and quantity of infectivity in specific tissues depends on the age of the animal and the elapsed
time since infection (see Section <IP_ADDRESS>).  BSE infectivity potentially available for human
consumption can come from specific tissues including cattle brain, spinal cord, cuts of meat with
spinal cord or DRG, intestine, and from edible meat contaminated with infectious tissues (Section
3.1.4).  Not all BSE infectivity available for potential human exposure is actually consumed.
Rates of waste during distribution and in the home, portion sizes, and other factors will influence
actual human exposure.
3.1.3
Rendering and Feed Production
Rendering is a process that recovers useful materials like fat, tallow, and protein, by
cooking the animal remains, separating the products, and by further processing and purifying the
resulting meat and bone meal (MBM).  MBM is a rendering product rich in protein that can be
used as a feed supplement, among other uses.  If the remains of an infected animal, including
either a sheep with scrapie or a bovine with BSE, are made into MBM that is then fed to cattle,
additional animals could become infected.  Current regulations in the U.S. (Food and Drug
Administration, 1997) prohibit the feeding of mammalian derived protein to other ruminants with
some exemptions.  The feed ban does not restrict the use in ruminant feed of porcine protein,
equine protein, ruminant blood, ruminant milk, plate waste, or gelatin.  Other sources of protein,
primarily of vegetable origin (e.g., soy), are also widely used to supplement livestock rations.
The extent of compliance with the feed ban in rendering and feed formulation influences the
extent of possible cattle exposure to infectivity from a rendered diseased animal.  Infectivity can
also be eliminated as a result of using ruminant derived materials in ways that do not lead to any
potential exposure among U.S. cattle (e.g., export).  Figure 3-7 illustrates our characterization of
how materials flow through rendering plants, feed formulation plants, and to the farm.

Section 3
-
61 -
<IP_ADDRESS> Rendering Inactivation
Rendering may reduce the amount of BSE infectivity in material by subjecting it to heat
and pressure.  Different rendering systems (e.g., continuous, batch, and vacuum) inactivate BSE
or scrapie infectivity to different degrees (Taylor et al., 1995, Taylor et al., 1997, Schreuder et al.,
1998).  Table 3-3 quantifies the base case assumptions for the reduction in infectivity achieved by
each technology and the proportion of animals rendered using each technology. The sensitivity
analysis varies these proportions and the degree of inactivation achieved.  Table <renderFactor>
in file renderer (see Appendix 1) provides further documentation of these assumptions.
Table 3-3
Infectivity inactivation achieved and proportion of cattle processed by different types of
rendering systems
Technology Infectivity Inactivation Proportion of cattle rendered
Achieved (log base 10)
Batch 3.1 logs
5%
Continuous/fat added
2 logs
45%
Continuous/ no fat added
1 log
45%
Vacuum
0 logs
5%
<IP_ADDRESS>  Meat and Bone Meal Production
U.S. regulations recognize three types of rendering facilities, designated here as
nonprohibited, prohibited, and mixed.  A nonprohibited plant processes only porcine, equine or
poultry (nonruminant species) and produces animal-based protein products that can be used
legally in cattle feed.  A prohibited rendering plant may process ruminant or mink raw materials,
among others, and produces prohibited MBM that may not be used in cattle feed.  Mixed plants
produce both nonprohibited and prohibited MBM.  These plants must use separate production
lines or a common line with specified cleanout procedures.  The base case assumes that
94.9999% of cattle remains are sent to prohibited rendering plants, 5% are sent to mixed plants,
and 0.0001% are sent (incorrectly) to non-prohibited plants.
The base case assumes that cattle infectivity can reach bovines in several ways.  Material
from a prohibited rendering plant could be mislabeled and used in the formulation of cattle feed.
Mislabeling could also occur in a mixed plant.  A mixed plant could contaminate non-prohibited
MBM by using incorrect source material or by failing to completely flush and clean shared
processing machinery. A nonprohibited plant might contaminate their MBM by using prohibited

