performing a stratification test.

Results of the RAA shall be calculated using Equation 1 1 in Appendix F of 40 CFR Part 60. Bias adjusted data from the PEMS ( using the bias adjustment factor from the most recent RATA) shall be used in the calculations. The results of the RAA are acceptable if the performance specifications in the ` PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests' table, below, are met. If the monthly RAA is failed, the PEMS is out of control. Subpart D missing data procedures shall be followed starting with the hour after the failed test or, if the test is not timely conducted, the hour after the test due date, and ending with the hour in which the test is passed. No grace periods are allowed.

Report the results of all monthly RAAs in the appropriate quarterly electronic data report ( EDR). Use EDR record type 624, and report the results of each test as either ` pass' or ` fail'. Report the QA test code in column 53 of RT 624 as ` 05'.

If a chemiluminescent NO x analyzer ( a portable chemiluminescent analyzer may be used) is used to perform the required RAAs, the procedures of Method 7E in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A 4 shall be followed. The analyzer performance specifications in Method 7E for calibration error, system bias, and calibration drift shall be met.

If a portable electrochemical analyzer is used to perform the required RAAs, ASTM Method D6522 004, as modified below, shall be followed. ASTM D6522 00 applies to the measurement of NO x ( NO and NO 2), CO, and O 2 concentrations in emissions from natural gas fired combustion systems using electrochemical analyzers. The method was developed based on studies sponsored by the Gas Research Institute ( GRI) 5. It has also been peerreviewed approved by ASTM Committees D22.03 and D22, and accepted by EPA as a conditional test method ( CTM 030). ASTM D6522 00 prescribes analyzer design 8 6" Evaluation of Portable Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems for NOx", The Cadmus Group, Inc., September 8, 2004 specifications, test procedures, and instrument performance requirements that are similar to the checks in EPA's instrumental test methods ( e. g., Methods 7E and 20). These checks include linearity, interference, stability, pre test calibration error, and post test calibration error.

Based on the results of EPA's portable analyzer study6, the following modifications to ASTM D6522 00 are required to make the method more practical without sacrificing accuracy: ( a) NO x analyzers must provide readings to 0.1 ppm to improve the likelihood of passing the performance specifications for sources with low NO x levels; ( b) an alternative performance specification ( e. g., + 1 ppm difference from reference value) will be applied to take account of sources with low concentrations of NO x; and ( c) the measurement system must be purged with ambient air between gas injections during the stability check, to reduce degradation of electrochemical cell performance ( see footnote 6, below).

The measurement system performance specifications as modified by the EPA portable analyzer study are shown in the following table.

ASTM Method D6522 00 Measurement System Performance Specifications ( as Modified by EPA Portable Analyzer Study)

Performance Check Gas Acceptance Criteria Zero Calibration Error NO, NO2

3 percent of span gas value or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive O2

0.3 percent O2 Span Calibration Error NO, NO2

5 percent of span gas value or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive O2

0.5 percent O2 Interference NO, NO2, O2

5 percent of average stack NO concentration for each test run ( using span gas checks)

Linearity NO, O2

2.5 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive NO2

3.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive 9 7When conducting this check for three cells in an analyzer, the system must be purged with ambient air between gas injections to minimize the possibility of problems with the electrochemical cells. Otherwise, the cells will be exposed to high NO and NO 2 concentrations for prolonged periods of time, which can cause degradation in the cell's performance ( i. e., the socalled " O 2 starved exposure"). Stability 7 NO, NO2 O2

2.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm maxmin difference, whichever is less restrictive, for 30 minute period

1.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm maxmin difference, whichever is less restrictive, for 15 minute period Cell Temperature ± 5  F from initial temperature ( f) MeadWestvaco shall perform initial certification tests on the PEMS prior to May 1, 2003. These tests shall be performed in the following order: ( 1) Ensure that the Sensor Validation System meets the requirements of paragraph ( b). ( 2) Train or retrain, as applicable, the PEMS according to the manufacturer's recommendations. ( 3) Ensure that the requirements in paragraph ( c) are met. ( 4) Perform a RATA, following the procedures in section 6.5 of Part 75, Appendix A, except use three different operating levels ( low, mid and high) as defined in section <IP_ADDRESS> of Part 75, Appendix A. However, because the PEMS is only approved for use at 70 to 100 percent load, use 70 percent load as the lower boundary of the range of operation and 100 percent load as the upper boundary of the range of operation. Use paired PEMS and reference method data to calculate the results on a lb NO x/ mmBtu basis2. MeadWestvaco shall apply to each operating level the RATA performance specifications contained in the PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests table in paragraph ( j). Report the RATA data and results of only the normal operating level in EDR record types 610 and 611 and keep the data and results for the other two operating levels on site, available for inspection. The RATA result for the normal operating level determines when the next RATA is due. ( 5) Conduct an F test, and a correlation analysis using Part 75, Subpart E equations at low, mid and high operating levels. Calculations shall be based on a minimum of 30 runs at each operating level. The F test is to be applied to data at each operating level separately. The correlation analysis shall be performed using all data collected at the three operating levels combined. If the standard deviation of the reference method NO x data is less than either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, the reference method standard deviation of either 3 percent of span or 5 ppm may be used when applying the F test. When the mean value of the reference method NO x data is less than 5 ppm, the correlation analysis ( r test) may be waived at that specific operating level. ( 6) Calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor ( BAF) at the normal operating level according to section 7.6 of Part 75, Appendix A. If all tests and procedures in ( 1), ( 3), ( 4) and ( 5) are not passed, and all the procedures in ( 2) and ( 6), are not completed, by May 1, 2003, the NO x MER, calculated with the appropriate NO x MPC value from part 75, appendix A, Table 2 2, must be used with the measured heat input to calculate and report NO x mass emissions until all tests and procedures in ( 1)( 5) are passed and all the procedures in ( 2) and ( 6), are completed."

Note: Because MeadWestvaco has already complied with the provisions of paragraph ( f), it 10 does not need to perform paragraph ( f), above, unless a new NO x PEMS monitoring system is installed.

