the average level of realized leverage for BitMEX bitcoin perpetual
futures for the year ending April 2019 was approximately 27-to-1,
meaning an average maintained margin of less than 4%.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ BitMEX Leverage Statistics, April 2019 (https://blog.bitmex.com/bitmex-leverage-statistics-april-2019/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The high leverage ratios offered by Unregulated Futures Platforms
mean that, at any given moment, the amount of capital committed to any
one of these unregulated futures contracts is likely significantly
lower than the amount of capital committed to the CME bitcoin futures
contract. As a hypothetical example, assuming an average margin of 4%
(i.e., 25-to-1 leverage), the amount of capital backing the $7.26
billion in aggregate open interest across the seven unregulated futures
contracts can be estimated at $363 million. By comparison, assuming a
33% margin (the minimum required), the capital backing the $1.40
billion of open interest on the CME bitcoin futures contract is at
least $462 million. In other words, it is possible that the amount of
capital committed to the CME bitcoin futures contract is larger than
the capital committed to all of the evaluated Unregulated Futures
Platform futures contracts, combined.
    The Sponsor's analysis noted that it is not clear, looking just at
these top-level statistics alone, that the CME Market or any of the
Unregulated Futures Platforms is likely to lead price discovery. To
make this determination, the Sponsor compared data from the CME Market
and each of the Unregulated Futures Platforms using the same
statistical techniques used to evaluate price discovery between the CME
Market and spot bitcoin trading platforms.
    The table below shows the results of the Sponsor's IS and CS
analysis, comparing the CME Market with each of the seven Unregulated
Futures Platforms over the duration of the study. Each Unregulated
Futures Platform evaluation has its own date range, based on the length
of data available for such platform.
    As in the spot market analysis, IS and CS values above 50% indicate
that the CME Market led price discovery against a given Unregulated
Futures Platform over the duration of the study period. A * indicates
that the results are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). The
confidence interval column shows a 95% confidence interval for the
context.
    The results show that the CME Market has led price discovery
against each of the seven Unregulated Futures Platforms across the
duration of the study. The results are statistically significant for
all platforms when evaluated from an IS perspective, and for six of
seven platforms from a CS perspective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Confidence                      Confidence
                                              CME IS (%)     interval (%)     CME CS (%)     interval (%)                    Data range
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binance...................................          *55.30     53.64-56.96          *54.01     51.41-56.61  Sept 2019-Mar 2021.
BitMEX....................................          *63.67     62.30-65.04          *63.33     61.68-64.99  Dec 2017-Mar 2021
Bybit.....................................          *61.50     59.69-63.30          *60.26     57.75-62.77  Oct 2019-Mar 2021.
Deribit...................................          *56.91     55.56-58.26          *56.20     54.23-58.17  Aug 2018-Mar 2021.
Huobi.....................................          *55.25     53.33-57.17          *53.85     51.36-56.33  Aug 2019-Mar 2021.
OKEx......................................          *53.04     51.45-54.63           51.22     49.14-53.31  Oct 2018-Mar 2021.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sponsor also compared the CME Market against each Unregulated
Futures Platform on a month-by-month basis. The table below shows the
percentage of months that the CME Market led IS/CS price discovery
against each Unregulated Futures Platform:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          % of Months     % of Months
                                          CME led IS      CME led CS                   Data range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binance...............................              84              74  Sept 2019-Mar 2021.
BitMEX................................              93              90  Dec 2017-Mar 2021.
Bybit.................................             100              94  Oct 2019-Mar 2021.
Deribit...............................              88              78  Aug 2018-Mar 2021.
Huobi.................................              85              70  Aug 2019-Mar 2021.
OKEx..................................              73              60  Oct 2018-Mar 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These monthly results support the conclusion of the Sponsor's full
duration analysis in finding that the CME Market leads each of the
seven Unregulated Futures Platforms from an IS and CS perspective.
    In addition to its IS/CS analysis, the Sponsor also examined the
CME Market and each of the Unregulated Futures Platforms using TSLL
analysis. The table below shows the lead-lag time (the amount of lead
or lag that results in the highest cross-correlation between two price
series) for the CME Market versus each of the seven Unregulated Futures
Platforms, calculated daily and averaged across the entire time period
applicable to the Unregulated Futures Platform. The table also shows
the 95% confidence interval for those results.
    A positive value indicates the CME Market leading by that amount of
seconds. A negative value would indicate CME Market lagging. The *
indicates the result being statistically significant (p-value < 0.05),
meaning the lead-lag time for the entire time period