Section 3
-
62 -
source material although this is unlikely. Even if non-prohibited MBM is contaminated, the
potential for bovine exposure is reduced by the fact that much of this MBM goes to uses other
than cattle feed.
Table 3-4 describes the disposition of MBM infectivity based on the flow shown on
Figure 3-7.  Further documentation of these assumptions appears in the discussions
accompanying the <probMisLabel>, <probContamination>, and <fracContaminate> tables in the
renderer file, and the discussion accompanying the <probDestination> table in the
MBMTransporter file (see Appendix 1).
Table 3-4
The Flow of Infectivity Through the Rendering Process
Figure 3-7 Flow
Reference
Number
Label
<s>a</s>
Description
1
To P MBM
Infectivity sent to rendering for prohibited MBM
2
SRM Elimination
Infectivity eliminated from potential use in animal feed
or human food if specified risk material ban in place
3 Render
Elimination
Infectivity removed through inactivation by rendering
4 Contam. NP Infectivity from P MBM that contaminates NP MBM in
MB
M
mixed rendering facilities
5
Mislabel P MBM
Infectivity in P MBM mislabeled as NP MBM
6
Out after Render
Infectivity in rendered material not used for livestock
feed
Notes:
a.
Entries in the “Label” column refer to the descriptors used in the output tables in the results
Section (see Appendix 3A).
<IP_ADDRESS> Feed Production
FDA feed ban regulations restrict use of prohibited MBM to feed manufacturers that
produce only prohibited feed, or to manufactures that produce both prohibited and non-prohibited
feed (mixed producers), so long as they adhere to procedures that minimize the risk of
contamination.  The base case assumes that at mixed facilities, prohibited feed could contaminate

Section 3
-
63 -
non-prohibited feed.  In addition, the base case assumes that prohibited feed can be mislabeled in
facilities producing both prohibited and non-prohibited feed.  The documentation in Appendix 1
(see parameter group feedProducer) details these assumptions in further detail.
When recycled animal tissue (i.e., blood meal or MBM) is used as a supplement to
animal feed, the material can be divided among feed portions consumed by many cattle.  The base
case assumes that infectivity in the blood meal from a single animal is divided among 89 cattle
(see the documentation in Appendix 1 for the numCowsReceiving parameter in the
proteinInfector parameter group).  How widely infectivity in recycled protein is distributed is
more complicated.  If the infectivity does not contaminate non-prohibited MBM or non-
prohibited feed, then it remains contained in a single “packet” that can be divided among 89
cattle.  However, if contamination occurs during the rendering process, then a portion of the
infectivity is transferred to the affected non-prohibited MBM packet.  That non-prohibited packet
has the potential to exposure an additional 89 cattle.  Finally, if contamination occurs during feed
production, it is assumed that a portion of the infectivity is transferred to the affected non-
prohibited feed packet.  That non-prohibited feed packet likewise has the potential to expose an
additional 89 cattle.  Table 3-5 describes the flow of cattle infectivity through the feed production
process.

Section 3
-
64 -
Table 3-5
The Flow of Cattle Infectivity through the Feed Production and Use Processes
Figure 3-7 Flow
Reference
Number
Label
<s>a</s>
Description
7
To P Feed
Infectivity in P MBM that goes to production of P
livestock feed
8
To NP Feed
Infectivity in NP MBM reaching NP Feed
9
Contam NP Feed
Infectivity from P Feed that contaminate NP Feed in
mixed feed mills
10
Mislabel NP Feed
Infectivity in P Feed mislabeled as NP Feed
11
To Blood
Infectivity reaching cattle feed through use of blood
meal
12
Out After Feed
Prod
Infectivity in livestock feed not used for cattle
Notes:
a.
Entries in the “Label” column refer to the descriptors used in the output tables in the results
Section (see Appendix 3A).
<IP_ADDRESS>  On Farm Feeding
The practice of administrating correctly labeled (i.e., with the label “DO NOT FEED TO
RUMINANTS”) prohibited feed to cattle on the farm is referred to as “mis-feeding.”  The base
case assumes that correctly labeled prohibited feed will be administered to cattle with a
probability of 1.6%.  Documentation accompanying the feeder file (see Appendix 1) explains our
derivation of this estimate.  Table 3-6. describes the flow of cattle infectivity on the farm.