( g) After initial certification, if a RATA is failed due to a problem with the PEMS, or if changes occur that result in a significant change in NO x emission rate relative to the previous PEMS training conditions ( e. g., turbine aging, process modification, new process operating modes, or changes to emission controls), the tests and procedures in paragraph ( f) shall be performed on the PEMS in the order specified in that paragraph. The tests and procedures in paragraph ( f) shall be completed by the earlier of 60 unit operating days ( as defined in section 72.2) or 180 calendar days after the failed RATA or after the change that caused a significant change in NO x emission rate. MeadWestvaco shall use the appropriate Part 75 missing data procedures ( see section 5), starting from the hour of the failed RATA and ending the hour after successful passage or completion of the tests and procedures, as required above. MeadWestvaco shall report the NO x MER, and Method of Determination Code " 55 Other substitute data approved through petition by EPA" in RT 320 for reporting lb NO x/ mmBtu emission rate, starting with the hour after the change that caused a significant change in NO x emission rate, and ending the hour after successful passage or completion of the tests and procedures, as required above.

( h) For any hour or partial hour of startup, shutdown, or lean/ lean turbine operation ( burner modes 0 or 1), the PEMS outputs shall not be used. Instead, MeadWestvaco must use 150 ppm as the NO x MPC when gas firing ( MeadWestvaco has calculated and should use a NO x MER of 1.716 lb/ mmBtu, based on the 150 ppm NO x MPC and the 19.0% O 2 diluent cap value), or 200 ppm as the NO x MPC when any oil is fired, pursuant to Part 75, Appendix A, Table 2 2 and § <IP_ADDRESS>( b), to calculate NO x MER, as defined in § 72.2, and to determine O 2 level for the purpose of reporting emissions. Method of Determination Code " 55 Other substitute data approved through petition by EPA" shall be used in RT 320 for reporting lb NO x/ mmBtu emission rate.

( i) For each unit operating hour in which the turbine or duct burners ( or both) fire oil, the PEMS outputs shall not be used. MeadWestvaco shall use the NO x MER, calculated using the 200 ppm NO x MPC for a new oil fired turbine from Table 2 2 and the procedures in appendix A, § <IP_ADDRESS>( b) to determine NO x and O 2 level for the purpose of reporting emissions. For each unit operating hour in which natural gas is combusted and the turbine and duct burners are in operation, MeadWestvaco shall report the NO x alternative substitute data value of 0.116 lb/ mmBtu. MeadWestvaco shall use Method of Determination Code " 55 Other substitute data approved through petition by EPA" in RT 320 for reporting lb NO x/ mmBtu emission rate for the situations described in this paragraph.

( j) On going QA/ QC tests shall be performed according to the following table:

PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests Test Performance Specification Frequency Daily QA/ QC < 10.0% of reference NOx emission rate Daily ( see paragraph ( d)) 11 8 The unit is a low emitting source if the mean reference value during the RATA or RAA is < 0.200 lb/ mmBtu NO x 3 run RAA  Accuracy < 10.0% or  For a low emitting source8, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.020 lb/ mmBtu of the reference mean value Monthly ( see paragraph ( e))

RATA For semiannual RATA frequency: ° RA > 7.5% and < 10.0% or  For a low emitting source8, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.020 lb/ mmBtu of the reference method mean value.

For annual RATA frequency:  RA < 7.5% or  For a low emitting source8, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.015 lb/ mmBtu of the reference method mean value Annual or semiannual and after each PEMS training ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g)

Sensor validation system ( minimum data capture) Check for production of at least 1 valid data point per 15 minutes ( see paragraph ( b)) Daily Bias adjustment factor If davg <  cc  , bias test is passed After each RATA ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g)

PEMS training ( Linear correlation and F test) r > 0.8, and Fcritical > F According to paragraphs ( f) and ( g)

Sensor validation compliance alarm system set up ( see paragraph ( c)) After each PEMS training ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g)

The daily QA/ QC test is described in paragraph ( d). The 3 run RAA is discussed in paragraph ( e). On going RATAs shall be performed at the normal operating level according to the procedures in Part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.1 and, as discussed in paragraph ( f), shall be calculated on a lb/ mmBtu basis. Immediately prior to a RATA, the BAF shall be set to 1.000. On a daily basis, MeadWestvaco shall check that the sensor validation system is set to provide one valid data point per 15 minute period, as discussed in paragraph ( b). After each RATA, MeadWestvaco shall calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor at the normal operating level according to Part 75, Appendix A, section 7.6. MeadWestvaco shall train or retrain the PEMS according to paragraphs ( f) and ( g). After each training, MeadWestvaco shall perform a normal operating level RATA and bias test, described in paragraph ( f), and the compliance alarm demonstration in paragraph ( c).

5. Missing Data Substitution 12 Under § 75.46, MeadWestvaco must demonstrate that all missing data can be accounted for in a manner consistent with the applicable missing data procedures in subpart D. MeadWestvaco stated that the PEMS meets the subpart D requirements, including the initial missing data procedures, determination of monitor data availability, standard missing data procedures, and either the PEMS or data acquisition and handling system meet the appendix D, § 2.4 requirements for determining missing data for heat input. According to MeadWestvaco, the PEMS can determine monitor data availability, assess the operating times for which data must be substituted, and recover historical data from the PI data historian. The elapsed out of control time of the PEMS will be monitored, allowing the PEMS to retrieve the data necessary to perform the substitution. Once the data has been retrieved, the required calculations will be performed. To assist in analyzing missing data, the software will provide data managing reports that will allow the user to monitor the out ofcontrol time ( or monitor data availability), data gap analysis, recovered data queries, substituted data usage, and the standard reporting requirements.

6. Additional Requirements A monitoring plan is due 45 days prior to the initial certification tests ( § 75.62) described in paragraph ( f) above. MeadWestvaco shall submit the operating envelope for Unit X022 to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and to EPA Region 4 for inclusion in the hardcopy monitoring plan. Any time changes are made to the PEMS operating envelope, the complete, revised PEMS operating envelope shall be submitted in a hardcopy monitoring plan by the applicable deadline in § 75.62( a)( 2). More information on monitoring plan submittals and other submittals can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ monitoring/ submissions/ monplan. html.

MeadWestvaco shall follow the EDR version 2.2 reporting instructions, found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ reporting/ edr21/, in conjunction with the required PEMS record types, and the supplementary PEMS EDR reporting instructions attached to this petition response, to report data from the PEMS. Monitoring Data Checking ( MDC) software that can be used to quality assure the electronic reports prior to submission is found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ reporting/ index. html.