lies squarely within the positive (or negative) value territory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Confidence
                                         Lead-lag time     interval                    Data range
                                           (seconds)       (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binance...............................          * 3.07       2.50-3.65  Sept 2019-Mar 2021.
BitMEX................................          * 7.23       6.76-7.70  Dec 2017-Mar 2021.
Bybit.................................          * 5.13       4.56-5.70  Oct 2019-Mar 2021.
Deribit...............................          * 4.98       4.47-5.49  Aug 2018-Mar 2021.
Huobi.................................          * 2.34       2.21-2.47  Aug 2019-Mar 2021.
OKEx..................................          * 3.47       2.94-4.00  Oct 2018-Mar 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results show that prices on the CME Market led prices on the
Unregulated Futures Platforms by 2-7 seconds in a statistically
significant manner. These results are in-line with the results of the
IS/CS analysis, and support the finding that the CME Market leads price
discovery compared to the unregulated bitcoin futures market.
    That these findings demonstrating that the CME Market leads the
unregulated bitcoin futures market in price discovery might surprise
some market observers, given the higher total notional volumes on the
Unregulated Futures Platforms. Besides the possibility that the self-
reported trading volumes on Unregulated Futures Platforms could be
inflated, the Sponsor theorizes that highly levered retail investors
with limited capital on the Unregulated Futures Platforms may be
opening and closing positions more frequently, resulting in higher
notional volumes, but with lesser impact on price discovery relative to
well capitalized, long-term oriented professional investors on the CME
Market. In addition, professional investors may have advantages over
retail investors from a technology, information flow, and trading speed
perspective. Such conditions may be expected to continue into the
future, particularly as bitcoin sees continued and expanded adoption as
an investable asset among professional and institutional investors.
Conclusion of Winklevoss Standard Prong 1: Reasonable Likelihood
    The first prong of the Winklevoss Standard requires demonstrating a
reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate a bitcoin
ETP would also have to trade on the CME Market. In prior disapproval
orders, the Commission has stated that demonstrating a lead-lag
relationship between prices on the CME Market and the underlying
bitcoin spot market is ``central'' to understanding this reasonable
likelihood.
    As detailed herein, through extensive statistical analysis and
careful consideration of third-party evaluations of these markets, the
Sponsor has demonstrated that the CME Market leads the bitcoin spot
market and the unregulated bitcoin futures market, such that it is
reasonably likely that a person attempting to manipulate the ETP would
also have to trade on the CME Market, thus satisfying the first prong
of the Winklevoss Standard.
Winklevoss Standard Prong 2: Predominant Influence
    The second prong of the Winklevoss Standard requires demonstrating
that it is unlikely that trading in the Trust would become the
predominant influence on prices in the CME Market. As detailed below,
the Sponsor's analysis shows that trading in the Trust is unlikely to
become the predominant influence on prices in the CME Market, even when
assuming aggressive estimates of first-year flows of $4.7 billion and
average daily trading volume of $143 million.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Matthew Hougan, Hong Kim and Satyajeet Pal, Price
discovery in the modern bitcoin market: Examining lead-lag
relationships between the bitcoin spot and bitcoin futures market,
February 16, 2021, as amended and supplemented (``Bitwise Prong One
Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimating the Likely First-Year Flows Into a Bitcoin ETP
    The Sponsor examined extensive data from other ETPs and a well-
known, publicly traded bitcoin trust to estimate the likely first-year
flows into a newly approved bitcoin ETP.
    First, the Sponsor examined first-year flows into all ETPs
currently listed on the market, using data from FactSet.\59\ The
Sponsor excluded ETPs with negative first-year flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Data obtained from FactSet on November 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the more than 2,200 ETPs with positive or flat first-year flows:
     The median ETP attracted $28 million in flows during its
first year on the market.
     The ETP with the highest first-year flows in history--the
Invesco QQQ Trust (Nasdaq: QQQ)--attracted $5.35 billion in flows.
    The table below highlights the ten ETPs with the highest first-year
flows in ETP history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Year-one flows
              Fund                        Ticker               ($M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invesco QQQ Trust...............  QQQ                              5,351
Communication Services Select     XLC                              5,186
 Sector SPDR.
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF...........  EFA                              4,292
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Europe ETF  BBEU                             4,187
PIMCO Active Bond ETF...........  BOND                             4,116
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF.  BBJP                             3,755
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Canada ETF  BBCA                             3,656
iShares Select Dividend ETF.....  DVY                              3,245
Real Estate Select Sector SPDR    XLRE                             3,171
 Fund.
SPDR Gold Shares................  GLD                              3,010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the analysis shows, $5.35 billion is the outer limit of
historical first-year flows into a bitcoin ETP. There is no precedent
for an ETP attracting more than this in its first year on the market.
The Sponsor concluded it is unlikely that a bitcoin ETP will experience
the highest first-year flows in history, particularly given the
relative size of the bitcoin market compared to the markets captured by
the ETPs above, which target parts or all of the equity, bond, real
estate, and gold markets.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ At year-end 2020, the total market capitalization of
bitcoin was $539 billion, according to blockchain.com. By
comparison, the global market capitalization of the equity market
was $95 trillion and the outstanding value of the global bond market
was $106 trillion in 2019, according to the most recently published
SIFMA Capital Markets Fact Book (September 2020), available at
https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/US-Fact-Book-2020-SIFMA.pdf; the professionally managed global real estate market was
$9.6 trillion in 2019, according to MSCI's Market Size Report on
Global Real Estate, available at https://www.msci.com/real-estate/market-size-report; and the total value of above-ground gold was $10
trillion on December 31, 2020, according to the World Gold Council
available at https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/above-ground-stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide a more detailed comparison, the Sponsor also examined
first-year flows into first-to-market single-commodity ETPs. Bitcoin is
considered a commodity by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,\61\
and one way to view a potential bitcoin ETP is as a first-to-market
single-commodity ETP offering exposure to bitcoin in the same manner
that the SPDR Gold Shares (NYSEArca: GLD) was a first-to-market single-