If there are any further questions or concerns about this matter, please contact John Schakenbach of my staff at 202 343 9158 or at ( schakenbach. john@ epa. gov) .

Sincerely,

Sam Napolitano, Director Clean Air Markets Division cc: John Schakenbach, EPA, CAMD Manuel Oliva, EPA, CAMD David McNeal, EPA Region 4 Anthony Yarbrough, ALDEM 7/ 30/ 03 EDR REPORTING [ PREDICTIVE EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEMS ( PEMS)]

I. Introduction Table A 15, below includes the essential EDR record types for units that have received approval under Subpart E of Part 75 to use predictive emissions monitoring systems ( PEMS) to report NO x emissions. The scope of Table A 15 is limited to affected oil and gas fired units ( i. e., boilers and combustion turbines) that:

 Have a single unit single stack exhaust configuration; and  Use Appendix D methodology to quantify unit heat input; and  Use Appendices D and G to account for SO 2 and CO 2 mass emissions ( if the units are in the Acid Rain Program); and  Do not co fire oil and gas.

For PEMS reporting, EDR version 2.2 must be used, since fuel specific missing data substitution for NO x emission rate is required. For hourly NO x emission rate reporting, RT 320 is used. Hourly 200 level records are not reported for either NO x concentration or diluent gas ( O 2 or CO 2) concentration.

For units that burn more than one fuel type, separate PEMS are required for each fuel. Each PEMS should be reported as a separate monitoring system with a unique monitoring system ID in RT 510. Each PEMS will require its own set of certification, recertification, and quality assurance tests.

II. Interpreting Table A 15 In Table A 15, the first column identifies the record type. The second column gives a brief description of the record type. The third, fourth, and fifth columns indicate whether the record type must be reported for a particular type of submittal. The third column header, " MP," refers to monitoring plan submittals. The fourth column header, " CT," stands for certification or recertification applications. The fifth column header, " QT," refers to electronic data report submittals. The letter codes in columns 3 through 5 are defined as follows:

Y This record type is required for this type of submittal ( monitoring plan, certification/ recertification application or electronic data report)

N This record type is not appropriate for this type of submittal.

O This record type is appropriate, but optional for this type of submittal.

A This record type may be required for this submittal. If any doubt exists as to the need to submit this record type, consult the appropriate EDR instructions.

T This record type is required each time a quality assurance test ( e. g., a RATA) is performed. 2 Table A 15 EDR RECORD TYPES FOR UNITS WITH PEMS Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 100 Facility Identification Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 101 Record Types Submitted O O O ARP, Subpart H 102 Facility Location and Identification Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 300 Operating Data N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report one RT 300 for each hour in the quarter, except when a unit does not operate during the entire quarter. ° For each operating hour, report the fuel combusted in column 64.

301 Quarterly Cumulative Emissions N N Y ARP ° Quarterly NOx emission rate is the arithmetic average of the RT 320, col 42 values 302 Oil Fuel Flow N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° For ARP units, must be paired with RT 313 when reporting SO2 mass emissions.

303 Gas Fuel Flow N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° For ARP units, must be paired with RT 314 when reporting SO2 mass emissions.

307 Cumulative NOx Mass Emissions N N Y Subpart H 313 SO2 Mass Emissions ( Oil) N N Y ARP 314 SO2 Mass Emissions ( Gas) N N Y ARP 320 NOx Emission Rate Estimation N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

328 NOx Mass Emissions N N Y Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

330 CO2 Mass Emissions Data N N A ARP ° Report RT 330 for hours in which Equation G 4 is used to determine hourly CO2 mass emissions for gas or oil fired units.

331 CO2 Mass Emissions Estimation Parameters N N A ARP ° Report RT 331 if you estimate CO2 mass emissions using fuel sampling and Equation G 1 504 Unit Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 505 Program Indicator for Report Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 506 EIA Cross Reference Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 507 Peaking Unit or ARP Gas Fired Unit Qualification Data A A A ARP 508 Subpart H Reporting Frequency Change N N A Subpart H 510 Monitoring Systems/ Analytical Components Table Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions) 3 Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 520 Formula Table Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report formulas for SO2 and CO2 mass emissions ( ARP units, only), NOx mass emissions ( Subpart H units), and unit heat input rate.

531 Defaults and Constants Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

535 Unit and Stack Operating Load Data Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H Required for any unit using load based missing data procedures for NOx or fuel flow rate.

536 Range of Operation, Normal Load, and Load Usage Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 536 to define operating range and normal load for RATA testing 540 Fuel Flowmeter Data Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 550 Reasons for Monitoring System Downtime or Missing Parameter N N A ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

556 Monitoring System Recertification, Maintenance, or Other Events N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 556 for recertification of the PEMS or fuel flowmeters ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

585 Monitoring Methodology Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

586 Control Equipment Information A A A ARP, Subpart H 587 Unit Fuel Type Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 610 RATA and Bias Test Data N Y T ARP, Subpart H ° Report RTs 610 each time a RATA is performed for certification, recertification or for on going QA/ QC. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

611 RATA and Bias Test Results N Y T ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 611 each time a RATA is performed for certification, recertification or for on going QA/ QC. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

624 Other QA Activities N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 624 for PEMS daily QA/ QC and for PEMS periodic accuracy checks using a reference method, or a portable analyzer. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

627 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test N A T ARP, Subpart H ° Report only for fuel flowmeters that are certified and quality assured by periodic accuracy tests according to Section <IP_ADDRESS> or <IP_ADDRESS> of Appendix D.

628 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test for Orifice, Nozzle and Venturi Flowmeter N A T ARP, Subpart H ° Report only for orifice, nozzle and venturi type flowmeters that are quality assured by periodic transmitter/ transducer calibrations. 4 Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 629 Fuel Flow to load Ratio Test Baseline Data N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report if quarterly fuel flow to load ratio test in Section 2.1.7 of Appendix D is used to extend fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

630 Quarterly Fuel Flow to load Ratio Test Results N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report if quarterly fuel flow to load ratio test in Section 2.1.7 of Appendix D is used to extend fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

696 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test Extension N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Use RT 696 to claim allowable extensions of fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

697 RATA Deadline Extension or Exemption N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report when claiming a RATA deadline extension Appendix B, Section 2.3.3.

699 QA Test Extension Based on Grace Period N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report when claiming a QA test deadline extension under Appendix B, Section 2.2.4.

900 Certifications Y Y Y ARP 901 Certifications Y Y Y ARP 910 Comments Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

920 Comments O O O ARP, Subpart H 940 Certifications Y Y Y Subpart H 941 Certifications Y Y Y Subpart H 999 Contact Information O O O ARP, Subpart H 5 SUPPLEMENTARY EDR REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS FOR PEMS For a unit with an approved petition to use a predictive emissions monitoring system ( PEMS), use the following supplementary instructions, in conjunction with the EDR version 2.2 Reporting Instructions document, to prepare the required EDR submittals.

RT 320 Monitoring System ID ( 10). Report the monitoring system ID ( from RT 510, column 13) of the PEMS used to determine the NO x emission rate during the hour.

F Factor ( 26). Leave this field blank.

Average NOx Emission Rate for the Hour ( 36). Report the average unadjusted NO x emission rate for the hour ( lb/ mmBtu), rounded to three decimal places, as determined by the PEMS. For hours in which you use missing data procedures, leave this field blank.

Adjusted Average NOx Emission Rate for the Hour ( 42). For each hour in which you report NO x emission rate in column 36, apply the appropriate adjustment factor ( 1.000 or the BAF) to the unadjusted average emission rate, and report the result rounded to three decimal places. For each hour in which you use missing data procedures, report the appropriate substitute value.

Formula ID ( 50). Leave this field blank.

Method of Determination Code ( 53). Report " 03" when you use the PEMS to determine the NO x emissions rate. Report " 12" when you report the fuel specific maximum NO x emission rate ( e. g., during hours of startup or shutdown or when NO x controls ( if any) are not functioning properly). During hours when you use other missing data procedures, report the appropriate MODC listed in the EDR instructions.

RT 328 NOx Methodology for the Hour ( 45). Report " NOXR PEMS".

RT 510 The PEMS monitoring system consists of either one or two data acquisition and handling system ( DAHS) components. For single component PEMS systems or for systems where the PEMS software and standard DAHS software have the same manufacturer/ provider, model or version number, etc., report one RT 510 for the PEMS system. If the PEMS software and the standard DAHS software have different manufacturer/ providers, model or version numbers, etc., report each as a separate RT 510 with the same PEMS monitoring system ID.

Component ID ( 10). Report the three character alphanumeric ID for each DAHS component.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Create a unique three character alphanumeric ID for each PEMS monitoring system. Define a separate NOX PEMS system for each fuel type. For sources 6 switching from NO x CEMS or Appendix E to PEMS, do not re use the CEMS or Appendix E system ID numbers.

System Parameter Monitored ( 17). Report " NOX" for the system parameter monitored.

Primary/ Backup Designation ( 21). Report " PE" to indicate that this is a predictive emissions monitoring system.

Component Type Code ( 23). Report " DAHS" as the component type code.

Sample Acquisition Method ( 27). Leave this field blank.

Manufacturer ( 30). Report the name of the manufacturer or developer of the software component.

Model/ Version ( 55). Report the model/ version of the software component.

Serial Number ( 70). Report the serial number, if applicable   otherwise leave blank.

RT 531 Parameter ( 10). Report " NORX" as the parameter monitored. ( You should report one 531 record for each fuel type.)

Default Value ( 14). Report the fuel specific maximum potential NO x emission rate ( MER), in units of lb/ mmBtu.

Units of Measure ( 27). Report " LBMMBTU".

Purpose or Intended Use ( 34). Report " MD" for missing data.

Type of Fuel ( 37). Report the fuel type code for the fuel. ( See the EDR Instructions for RT 531 for the list of available codes.)

Indicator of Use ( 40). Report " A" for any hour.

Source of Value ( 41). Report " DEF" for default value.

RT 550 Parameter ( 10). Report " NOX".

Monitoring System ID ( 14). Report the monitoring system ID, from RT 510, of the NOX PEMS system.

RT 556 Component ID ( 10). Report the PEMS component ID subject to recertification/ diagnostic 7 testing, if a specific component is involved. If the event is system, not component, specific, leave this field blank.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Report the monitoring system ID, from RT 510, of the NO x PEMS system.

Event Code ( 16). Report code " 99" ( i. e., " Other").

Code for Required Test ( 19). Codes for PEMS systems are:

80 PEMS daily QA/ QC, sensor validation system check, train or retrain ( if manufacturer recommends), sensor validation compliance alarm check, statistical tests, and normal operating level RATA and bias test;

81 PEMS daily QA/ QC, and PEMS check with reference method or portable analyzer;

Beginning of Conditionally Valid Period ( 31, 39). If conditional data validation is used, report the date and hour that the probationary PEMS daily QA/ QC test was successfully completed according to the provisions of § 75.20( b)( 3)( ii).

Note: For PEMS, you may only use conditional data validation if the " event" in column 16 requires RATA testing. If you elect to use conditional data validation, you must complete the RATA within the allotted time in § 75.20( b)( 3)( iv).

RT 585 Parameter ( 10). Report " NOXR" as the parameter code associated with the PEMS. Report one RT 585 for each generic fuel type combusted.

Monitoring Methodology ( 14). Report " PEMS" as the monitoring methodology for the PEMS.

Missing Data Approach for Methodology ( 28). Report " FSP75" for the fuel specific missing data approach for the PEMS methodology.

RT 610 Units of Measure ( 33). Report " 2" ( lb/ mmBtu) as the units of measure.

Value from CEM System Being Tested ( 34). Report the average value recorded by the PEMS, for each RATA run.

RT 611 Units of Measure ( 34). Report " 2" ( lb/ mmBtu) as the units of measure.

Arithmetic Mean of CEM Values ( 35). Report the arithmetic mean of all the RTs 610 PEMS values associated with the RATA. 8 Number of Load Levels Comprising Test ( 133). Report " 1" or " 3" ( if certification or recert).

BAF for a Multiple Load RATA ( 134). Leave this field blank.

RT 624 Component ID ( 10). Report the PEMS software component ID from RT 510.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Report the NO x monitoring system ID from RT 510.

Parameter ( 16). Report " NOX".

QA Test Activity Description ( 30). Fill in appropriately.

Reason for Test ( 51). Report " Q".

QA Test Code ( 53). Report one of the following codes, as appropriate:

04 PEMS daily QA/ QC 05 Periodic check of PEMS accuracy with a portable analyzer, or reference method RT 910 Text ( 4). Briefly describe the PEMS.