commodity ETP offering exposure to gold, and the iShares Silver Trust
(NYSEArca: SLV) was a first-to-market single-commodity ETP offering
exposure to silver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has argued
successfully in federal courts that digital assets such as bitcoin
are commodities. See, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Commission v
McDonnell and CabbageTech, Corp., 18-CV-361 (E.D.N.Y. March 6, 2018)
and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v My Big Coin Pay, Inc.,
18-cv-10077-RWZ (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table shows the first-year flows into every first-to-
market single-commodity ETP currently available in the U.S., again
using data from FactSet.\62\ First-year flows range from $3.01 billion
for GLD to negative $1 million for the iPath Bloomberg Lead Subindex
Total Return ETN (NYSEArca: LD).\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Data obtained from FactSet on November 30, 2020.
    \63\ Negative flows occur when a product is seeded with a
certain amount of capital but some of that capital is redeemed over
time, and there are no offsetting creations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Year-one
              Commodity                       Ticker          flows ($M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold.................................  GLD                        $3,010
Silver...............................  SLV                         1,730
Crude Oil............................  USO                           827
Platinum.............................  PPLT                          708
Palladium............................  PALL                          603
Natural Gas..........................  UNG                           374
Corn.................................  CORN                          115
Coffee...............................  JO                             48
Gasoline.............................  UGA                            28
Sugar................................  SSG                            12
Soybeans.............................  SOYB                           10
Cotton...............................  BAL                             7
Nickel...............................  JJN                             2
Copper...............................  CPER                            2
Wheat................................  WEAT                            1
Cocoa................................  NIB                             1
Aluminum.............................  JJU                             1
Carbon Credits.......................  GRN                             0
Tin..................................  JJT                             0
Lead.................................  LD                             -1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These figures provide additional context on the likely upper bound
of potential flows into a bitcoin ETP.
    Finally, the Sponsor examined the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (OTCQX:
GBTC), a publicly traded grantor trust that holds bitcoin directly with
a third-party custodian. As of December 31, 2020, GBTC was the only
product that provided investors with readily accessible exposure to
bitcoin through traditional brokerage accounts, and has been available
to U.S. investors since May 2015.\64\ A bitcoin ETP and GBTC will
likely compete for investor allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See OTC Markets Group Inc., press release, May 5, 2015. OTC
Markets Group Welcomes Bitcoin Investments Trust to OTCQX, available
at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/otc-markets-group-welcomes-bitcoin-investment-trust-to-otcqx-300077150.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GBTC is different from an ETP in certain ways, including that the
structure does not allow for redemptions, that it has a different
regulatory status than an ETP, and that shares of GBTC are materially
more likely to trade at significant and variable premiums and/or
discounts to the net asset value of the trust. GBTC does, however,
permit creations, allowing it to accommodate flows to reflect investor
demand. As such, it can be a useful data set for analyzing investor
demand for exposure to bitcoin through a traditional brokerage window
and what impact flows from such demand can have on prices in the CME
Market.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The Sponsor notes that one difference between the creation/
redemption and arbitrage mechanism between GBTC and an ETP is that
newly created shares in GBTC are not immediately available to be
sold in the secondary market. Instead, after purchasing shares, an
investor must hold the shares for 6-months before they are permitted
to be traded on the secondary market. This creates a longer holding
period for an arbitrageur, as compared to a typical ETP arbitrage
trade where an authorized participant may immediately trade newly
created shares into the secondary market. For example, to capture
arbitrage on GBTC shares trading at a premium, an arbitrageur would
need to short sell GBTC shares while buying spot bitcoin, deliver
the bitcoin for creation of GBTC shares, and hold those shares for
six months until they are released from transfer restriction and can
be delivered to the short sellers to close out the trade. But while
the holding period of the GBTC share premium arbitrage is at minimum
6 months, the buying in the spot bitcoin market occurs, in this
case, right before the creation date, which is the date inflows into
GBTC are recorded. In addition, institutional arbitrageurs are not
the only cohort that can create shares for GBTC. Accredited
investors may also subscribe for GBTC shares either by contributing
bitcoin or delivering cash. For cash orders, Genesis Trading Global,
Inc., the ``authorized participant'' of the trust, purchases the
bitcoin for the given cash amount by 6 p.m. ET on the day the cash
is provided by the subscriber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its most successful year, GBTC attracted a record $4.7 billion
in flows in 2020, according to Grayscale Investments.\66\ The fund's
previous record was $472 million, set in 2019. 2020's record flows
occurred during a sustained bull market for bitcoin, as bitcoin's price
rose 306% in 2020.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Grayscale Investments, Digital Asset Investment Report,
Q4 2020 (grayscale.co/insights/grayscale-q4-2020-digital-asset-
investment-report/).
    \67\ Bitcoin's price rose from $7,147 on December 31, 2019 to
$29,026 on December 31, 2020 according to the Coin Metrics bitcoin
reference rate, available at https://coinmetrics.io/reference-rates/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing assessments, the Sponsor utilized $4.7
billion as its working estimate for first-year flows into a new bitcoin
ETP. The Sponsor believed this estimate to be aggressive, as it assumes
that a bitcoin ETP will:
     be the third-fastest-growing ETP in history, out of more
than 2,200 products with positive year-one flows;
     significantly surpass (by more than 50%) the first-year
flows into GLD, which experienced the highest first-year flows in
first-to-market single-commodity ETP history; and
     match the highest annual flow in GBTC's history, achieved
during a strong bull market, all while the new ETP is forced to compete
for market share with GBTC itself.
Evaluating the Potential Influence of ETP Flows on Prices in the CME
Market
    The Sponsor analyzed whether such flows into a first-to-market
bitcoin ETP would cause such ETP to be the predominant influence on
prices in the CME Market.
    Based on information on the flows into GBTC that are publicly
available from multiple sources,\68\ the Sponsor analyzed with
historical data whether $4.7 billion in flows into a bitcoin investment
product in a single year would be likely to cause that product to