        US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses, Program Glossary
       https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 76069]
[DOCID:fr15de08-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 12f-3; OMB Control No. 3235-0249; SEC File No. 270-
141.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collection
of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 12f-3 (17 CFR
240.12f-3).
    Rule 12f-3 (the ``Rule''), which was originally adopted in 1934
pursuant to sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Act''), as modified in 1995, prescribes
the information which must be included in applications for and notices
of termination or suspension of unlisted trading privileges for a
security as contemplated in section 12(f)(4) of the Act. An application
must provide, among other things, the name of the applicant; a brief
statement of the applicant's interest in the question of termination or
suspension of such unlisted trading privileges; the title of the
security; the name of the issuer; certain information regarding the
size of the class of security and its recent trading history; and a
statement indicating that the applicant has provided a copy of such
application to the exchange from which the suspension or termination of
unlisted trading privileges are sought, and to any other exchange on
which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges.
    The information required to be included in applications submitted
pursuant to Rule 12f-3 is intended to provide the Commission with
sufficient information to make the necessary findings under the Act to
terminate or suspend by order the unlisted trading privileges granted a
security on a national securities exchange. Without the Rule, the
Commission would be unable to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
    The burden of complying with Rule 12f-3 arises when a potential
respondent, having a demonstrable bona fide interest in the question of
termination or suspension of the unlisted trading privileges of a
security, determines to seek such termination or suspension. The staff
estimates that each such application to terminate or suspend unlisted
trading privileges requires approximately one hour to complete. Thus
each potential respondent would incur on average one burden hour in
complying with the Rule.
    The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 11
responses annually and that each respondent's related cost of
compliance with Rule 12f-3 would be $168.00, or, the cost of one hour
of professional work needed to complete the application. The total
annual related reporting cost for all potential respondents, therefore,
is $1,848.00 (11 responses x $168.00/response).
    Compliance with the application requirements of Rule 12f-3 is
mandatory, though the filing of such applications is undertaken
voluntarily. Rule 12f-3 does not have a record retention requirement
per se. However, responses made pursuant to Rule 12f-3 are subject to
the recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Act.
Information received in response to Rule 12f-3 shall not be kept
confidential; the information collected is public information.
    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 control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days
of this notice.

    December 8, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29507 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 4 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING AUGUST 24 25, 2004 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE: http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0240 Fumigant Bystander Exposure Model: Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for FUMigant ( PERFUM)

PANEL MEMBERS FIFRA SAP Chair Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. Professor and Program Director Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology University of Florida, Box 110885 Building 471, Mowry Road Gainesville, FL 32611 0885 Designated Federal Official Myrta R. Christian, M. S. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination and Policy U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. ( 7201M) EPA East Building Washington, D. C. 20460 Phone: ( 202) 564 8450 Fax: ( 202) 564 8382 christian. myrta@ epa. gov FIFRA SAP Members Steven Heeringa, Ph. D. Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design Institute for Social Research University of Michigan P. O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1248 Page 2 of 4 Kenneth Portier, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Statistics Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida 522 McCarty Hall C Gainesville, FL 32611 0330 FQPA Science Review Board Members Daniel Clark Baker, Ph. D. Senior Consultant Environmental Computing ( EC 129 Shell Global Solutions US 3333 Highway 6 South Houston, TX 77082 3101 Paul W. Bartlett, M. A. Research Associate Center for the Biology of Natural Systems Queens College, City University of New York 184 Norfolk St 3C New York, N. Y. 10002 Adel F. Hanna, Ph. D. Research Professor Carolina Environmental Program University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB# 6116, Bank of America Plaza, Room 650 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 6116 Michael S. Majewski, Ph. D. Research Chemist US Geological Survey 6000 J Street, Placer Hall Sacramento, CA 95819 6129 David R. Maxwell, M. P. A., M. B. A. C. C. M. Environmental Specialist/ Air Quality Monitoring Specialist National Parks Service P. O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 Page 3 of 4 Li Tse Ou, Ph. D. Scientist Soil & Water Science Department University of Florida, P. O. Box 110290 Gainesville, FL 32611 0290 James Seiber, Ph. D. Director U. S. Department of Agriculture / ARS/ Western Regional Research Center 800 Buchanan Street Albany, CA 94710 Frederick Shokes, Ph. D. Center Director and Professor Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center Virginia Tech University 6321 Holland Road Suffolk, Virginia 23437 Mitchell J. Small, Ph. D. H. John Heinz II Professor of Environmental Engineering Carnegie Mellon University, Porter Hall 119 Frew Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Thomas O. Spicer, III, Ph. D. Professor and Head Department of Chemical Engineering University of Arkansas 3202 BEC/ CHEG Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dong Wang, Ph. D. Associate Professor Department of Soil, Water & Climate University of Minnesota 1991 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108 Page 4 of 4 Eric D. Winegar, Ph. D., QEP Applied Measurement Science 4764 Concord Drive Fair Oaks, CA 95628 Scott R. Yates, Ph. D. Interim Research Leader U. S. Department of Agriculture/ ARS/ US Salinity Lab., Soil Physics & Pesticides Research Unit University of California at Riverside 450 West Big Springs Road Riverside, CA 92507