become the predominant influence on prices in the CME Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Information on GBTC creation of shares is available from
the issuer, reports on Form 8-K filed by the issuer on sec.gov, and
third party websites such as Bloomberg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sponsor's statistical analysis examined the relationship of
flows into GBTC in 2020 and the changes in the price of bitcoin, using
both daily and weekly flows.\69\ Daily (or weekly) flows were
calculated from Bloomberg data by multiplying the change in outstanding
shares of the trust by the net asset value per share of that day (or
week). Daily (or weekly) percentage price changes of bitcoin were
calculated using the 4:00 p.m. E.T. bitcoin reference rate from Coin
Metrics.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The Sponsor has used both single day and weekly flows,
acknowledging that the buying activity for an in-kind creation may
not necessarily occur in a single day leading up to the creation
date. Instead, an investor might build their position over time.
Using both daily and weekly flows helps to capture more of this
extended possibility.
    \70\ See note 67, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The charts below show the results of the Sponsor's analysis. Each
dot represents a daily (or weekly) flow into GBTC and the corresponding
daily (or weekly) change in the price of bitcoin. As such, there are
253 dots in the first chart representing each trading day, and 52 dots
in the second chart representing each week in 2020.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18JY23.003

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    The data shows there is no meaningful relationship between daily
and weekly flows into GBTC and changes in the price of bitcoin, despite

the aggregate flows being $4.7 billion: The correlation for daily
results is 0.08 and the correlation for weekly results is 0.11, both of
which are low.
    The experience of outlier days and weeks with large flows supports
this conclusion. For instance, the largest one-day flow occurred on
December 22, 2020, when $285 million flowed into the fund; bitcoin's
price moved up 2.3% that day, within the normal daily range for a
bitcoin price move.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The standard deviation of the daily percentage price change
of bitcoin in 2020 using the Coin Metrics bitcoin reference rate was
4.38%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the largest one-week flow occurred for the week ending
December 27, 2020, when GBTC attracted approximately $809 million in
flows; bitcoin's price settled up just 2.9% that week, again within the
normal range for a weekly price move.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The standard deviation of the weekly percentage price
change of bitcoin in 2020 using the Coin Metrics bitcoin reference
rate was 10.35%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this statistical analysis, the Sponsor concluded that it
is unlikely that the aggressive estimate of first-year flows into a
bitcoin ETP ($4.7 billion) would cause it to become the predominant
influence on prices in the CME Market.
Estimating the Likely Trading Volume of a Bitcoin ETP
    Beyond the impact of investment flows, the Sponsor considered
whether secondary market trading in the Shares would be likely to
become the predominant influence on prices in the CME Market. The
Sponsor was able to draw on two relevant comparisons to create
estimates of the likely trading volume of a bitcoin ETP.
    First, the Sponsor considered trading in GBTC, using secondary
market data from Bloomberg. Shares of GBTC are publicly quoted on the
OTCQX Best Market and are widely available to U.S. investors through
traditional brokerage accounts. As such, although GBTC operates under a
different regulatory structure than an ETP and has historically traded
at significant and variable premiums and discounts to its net asset
value, the historical turnover of GBTC provide one estimate of the
future turnover of a bitcoin ETP. GBTC's average daily trading volume
(ADV) in 2020 was $103 million. On a monthly basis, that figure ranged
from $37 million in April 2020 to $368 million December 2020, as
reported in the table below.
    Examining ADV in isolation offers only a partial picture, however.
Trading activity in GBTC is correlated with the product's assets under
management (AUM), which is in turn linked to bitcoin's price. The table
below shows the ``ADV/AUM Ratio'' for GBTC for each month in 2020,
using the month-end AUM as the denominator. Although the absolute size
of the ADV ranges widely across 2020, the ADV/AUM ratio stays fairly
consistent, running from 1.10% (April and September) to 2.21%
(February). The average ADV/AUM ratio for the year was 1.54%.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ADV/AUM ratio
                              Month                                   ADV (M)         AUM (M)           (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 2020........................................................             $43          $3,191            1.36
Feb 2020........................................................              66           2,997            2.21
Mar 2020........................................................              44           2,249            1.96
Apr 2020........................................................              37           3,313            1.10
May 2020........................................................              68           4,034            1.68
Jun 2020........................................................              52           3,870            1.33
Jul 2020........................................................              65           5,264            1.23
Aug 2020........................................................              89           6,018            1.47
Sep 2020........................................................              57           5,167            1.10
Oct 2020........................................................              95           7,728            1.23
Nov 2020........................................................             259          13,060            1.98
Dec 2020........................................................             368          20,445            1.80
Average.........................................................             103           6,445            1.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying this average ADV/AUM ratio to the $4.7 billion working
estimate of first-year flows into a bitcoin ETP, the estimated daily
trading volume would be approximately $72 million at the end of the
ETP's first year.
    A second comparison that may be useful is to examine the case of
other first-to-market commodity ETPs. GLD is the largest such ETP, and
therefore trading activity of GLD \73\ may provide a useful comparison.
Using the same methodology as with GBTC, the Sponsor examined the ADV/
AUM ratio of GLD for every month in 2020. The ratio value ranged from
1.65% (September) to 5.93% (March). The average ratio was 3.04%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See GLD historical market data, available at https://www.spdrgoldshares.com/usa/historical-data/.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ADV/AUM ratio
                              Month                                   ADV (M)         AUM (M)           (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 2020........................................................          $1,206         $46,053            2.62
Feb 2020........................................................           2,010          47,348            4.25
Mar 2020........................................................           2,903          48,916            5.93
Apr 2020........................................................           1,828          57,343            3.19
May 2020........................................................           1,819          62,557            2.91
Jun 2020........................................................           1,606          67,484            2.38
Jul 2020........................................................           2,215          78,789            2.81
Aug 2020........................................................           3,312          79,163            4.18
Sep 2020........................................................           1,272          76,941            1.65
Oct 2020........................................................           1,376          75,889            1.81
Nov 2020........................................................           1,855          73,285            2.53
Dec 2020........................................................           1,369          71,558            1.91

Average.........................................................           1,901          65,022            3.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying GLD's ADV/AUM ratio to the $4.7 billion working estimate
of first-year flows into a bitcoin ETP, the estimated daily trading
volume would be approximately $143 million. The Sponsor elected to use
this estimate of $143 million as its working estimate for average daily
trading volume of a new bitcoin ETP at the end of its first year. The
Sponsor believes this estimate to be aggressive, as it assumes that a
bitcoin ETP will:
     be the third-fastest-growing ETP in history, out of more
than 2,200 products with positive year-one flows.
     have an ADV/AUM ratio approximately two times higher than
that of GBTC, which also offers exposure to bitcoin through traditional
brokerage accounts.
Evaluating the Potential Influence of Secondary Market Trading in ETP
Shares on Prices in the CME Market
    The CME Market had an average daily trading volume of $392 million
in 2020. The lowest month, April 2020, had an average daily trading
volume of $176 million, and the highest month, December 2020, had an
average daily trading volume of $935 million. The table below shows the
ADV of the CME Market each month in 2020.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Month                             CME ADV (M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 2020................................................            $408
Feb 2020................................................             401
Mar 2020................................................             202
Apr 2020................................................             176
May 2020................................................             305
Jun 2020................................................             223
Jul 2020................................................             252
Aug 2020................................................             455
Sep 2020................................................             397
Oct 2020................................................             329
Nov 2020................................................             665
Dec 2020................................................             935
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the average daily trading volume of the CME Market in
2020 was 174% higher at $392 million than the Sponsor's aggressive
estimate of a new bitcoin ETP's potential trading volume of $143
million, the Sponsor found that it is unlikely that trading in a new
bitcoin ETP will cause such ETP to become the predominant influence on
prices in the CME Market.
Conclusion of Winklevoss Standard Prong 2: Predominant Influence
    The second prong of the Winklevoss Standard requires demonstration
that it is unlikely that trading in the Trust would become the
predominant influence on prices in the CME Market.
    As detailed herein, the Sponsor's analysis shows that trading in
the Trust is unlikely to become the predominant influence on prices in
the CME Market, even when assuming aggressive estimates of first-year
flows of $4.7 billion and average daily trading volume of $143 million.
* * * * *
    In conclusion, as the foregoing analysis and data demonstrates, the
proposal has met its burden presented by Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\74\ and, in particular, the requirement that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, by demonstrating that the CME Market (i) is a
regulated market; (ii) participates in a surveillance sharing agreement
with the Exchange; and (iii) satisfies the Commission's ``significant
market'' definition under the Winklevoss Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Availability of Information Regarding the Shares and Bitcoin
    The NAV will be disseminated daily to all market participants at
the same time. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares
will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. The ITV will be
calculated every 15 seconds throughout the core trading session each
trading day, and available through online information services.
    The Sponsor will cause information about the Shares to be posted to
the Trust's website (https://www.bitwiseinvestments.com/): (i) the NAV
and NAV per Share for each Exchange trading day, posted at end of day;
(ii) the daily holdings of the Trust, before 9:30 a.m. E.T. on each
Exchange trading day; (iii) the Trust's effective prospectus, in a form
available for download; and (iv) the Shares' ticker and CUSIP
information, along with additional quantitative information updated on
a daily basis for the Trust. For example, the Trust's website will
include (i) the prior business day's trading volume, the prior business
day's reported NAV and closing price, and a calculation of the premium
and discount of the closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at
the time of NAV calculation (``Bid/Ask Price'') against the NAV; and
(ii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of
discounts and premiums of the daily closing price or Bid/Ask Price
against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for at least each of the
four previous calendar quarters. The Trust's website will be publicly
available prior to the public offering of Shares and accessible at no
charge.
    Investors may obtain on a 24-hour basis bitcoin pricing information
based on the CME U.S. Reference Rate, CME UK Reference Rate and CME
Bitcoin Real Time Price, bitcoin spot market prices and bitcoin futures
price from various financial information service providers. Current
bitcoin spot market prices are also generally available with bid/ask
spreads from bitcoin trading platforms, including the Constituent
Platforms of the CME US Reference Rate.
Trading Halts
    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all
relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend
trading in the Shares of the Trust.\75\ Trading in Shares of the Trust
will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule
7.12-E have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market
conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make
trading in the Shares inadvisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an
interruption to the dissemination of the ITV occurs.\76\ If the
interruption to the dissemination of the ITV persists past the trading
day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than
the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. In
addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to
the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same
time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is
available to all market participants. The Exchange may also halt
trading if the value of the underlying commodity is no longer
calculated or available on

at least a 15-second delayed basis from a source unaffiliated with the
Sponsor, Trust, Bitcoin Custodian or the Exchange or if the Exchange
stops providing a hyperlink on its website to any such unaffiliated
commodity value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ A limit up/limit down condition in the futures market would
not be considered an interruption requiring the Trust to be halted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Rules
    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus
rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing
rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on
the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. E.T. in accordance with
NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The
Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares
during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the
minimum price variation (``MPV'') for quoting and entry of orders in
equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with
the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which
the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
    The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing
criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E. The trading of the Shares will
be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(g), which sets forth certain
restrictions on Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders acting as
registered Market Makers in Commodity-Based Trust Shares to facilitate
surveillance.\77\ The Exchange represents that, for initial and
continued listing, the Trust will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
under the Act,\78\ as provided by NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E. A minimum of
100,000 Shares of the Trust will be outstanding at the commencement of
trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(g), an ETP Holder acting as a
registered Market Maker in the Shares is required to provide the
Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying
commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other
related derivatives. Commentary .04 of NYSE Arca Rule 11.3-E
requires an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker, and its
affiliates, in the Shares to establish, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
any material nonpublic information with respect to such products,
any components of the related products, any physical asset or
commodity underlying the product, applicable currencies, underlying
indexes, related futures or options on futures, and any related
derivative instruments (including the Shares). As a general matter,
the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its ETP Holders and
their associated persons, which include any person or entity
controlling an ETP Holder. To the extent the Exchange may be found
to lack jurisdiction over a subsidiary or affiliate of an ETP Holder
that does business only in commodities or futures contracts, the
Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such
subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with
regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a
member.
    \78\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveillance
    The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares of the Trust
will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by
the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by
FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect
violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities
laws.\79\ The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to
properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions
and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal
securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further represents that it may obtain information
regarding trading in the Shares and the CME Market from the CME and
other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG or with
which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement.\80\ The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or
both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and
the CME Market with the CME and other markets and entities that are
members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the
Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in
the Shares, the CME Market and the underlying commodity, as applicable,
from such markets and other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ For a list of the current members of ISG, see https://isgportal.org/. The Exchange notes that not all components of the
Trust may trade on markets that are members of ISG or with which the
Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(g), the Exchange is able
to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, bitcoin futures
and the underlying bitcoin through ETP Holders acting as registered
Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or
customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant
market.
    In addition, the Exchange has a general policy prohibiting the
improper distribution of material, non-public information by its
employees.
    All statements and representations made in this filing regarding
(i) the description of the index, portfolio or referenced asset, (ii)
limitations on index or portfolio holdings or reference assets, or
(iii) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this
rule filing will constitute continued listing requirements for listing
the Shares on the Exchange.
    The Sponsor has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the
Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued
listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section
19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the
continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with
the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence
delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a).
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \81\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect
investors and the public interest in that the Shares will be listed and
traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing
criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E. Further, the Exchange has
demonstrated that the proposed rule change satisfies the Winklevoss
Standard with respect to the CME Market.
    As discussed above, both existing academic literature and the
Sponsor's own studies show that the CME Market leads price discovery
relative to the bitcoin spot market. As a result, and given that the
Sponsor has demonstrated that it is unlikely that trading in the Shares
will become the predominant influence upon prices in the CME Market,
the CME Market represents a regulated market of significant size, and
that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to
manipulate the Shares would also have to trade on that market to
successfully manipulate the Shares.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See notes 22 [sic] and 23 [sic], supra, and accompanying
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate
to properly monitor trading in the Shares and the CME Market in all
trading sessions and to deter and detect