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44284-44285]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of October 19, 2018 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Community                Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Butler County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1434 and
                               FEMA-B-1634
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Fairfield.................  City Hall, 5350 Pleasant Avenue,
                                     Fairfield, OH 45014.
City of Hamilton..................  Department of Community Development,
                                     Planning Division, 345 High Street,
                                     Suite 370, Hamilton, OH 45011.
City of Middletown................  City Hall, One Donham Plaza,
                                     Middletown, OH 45042.
City of Monroe....................  City Hall, 233 South Main Street,
                                     Monroe, OH 45050.
City of Oxford....................  City Hall, Building Department, 101
                                     East High Street, Oxford, OH 45056.
City of Trenton...................  City Hall, 11 East State Street,
                                     Trenton, OH 45067.
Unincorporated Areas of Butler      Butler County Administrative Center,
 County.                             Building and Zoning Department, 130
                                     High Street, 1st Floor, Hamilton,
                                     OH 45011.
Village of Millville..............  Village Hall, 2860 Ross Hanover
                                     Road, Millville, OH 45013.
Village of New Miami..............  Village Hall, 268 Whitaker Avenue,
                                     New Miami, OH 45011.
Village of Seven Mile.............  Village Hall, 201 High Street, Seven
                                     Mile, OH 45062.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tuscarawas County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1704
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Tuscarawas  Tuscarawas County Administrative
 County.                             Offices, 125 East High Avenue, New
                                     Philadelphia, OH 44663.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1710
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Beaverton.................  Community Development Department,
                                     12725 Southwest Millikan Way,
                                     Beaverton, OR 97005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Forest Grove..............  City Hall, 1924 Council Street,
                                     Forest Grove, OR 97116.
City of Hillsboro.................  Civic Center, 150 East Main Street,
                                     Hillsboro, OR 97123.
City of King City.................  City Hall, 15300 Southwest 116th
                                     Avenue, King City, OR 97224.
City of North Plains..............  City Hall, 31360 Northwest
                                     Commercial Street, North Plains, OR
                                     97133.
City of Sherwood..................  City Hall, 22560 Southwest Pine
                                     Street, Sherwood, OR 97140.
City of Tigard....................  City Hall, 13125 Southwest Hall
                                     Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
City of Tualatin..................  City Hall, 18880 Southwest
                                     Martinazzi Avenue, Tualatin, OR
                                     97062.
Unincorporated Areas of Washington  County Public Services Building, 155
 County.                             North First Avenue, Suite 350,
                                     Hillsboro, OR 97124.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-18832 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13983-13984]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3643-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Report Filing: FERC Audit Refund Report to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-419-005.
    Applicants: Transource Pennsylvania, LLC, Transource Maryland, LLC,
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Transource PA and MD submit
Amendments to 1/1/18 Compliance Filing in ER17-419 to be effective 2/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-836-000.
    Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez 2 U.S., LLC.
    Description: Supplement to February 9, 2018 Energia Sierra Juarez
U.S. 2, LLC tariff filing (Corrected Attachment B).
    Filed Date: 3/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180322-5291.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1162-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment J--Municipal
Underground Surcharge Revision to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/22/18.
    Accession Number: 20180322-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1163-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Corp NITSA SA T-1092
Low Voltage Facilities Revisions to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1165-000.
    Applicants: Shoreham Solar Commons LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to MBR Tariff to
Reflect Affiliation to be effective 3/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1166-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Amended and
Restated Service Agreement with MG&E to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1167-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Revisions Attachments N-v6 and
O-v8 to be effective 5/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180323-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/18.

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

    Dated: March 23, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06621 Filed 3-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

September 25, 2007

SUBJECT:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Phase 6 Response to Substantive Public
Comments on Antimicrobials Division’s Occupational and Residential
Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document
for Octhilinone (OIT); Case 2475; PC Code 099901.

FROM:	Cassi L. Walls, Ph.D., Chemist

		Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

		Antimicrobials Division

THROUGH:	Norm Cook, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)

Antimicrobials Division

TO:		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 K. Avivah Jacob, Chemical Review Manager

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The attached document is in response to the Phase
5 public comments regarding the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED) Document for Octhilinone (OIT).  This document specifically
addresses only those substantive comments relating to the occupational
exposure and risk assessments.  AD’s Occupational and Residential
Exposure Assessment has been revised to reflect typographical and
numerical errors captured during the comment period.

 Octhilinone (OIT)

AD Response to Phase 5 Public Comments

Comments from the OIT Task Force

Comment:  The Agency has inappropriately conducted dermal exposure and
risk assessments in its assessment of OIT and should correct those
documents to show that no dermal exposure assessment is needed.

Response:   AD toxicologists selected a short-term dermal endpoint based
on irritation effects and an intermediate-term dermal endpoint based on
systemic effects.  Because dermal effects were observed in the studies
reviewed by the toxicologists, it was deemed necessary to assess dermal
exposures and risks for OIT.  A quantitative short-term dermal
assessment was not conducted for the occupational handlers where
exposures can be mitigated by the use protective clothing and gloves.
However, following standard AD procedure (see other AD REDs), dermal
assessments were conducted where mitigation options are not viable such
as painting and residential exposure scenarios.

Comment:  Since the method [pertaining to the airless sprayer unit
exposure value] proposed is a radical departure from the use of PHED
data and policy that EPA has developed around it, a clear explanation
for the policy change needs to be made.

Response:  The airless sprayer PHED data was used in the assessment.
The PHED airless sprayer unit exposure data were normalized in terms of
an air concentration (mg/m3/%ai) rather than a dose (mg/lb ai).  It was
necessary to express the PHED data in terms of an air concentration to
perform an inhalation route-specific risk assessment.

Comment:  Table 4.2.2, Footnote A.  This equation seems to have no basis
in policy or science.  It appears to be some adaptation of the Human
Equivalent Concentration (HEC) methodology, but there is no citation for
its basis or use.

Response:   This equation is no longer being used.  The inhalation
toxicological endpoints are now expressed in terms of HECs.  The HECs
were estimated using Regional Deposited Dose Ratios (RDDR) for
nonhygroscopic particles and the inhalation NOAEL.  All of the
inhalation MOEs have now been updated in the ORE assessment using the
HEC methodology.

Comment:  It is entirely unclear why one would assume that a painter
dips both hands in paint and leaves it on the hands.  Such an assumption
is not consistent with any painting technique involving a brush or
roller.  However, even if one were to assume that the painter was very
sloppy and had a film of the paint on both hands, it is the nature of
the paint to quickly dry.  Once dry the OIT becomes much less
bioavaliable as indicated by in vitro tests of paint applied to skin.
The data indicate that bioavailability drops by 20-fold from paint
versus active ingredient in solvent.  This information has been supplied
to EPA, and it should be used in the risk assessment.

It is important to note that EPA’s OPP has developed a standard
operating procedure of the painting and wood preservative treatment
handler scenario.  Further, if a systemic toxicity endpoint is of
concern, EPA has previously addressed the scenario using the SOP in an
appropriate manner (see Propiconazole).