attempted manipulation of the Shares or other violations of Exchange
rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on
behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding
trading in the Shares and bitcoin futures with the CME and other
markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the
Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain
trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets
and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information
regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that
are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange is also able
to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and bitcoin
futures or the underlying bitcoin through ETP Holders, in connection
with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades which they effect
through ETP Holders on any relevant market.
    Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be
disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. The Trust's website
will also include a form of the prospectus for the Trust that may be
downloaded. The website will include the Shares' ticker and CUSIP
information, along with additional quantitative information updated on
a daily basis for the Trust. The Trust's website will include (i) daily
trading volume, the prior business day's reported NAV and closing
price, and a calculation of the premium and discount of the closing
price or mid-point of the Bid/Ask Price against the NAV; and (ii) data
in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and
premiums of the daily closing price or Bid/Ask Price against the NAV,
within appropriate ranges, for at least each of the four previous
calendar quarters. The Trust's website will be publicly available prior
to the public offering of Shares and accessible at no charge.
    Trading in Shares of the Trust will be halted if the circuit
breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or
because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the
Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of a
new type of exchange-traded product based on the price of bitcoin that
will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in
place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor
trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect
violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of a new
type of Commodity-Based Trust Share based on the price of bitcoin that
will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to sec.gov">[email protected]sec.gov. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://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 website 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44 and should
be submitted on or before August 8, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15127 Filed 7-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15180-15185]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06593]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9924-29-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS49

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well
and Storage Vessel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 17, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published proposed amendments to the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. One of the issues addressed
in the proposed amendments was the EPA's proposed definition of ``low
pressure gas well.'' A petitioner's timely submitted comment on the
proposed amendments concerning the definition was, inadvertently, not
made part of the record in the rulemaking docket and was, therefore,
not available to be considered by the EPA when the agency finalized the
definition of ``low pressure gas well'' in its December 19, 2014, final
amendments to the NSPS. To correct the above mentioned procedural
defect, the EPA is re-proposing its definition of ``low pressure gas
well'' for notice and comment. The EPA is also soliciting comment on
certain issues raised in the missed comment.
    We are also proposing to amend the NSPS to remove provisions
concerning storage vessels connected or installed in parallel and to
revise the definition of ``storage vessel''. The EPA is granting
reconsideration of the issue.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2015.
    Public Hearing. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will
keep the record of the hearing open for 30 days after completion of the
hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and
supplementary information. If requested by March 30, 2015, we will hold
a public hearing on April 7, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard
Time) to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt of
the Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; to
request a hearing, register to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to
whether or not a hearing will be held. The last day to pre-register in
advance to speak at the hearing will be April 6, 2015. Additionally,
requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing
registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be
able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or
special accommodations such as audio description, we ask that you pre-
register for the hearing, as we may not be able to arrange such
accommodations without advance notice. The hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments
concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing
is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to
attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture
identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the
meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in
2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If
your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New
York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you must present an
additional form of identification to enter the federal building.
Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal
employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military
identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property
pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the
building, you will be required to return this property pass to the
security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras
may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be
allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not
respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of
the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for
the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule
as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan
for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested.
A hearing needs to be requested by March 30, 2015. Please contact Ms.
Virginia Hunt of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-
0832.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA
HQ-OAR-2010-0505 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA HQ-OAR
2010-0505.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2010-0505, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. (See section I.C. below for instructions on submitting
information claimed as CBI.) The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you submit an electronic comment through
www.regulations.gov, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. The petitioners need not resubmit their previous comment,
which will be considered before the EPA takes final action on today's
re-proposal. However, the EPA welcomes additional comments and/or
information the petitioners may wish to provide.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this reconsideration action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by today's action
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category              NAICS code \1\                   Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                                  211111  Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
                                          211112  Natural Gas Extraction.
                                          221210  Natural Gas Distribution.
                                          486110  Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil.
                                          486210  Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government                                Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/local/tribal government                     Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will
be posted at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html.

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

    We seek comment only on the aspects of the final NSPS for the Oil
and Natural Gas Sector specifically identified in this proposed rule.
We are not opening for reconsideration any other provisions of the NSPS
at this time.
    Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI contained on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that
does not contain CBI, clearly mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
not containing CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.

II. Background

A. Low Pressure Gas Wells

    On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), the EPA proposed the Oil and
Natural Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO). Among the
elements of the proposed rule were provisions for reduced emission
completion (REC), also known as ``green completion'' of hydraulically
fractured gas wells. In the proposal, the EPA solicited comment on
situations where conducting an REC would be infeasible. Several
commenters highlighted technical issues that prevent the implementation
of an REC on what they referred to as ``low pressure'' gas wells
because of the lack of the necessary reservoir pressure to flow at
rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a
hydraulically fractured gas well completion against additional back-
pressure which would be caused by the REC equipment. Based on our
analysis of the public comments received, we determined that there are
certain wells where an REC is infeasible because of the characteristics
of the reservoir and the well depth that will not allow the flowback to
overcome the gathering system pressure due to the additional back
pressure imposed by the REC surface equipment. On August 16, 2012, the
EPA published the final NSPS (see 77 FR 49490). Based on comments
received in response to our solicitation at proposal, we provided at
Sec.  60.5375(f) of the 2012 final NSPS that ``low pressure gas wells''
(i.e., those wells for which an REC would not be feasible because of a
combination of well depth, reservoir pressure and flow line pressure)
would not be required to meet the requirements for recovery of gases
and liquids required under Sec.  60.5375(a), except as provided in
Sec.  60.5375(f)(2) which subjects wildcat, delineation and low
pressure gas wells to requirements for combustion of flowback emissions
and to the general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and
minimize releases to the atmosphere required under Sec.  60.5375(a)(4).
Under the NSPS, low pressure wells are treated the same as exploratory
and delineation wells (i.e., they are not required to perform an REC).
We also added a definition of ``low pressure gas well'' in the final
rule that is based on a mathematical formula that takes into account a
well's depth, reservoir pressure and flow line pressure. Section
60.5430 defines low pressure gas well as ``a well with reservoir
pressure and vertical well depth such that 0.445 times the reservoir
pressure (in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical well depth (in feet)
minus 67.578 psia is less than the flow line pressure at the sales
meter.''
    Following publication of the 2012 final NSPS, a group of
petitioners, led by the Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA), representing independent oil and natural gas owners and
operators, submitted a joint petition for administrative
reconsideration of the 2012 NSPS. The petitioners questioned the
technical merits of the low pressure well definition and asserted that
the public had not had an opportunity to comment on the definition
because it was added in the final rule. The petitioners expressed
concern that the formula adopted in the 2012 NSPS was based on
``questionable assumptions'' and ``sparse data'' and will ``exclude
from its scope many gas wells drilled in formations that historically
have been recognized as `low pressure.''' In the view of the
petitioners, ``the 2012 definition has the potential to directly affect
many smaller producers, who are less likely to be able to bear the
costs of implementing costly RECs.'' \1\ However, the administrative
petition did not identify which assumptions were questionable and why,
or what additional data the petitioners consider necessary to support
the EPA's ``low pressure gas well'' definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC,
to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, October 15, 2012; Petition
for Administrative Reconsideration of Final Rule ``Oil and Gas
Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,'' 77 FR 49490
(August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2014, the petitioners submitted to the EPA a suggested
alternative definition \2\ for consideration. The petitioners'
definition is based on the fresh water hydrostatic gradient of 0.433
pounds per square inch per foot (psi/ft). The petitioners assert that
this approach is straightforward and has been recognized for many years
in the oil and natural gas industry and by governmental agencies and
professional organizations. As expressed in the paper submitted by the
petitioners, the alternative definition for consideration by the EPA,
as stated by the petitioners, would be ``a well where the field
pressure is less than 0.433 times the vertical depth of the deepest
target reservoir and the flow-back period will be less than three days
in duration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Email from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC,
to Bruce Moore, EPA, March 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed clarifying amendments to the gas
well completion provisions of the NSPS. In the July proposal, we
expressed concern that the IPAA alternative definition is too
simplistic and may not adequately account for the parameters that must
be considered when determining whether an REC would be feasible for a
given hydraulically fractured gas well. We expressed disagreement with
the petitioners' assertion that the EPA definition is too complicated
and that it would pose difficulty or hardship for smaller operators.
However, we agreed with the petitioners that the public should have
been provided an opportunity to comment on the 2012 definition of ``low
pressure gas well,'' and we re-proposed the 2012 definition for notice
and comment in the July 17, 2014, proposal. In addition, we solicited
comment on the alternative definition suggested by the petitioners.
    On August 18, 2014, prior to the close of the public comment period
for the July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on behalf of the independent
oil and natural gas owner and operator petitioners, submitted a comment
to the EPA via the email address to the Air and Radiation Docket
provided in the proposed rule. This timely submitted comment addressed
the following: (1) Clarification that the petitioners' primary concern
is that the EPA's definition would require REC to be performed on
marginally cost-effective wells, and not that the calculation required
by the EPA's definition would impose a hardship; (2) whether it was the
petitioners' burden to justify the assumptions on which the EPA's
definition was based; (3) accuracy of the Turner equation used in the
development of the EPA's definition; (4) technical derivation of the
petitioners' definition; and (5) relationship between low pressure gas
wells and EPA's stages of flowback as proposed in the July 17, 2014,
proposal.
    The EPA published final amendments in the Federal Register at 79 FR
79018 on December 31, 2014, which finalized the definition of ``low
pressure gas well'' unchanged from the 2012 definition. Subsequent to
the December 31, 2014, publication of the final amendments, the EPA
became aware that the comment submitted by the IPAA was not made part
of the record in the docket and, thus, was not available to be
considered by the EPA in its decision-making process prior to
finalizing the amendments.

B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel

    In the December 31, 2014, final rule, the EPA had finalized
amendments to

the NSPS to address, among other issues, the affected facility status
of storage vessel affected facilities that are removed from service and
storage vessels being returned to service. The final action included
amendments related to storage vessels ``connected in parallel'' or
``installed in parallel.'' As we explained in the final rule preamble
(see 79 FR 79027, December 31, 2014), ``Although we believe it is an
unlikely occurrence, we note that, when two or more storage vessels
receive liquids in parallel, the total throughput is shared between or
among the parallel vessels and, in turn, this causes the PTE of each
vessel to be a fraction of the total PTE.'' To address such isolated
occurrences where storage vessels are installed or connected to reduce
PTE and, therefore, avoid being subject to subpart OOOO, we amended the
NSPS to address situations in which two or more storage vessels could
be installed or connected in parallel which could, in some cases, lower
the PTE of the individual storage vessels to levels below the 6 tons
per year (tpy) applicability threshold provided in Sec.  60.5365(e).
Specifically, we amended Sec.  60.5365(e)(4) to provide that a storage
vessel that is being placed into service, and is connected in parallel
with a storage vessel affected facility, is immediately subject to the
same requirements as the affected facility with which it is being
connected in parallel. We also amended the definitions for ``returned
to service'' and ``storage vessel'' in Sec.  60.5430 to provide that
two or more storage vessels connected in parallel are considered
equivalent to a single storage vessel with throughput equal to the
total throughput of the storage vessels connected in parallel.
    Following publication of the December 2014 final rule, we became
aware that the terms ``connected in parallel'' and ``installed in
parallel'' inadvertently include in storage vessels beyond those we
attempted to address as described above. On February 19, 2015, the Gas
Processors Association (GPA) submitted a petition for administrative
reconsideration of the December 31, 2014, amendments. The GPA asserted
that ``it is quite common for multiple storage vessels to be situated
next to each other and connected in parallel. Sometimes the storage
vessels are operated in parallel, sometimes they are operated in
series, and sometimes they are operated one-at-a-time with the
connecting valves closed.'' The GPA further asserted that this
configuration has existed for decades and that ``this language
potentially has large impacts to how our members evaluate affected
facility status.''
    For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to remove the
regulatory provisions relative to storage vessels ``installed in
parallel'' or ``connected in parallel.'' Instead, we solicit comment on
other approaches to help avoid or discourage installation or operation
of storage vessels that would unnecessarily reduce the potential to
emit (PTE) of a single storage vessel.