Response:   The paint “two-hand immersion” method explanation is
misleading as currently written and has been clarified in the ORE
assessment.  Although the short-term dermal paint assessment method was
based on ChemSteer’s two-hand immersion model, it was not really
assumed that the painter’s hands were covered in paint rather, it was
assumed that the paint film thickness on the skin, regardless of the
surface area covered, was 10.3 mg/cm2.  This type of method was
necessary to use to properly estimate MOEs since the dermal irritation
endpoint was in terms of surface area (mg/cm2) not dose (mg/kg/day).  If
the endpoint was based on systemic effects, not dermal irritation, AD
would have used a similar approach as used in the propiconazole
assessment.  Furthermore, the intermediate-term dermal assessment (where
the endpoint was based on systemic effects) for painters was not
conducted because it was assumed that OIT treated paint would not be
used by professional painters on a continuous basis.

AD has reviewed the “bioavailablity” data and has incorporated the
results into the ORE assessment.

Comment:  To address the potential OIT residential post-application
exposures resulting from consumer contacted with treated (i.e.,
impregnated) materials, AD should follow EPA’s Standard Operating
Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments.  Chapter 11.2 of that
document described a predictive method for estimating the migration of
residues from impregnated materials. Specifically, the Polymer Migration
Estimation Model (AMEM) is a computer program to describe the migration
of additives out of polymeric materials. … The current calculations
presented in the ORE chapter of the OIT RED are based on the assumption
that 100% of the OIT in the impregnated or treated material is available
for transfer, and that the following “default assumption” percent
transfers may occur: carpet 5%, vinyl flooring 10%, clothing 5%, and
toys 0.5%. … Thus, it is reasonable to use the AMEM model to address
EPA’s uncertainty, i.e., estimate the fraction of OIT that may migrate
from the matrix and be available for transfer.  It is recommended that
AD revise the carpet, vinyl flooring, clothing, mattress and toy
scenarios accordingly…. It is important to reiterate that the OIT is
used in carpet backing and not in the pile of the carpet, so there is no
direct contact.

Response:   The AMEM model results (i.e., 0.86% of OIT is available on
the surface of the polymer for exposure) provided by the OIT Task force
will be used in the vinyl flooring scenarios assessed in the ORE
chapter.  However, the AMEM results can only be used in the vinyl
flooring assessments because AMEM only assesses migration through
polymer matrices not textiles such as clothing, mattress ticking/covers,
and carpet pile.  Since, the toy scenario already assumes that only 0.5%
OIT is available on the surface of the polymer and 50% of the available
residue is transferred via mouthing, the AMEM modeling is not necessary
for the toy scenario. Currently, there are several labels that list
indoor and outdoor carpeting as well as, backing as potential use sites.
 If the use is limited to carpet backing then a quantitative exposure
assessment would not be necessary to conduct and the current labels
would need to be updated to accurately reflect this use pattern.

Comment:  Similar to the liquid pour CMA data, the available [liquid
pump] CMA data are of lower quality and there are significantly fewer
replicates than the Agency typically deems adequate. …  It is unclear
why the PHED data (Scenarios 3 and 6) were not used.

Response:   It is AD’s standard policy to use the CMA data since they
were developed specifically for antimicrobial chemicals.  AD
acknowledges the limitations with the CMA data and is therefore
requiring the generation of confirmatory exposure data specific to
antimicrobial chemicals.

Comment:  The unit exposure values do not reflect the typical use of a
second layer of clothing. … The high pressure spray operator wears,
per label requirement, a full-face respirator fitted with an organic
cartridge, protective eyewear, gloves and boots that are impervious to
the solution, a long-sleeve shirt, long pants, and coveralls.

Response:   The unit exposure values have been revised to incorporate
labeled PPE requirements.

Comment:  In addition to the “Herculean” strength necessary to lift
and pour 2,000 gallons per day of active ingredient, this quantity of
material would not be poured.

Response:   This value represents the amount of material (i.e., paint,
coatings, stain, etc.) that is treated via open pour techniques.  It is
not the amount of active ingredient lifted and poured on a daily basis.

Comment:  The Agency has assumed that the professional airless spray
[paint] operators wear no respiratory protection.  This is not true of
either union or non-union workers.  Wearing a respirator is not
something that’s typically optional, rather it is a common industrial
hygiene practice.  Even in the case of small operations, where wearing a
respirator is not mandatory, virtually every airless sprayer utilizes
one.

Response:   Because OIT is a materials preservative (i.e., in-can
preservative), there are no pesticidal claims on preserved paint.
Therefore, there are no enforceable EPA registered labels for preserved
paint thus, we must assume baseline exposures (i.e., no use of gloves
and respirator) when conducting risk assessments for these types of
products.

Comment:  The next step in deriving an MOE is estimating a relevant
airless sprayer operator breathing zone concentration of OIT (mg/m3)
during a workday for comparison to the HEC derived above.  For this
purpose, a study conducted by the National Paints and Coatings
Association (Reinhardt and Fendick 2000) was selected. … Thus, this
inspirable OIT air concentration associated with inspirable particles,
is estimated to range from 0.037 mg OIT/m3 to 0.053 mg OIT/m3.

Response:   The Reinhardt and Fendick study was reviewed and deemed
appropriate to use in the ORE assessment.  These data were used to
augment the existing database of PHED airless sprayer unit exposure
values rather than replace them.

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  4


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12171-12173]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4901]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63984; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make Clarifying Changes to Rule 7002 Concerning the Application and
Collection of the Sales Fee

February 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 16, 2011, 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 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ is proposing to make clarifying changes to Rule 7002
concerning the application and collection of the Sales Fee.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

7002. Sales Fee

    A Sales Fee is assessed by Nasdaq to each member for sales of
securities through Nasdaq transaction execution systems in the
following circumstances:
    (a) When a sale in equity securities occurs with respect to which
Nasdaq is obligated to pay a fee to the SEC under Section 31 of the
Act;
    (b) When a sale in option securities occurs with respect to which
Nasdaq is obligated to pay a fee to the SEC under Section 31 of the
Act;
    (c) When a sell order in equity securities is routed for execution
at a market other than Nasdaq, resulting in a covered sale on that
market and an obligation of the routing facility of Nasdaq to pay the
related sales fee of that market;
    (d) When a sell order in option securities is routed for execution
at a market other than the Nasdaq Options Market, resulting in a
covered sale on that market and an obligation of the

routing facility of Nasdaq to pay the related sales fee of that market;
[with respect to which Nasdaq is obligated to pay a fee to the SEC
under Section 31 of the Act.] The Sales Fee is collected indirectly
from members through their clearing firms by a designated clearing
agency, as defined by the Act, [NSCC] on behalf of Nasdaq. The amount
of the Sales Fee is equal to (i) the Section 31 fee rate multiplied by
(ii) the member's aggregate dollar amount of covered sales resulting
from transactions through Nasdaq transaction execution systems during
any computational period.
* * * * *