III. Today's Action

    In this action, the EPA is re-proposing for notice and comment the
same definition of ``low pressure gas well'' that was finalized in 2012
and re-proposed in the July 17, 2014, proposal. In addition, as in the
2014 proposal, we are soliciting comment on the petitioners'
alternative definition as presented above. We note that the EPA has now
made the comment submitted by the IPAA on August 18, 2014, part of the
record in the docket; therefore, it is not necessary for the IPAA to
resubmit this comment in response to this proposed rule. However, the
EPA welcomes the submittal of any additional comments by the
petitioners and other interested parties. We are in the process of
evaluating the IPAA comments. In this proposal, we solicit further
comments on both the EPA proposed definition and on the IPAA
alternative definition. We seek comment on (1) gas wells that are not
considered ``low pressure gas wells'' based on the re-proposed EPA
definition, but for which RECs are technically infeasible, and the
specific well characteristics or other technical factors that make RECs
technically infeasible; (2) gas wells that are considered ``low
pressure gas wells'' based on the IPAA alternative definition, but for
which RECs could be performed; and (3) specific well parameters or
drilling techniques that should be considered in determining whether an
REC would be technically feasible and how these factors could be used
to define ``low pressure gas well.''
    With regard to storage vessels, in response to the GPA petition and
in light of the considerations discussed above, we are proposing to
amend the NSPS provisions relative to storage vessels ``installed in
parallel'' or ``connected in parallel.'' Specifically, we are proposing
to amend Sec.  60.5365(e) to remove language related to storage vessels
``installed in parallel'' or ``connected in parallel.'' We are also
proposing to amend the definitions of ``returned to service'' and
``storage vessel'' in Sec.  60.5430 to remove language pertaining to
storage vessels connected in parallel. We solicit comment on other
approaches to help avoid or discourage installations or operations of
storage vessels that would unnecessarily reduce the PTE of a single
storage vessel.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0673. This action does not change the information
collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not
impose any additional burden on industry.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or
costs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13175. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and
imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This action is
a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or
costs.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart OOOO--Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution

0
2. Section 60.5365 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.5365  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (e) Each storage vessel affected facility, which is a single
storage vessel located in the oil and natural gas production segment,
natural gas processing segment or natural gas transmission and storage
segment, and has the potential for VOC emissions equal to or greater
than 6 tpy as determined according to this section by October 15, 2013
for Group 1 storage vessels and by April 15, 2014, or 30 days after
startup (whichever is later) for Group 2 storage vessels, except as
provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section. The
potential for VOC emissions must be calculated using a generally
accepted model or calculation methodology, based on the maximum average
daily throughput determined for a 30-day period of production prior to
the applicable emission determination deadline specified in this
section. The determination may take into account requirements under a
legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or
other requirement established under a Federal, State, local or tribal
authority.
    (1) For each new, modified or reconstructed storage vessel
receiving liquids pursuant to the standards for gas well affected
facilities in Sec.  60.5375, including wells subject to Sec.
60.5375(f), you must determine the potential for VOC emissions within
30 days after startup of production.
    (2) A storage vessel affected facility that subsequently has its
potential for VOC emissions decrease to less than 6 tpy shall remain an
affected facility under this subpart.
    (3) For storage vessels not subject to a legally and practically
enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement
established under Federal, state, local or tribal authority, any vapor
from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process
through a VRU designed and operated as specified in this section is not
required to be included in the determination of VOC potential to emit
for purposes of determining affected facility status, provided you
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of
this section.
    (i) You meet the cover requirements specified in Sec.  60.5411(b).
    (ii) You meet the closed vent system requirements specified in
Sec.  60.5411(c).
    (iii) You maintain records that document compliance with paragraphs
(e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (iv) In the event of removal of apparatus that recovers and routes
vapor to a process, or operation that is inconsistent with the
conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section,
you must determine the storage vessel's potential for VOC emissions
according to this section within 30 days of such removal or operation.
    (4) For each new, reconstructed, or modified storage vessel with
startup, startup of production, or which is returned to service,
affected facility status is determined as follows: If a storage vessel
is reconnected to the original source of liquids or is used to replace
any storage vessel affected facility, it is a storage vessel affected
facility subject to the same requirements as before being removed from
service, or applicable to the storage vessel affected facility being
replaced immediately upon startup, startup of production, or return to
service.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.5430 is amended by revising the definitions of ``Returned
to Service'' and ``Storage Vessel'' to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5430  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Returned to service means that a Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel
affected facility that was removed from service has been:
    (1) Reconnected to the original source of liquids or has been used
to replace any storage vessel affected facility; or
    (2) Installed in any location covered by this subpart and
introduced with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids
or produced water.
* * * * *
    Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that contains an
accumulation of crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon
liquids, or produced water, and that is constructed primarily of
nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or
plastic) which provide structural support. A well completion vessel
that receives recovered liquids from a well after startup of production
following

flowback for a period which exceeds 60 days is considered a storage
vessel under this subpart. A tank or other vessel shall not be
considered a storage vessel if it has been removed from service in
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  60.5395(f) until such time as
such tank or other vessel has been returned to service. For the
purposes of this subpart, the following are not considered storage
vessels:
    (1) Vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently attached to
something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships),
and are intended to be located at a site for less than 180 consecutive
days. If you do not keep or are not able to produce records, as
required by Sec.  60.5420(c)(5)(iv), showing that the vessel has been
located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days, the vessel
described herein is considered to be a storage vessel from the date the
original vessel was first located at the site. This exclusion does not
apply to a well completion vessel as defined in this section.
    (2) Process vessels such as surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers or knockout vessels.
    (3) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06593 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/28/2008 04:41 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, kathy kaufman, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Heidi,

Have you had the opportunity to review these yet?   I know we are still awaiting word on the C-R question but are we good on the front piece?

Ron

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/19/2008 11:51 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Heidi -- here's the chapters of the RIA with the new frontpiece (chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and the Exec Summary), as well as the new chapter 4 with added tables.  I just sent it through Eileen Pritchard in OPEI, but in the interest of time am also forwarding courtesy copies directly to you.

Thanks.

-- Kathy

[attachment "Pb RIA Exec Summ Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 4 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 5 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 7 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US]

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>