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 and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. 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 is proposing amendments to Rule 7002 to make clear the
circumstances that trigger application of the Sales Fee, and to make
other clarifying changes. Rule 7002 permits NASDAQ to collect a fee
from its members for sales of securities through NASDAQ transaction
execution systems with respect to which NASDAQ is obligated to pay a
fee to the SEC pursuant to Section 31 of the Act \3\ and Rule 31,
thereunder.\4\ Each national securities exchange and association is
required to calculate the aggregate dollar amount of ``covered sales''
occurring on the exchange or through a member of the national
securities association and to pay fees based on those covered sales to
the Commission (``Section 31 fees''). A covered sale is a ``sale of a
security, other than an exempt sale or a sale of a security future,
occurring on a national securities exchange or by or through any member
of a national securities association otherwise than on a national
securities exchange.'' \5\ Pursuant to Rule 7002, NASDAQ assesses a
member the Sales Fee for an executed sell order entered into NASDAQ
transaction execution systems that results in a covered sale. The Sales
Fee defrays the cost of the Section 31 fee triggered by the covered
sale. In this regard, the Sales Fee assessed a member is equal to the
Section 31 fee assessed by the Commission for the covered sale.
Further, NASDAQ adjusts the Sales Fee in lock step with changes to the
Section 31 fee made by the Commission.\6\ Assessing a sales fee is
common practice among the national securities exchanges and
associations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.31.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.31(a)(6).
    \6\ NASDAQ OMX issues Regulatory Alerts to provide its equities
and options markets' members with notice of Sales Fee changes. See
e.g., http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ERA2011-01.
    \7\ See e.g., CBOE Fees Schedule (January 3, 2011), Item 6
``Sales Value Fee,'' ISE Rule 212, NYSE Rule 440H, and NYSE Amex
Rule 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Sales Fee defrays the cost of the Section 31
fee. The Sales Fee is triggered by the fulfillment of a members [sic]
sell order in equity or options securities entered into NASDAQ
transaction execution systems that results in a covered sale. If the
member's sell order is fulfilled on NASDAQ's equity or options trading
markets, NASDAQ incurs a Section 31 fee obligation. Sell orders in
equity or options securities entered into NASDAQ transaction execution
systems that are routed to another market for execution, however, do
not result in a covered sale on NASDAQ. Execution of such routed orders
is facilitated by NASDAQ's routing brokers,\8\ which act as the selling
member for a routed order on the away market on behalf of the NASDAQ
member. Such routed sell orders result in a covered sale on the away
market, which incurs a Section 31 fee obligation. Like NASDAQ, the away
market assesses a sales fee on the member that entered the sell order,
in this case NASDAQ Execution Services or NASDAQ Options Services, to
defray the cost of the Section 31 fee obligation. In turn, NASDAQ
assesses its member, the original selling party, a Sales Fee pursuant
to Rule 7002 to defray the cost of the Section 31 fee passed on by the
away exchange pursuant to its sales fee. As such, NASDAQ's Sales Fee
offsets the sales fee it is assessed by the away market, the result of
which is to place the parties involved in the transaction in the same
position as if the covered sale had occurred on NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NASDAQ Execution Services and NASDAQ Options Services are
NASDAQ's routing brokers for equity and option securities,
respectively. See Rule 4758(b) and NOM Rules Chapter VI, Section
11(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the varying means by which a Sales Fee is incurred by
members, as described above, NASDAQ believes that a more detailed
description of the circumstances that trigger the Sales Fee is
warranted. Accordingly, the new rule language proposed by NASDAQ
expressly discusses covered sales in both equity and option securities.
In addition, the proposed new rule language includes a description of
sell orders entered into NASDAQ transaction execution systems that
result in a covered sale on another exchange, expressly discussing the
fee incurred by NASDAQ and the application of the Sales Fee in such
circumstances.
    NASDAQ also proposes deleting reference to the NSCC as the party
that collects the Sales Fee and replacing it with the term ``designated
clearing agency,'' which is defined by rules promulgated under the Act
as a ``clearing agency registered under section 17A of the Act * * *
that clears and settles covered sales or covered round turn
transactions.'') \9\ NASDAQ is adopting the term ``designated clearing
agency'' because it encompasses a broader range of clearing agencies
than is currently noted under the rule. In this regard, Rule 7002
discusses the process by which the Sales Fee is collected from members
for equity covered sales, noting that the fee is collected indirectly
from members through their clearing firms by NSCC. NSCC is a designated
clearing agency that clears transactions in equity securities. NASDAQ
employs NSCC to collect the Sale Fee from members arising from their
covered sales in equity securities. Sales Fees arising from options
covered sales, however, are collected from members by the Options
Clearing Corporation, another designated clearing agency that clears
option securities.\10\ Consistent with the other changes proposed
herein, NASDAQ believes the rule should be updated to more fully
describe the parties and processes involved in collection of the Sales
Fee. Accordingly, NASDAQ proposes to use a term defined by the rules
promulgated under the Act,\11\ which most accurately reflects all
parties NASDAQ employs to collect the Sales Fee from its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.31(a)(9).
    \10\ In addition to clearing transactions in options, the
Options Clearing Corporation also clears security futures. See
http://www.optionsclearing.com.
    \11\ Supra note 9.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ
operates or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The proposed clarifying
language does not change the application and assessment of the Sales
Fee under the rule, but rather provides greater detail on the
transactions that trigger the fee and the process by which the fee is
collected. NASDAQ applies Rule 7002 uniformly to all members' sell
orders entered into NASDAQ's transaction execution systems resulting in
covered sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, which requires that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these
requirements because the proposed amended rule text provides members
with more detail regarding the circumstances under which NASDAQ
assesses a Sales Fee, and the process by which the fee is collected. As
such, the proposed changes will help avoid member confusion and foster
better understanding of the application of the rule. Accordingly,
NASDAQ believes the proposed rule change will promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee or other charge applicable only to a member, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-027 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-027. 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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-2011-027, and should be submitted on or before March 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4901 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P