Section 3
-
65 -
Table 3-6
The Flow of Cattle Infectivity on the Farm
Figure 3-7 Flow
Reference
Number
Label
<s>a</s>
Description
13
Misfed
Quantify of infectivity in materials fed to cattle in non-bovine
livestock feed
14
To Cattle
Total infectivity reaching cattle through feed
Notes:
a.
Entries in the “Label” column refer to the descriptors used in the output tables in the results
Section (see Appendix 3A).
3.1.4
Potential Human Exposure
The base case assumes that humans can be exposed to BSE infectivity either by directly
consuming infected cattle organs, such as brain, spinal cord, eyes, and distal ileum, or by
consuming contaminated products, including meat or processed meat containing spinal cord or
DRG, or organs containing CNS emboli, such as liver, heart, or kidneys.  Table 3-7 details the
assumed availability of these tissues.
Table 3-7
Potential Human Exposure
Organs/tissues Description/Assumptions
Brain
Brain is considered to be a variety meat and reaches the consumers labeled
as such.  The base case assumes that 1% of all cattle brains are potentially
available for direct human consumption.
Spinal cord
Beef spinal cord is considered to be a variety meat and reaches consumers
label as such.  The base case assumes that 1% of the spinal cord is
potentially available for human consumption.
Blood
The base case assumes that 5% of the cattle blood is potentially available for
human consumption in meat food products, including sausages, blood
pudding, etc., and that the infectivity in blood is limited to the potential
contribution from brain and spinal cord emboli.  Sensitivity analysis
investigates the possibility that BSE disease itself also contributes to the
infectivity in blood at a concentration that can be as high as the level of
detection.

Section 3
-
66 -
Table 3-7
Potential Human Exposure
Organs/tissues Description/Assumptions
Distal Ileum
Distal ileum is considered to be a variety meat and reaches the consumers
labeled as beef intestines.  The base case assumes that 1% of the distal
ileums are potentially available for human consumption.  In the U.S., distal
ileum does not reach consumers as natural sausage casings.
Contaminated
Organ Meat
Brain and spinal cord are responsible for infectivity in organ meat when air-
injected pneumatic stunning is used (not reflected in the base case).  Liver,
heart, and kidney are sold as variety meat.  The base case assumes that 60%
of the liver, 50% of the heart, and 25% of the kidneys are potentially
available for human consumption.
Eyes
Bovine eyes are considered a variety meat and reach consumers labeled as
beef eyes.  The base case assumes that 1% of eyes are recovered and
potentially available for human consumption.
Contaminated
muscle meat
The base case assumes that spinal cord can contaminate edible meat during
the splitting process.  It is further assumed that other processes, such
steaming or washing do not reduce this contamination.
AMR
Total infectivity in AMR product is the sum of the contributions from spinal
cord and DRG contamination.  The amount of spinal cord contaminating
AMR product depends on whether the spinal cord is removed, as required by
FSIS regulation for plants using AMR, and on whether the carcass is mis-
split.
Beef on bone
Total infectivity in beef on bone is the sum of the contributions from spinal
cord contained in these cuts of meat and DRG attached to these bones.
Spinal cord has the potential to reach consumers if it is not removed from the
spinal column and if it remains attached to the backbone as bone-in steak.
The base case assumes that about 30% of the backbones from steers and
heifers are sold bone-in and that because these cuts do not undergo AMR
processing, they retain the spinal cord.  Although regulations do not require
removal of the spinal cord from the backbones that do not undergo AMR
(FSIS Directive 7160.2, 1997), many slaughterhouses remove it anyway
(Robert Brewer, personal communication).  Note that even if the spinal cord
or DRG on beef on bone reaches consumers, this material is not likely to be
eaten.
Trigeminal
Ganglia
The base case assumes that the trigeminal ganglia (TG) does not contaminate
cheek meat because it is located at the base of the cranium. Sensitivity
analysis investigates the impact of assuming that TG contaminates cheek
meat 1% of the time and that when such contamination occurs, it amounts to
1/1000 of the infectivity in TG.

Section 3
-
67 -
3.2
Impact of Alternative Assumptions on Cattle Infected and Human BSE
Exposure
We evaluated the relative importance of 15 sources of uncertainty by determining how
each individually influences model predictions for two cumulative outcomes over a 20-year
period – the total number of cattle that become infected after the introduction of 10 infected
animals at the beginning of the period, and the amount of BSE infectivity (quantified in terms of
the number of cattle oral ID s) in food produced for human consumption over that period.  In
50
particular, we ran the base case simulation 1,000 times and recorded the arithmetic mean values
for each of these two outcomes.
We then altered each of 15 sets of assumptions, one at a time, setting all of the other
assumptions to their base case values.  Each assumption was alternatively set equal to each of its
bounding values.  The “best case” value refers generally to that bounding value for an assumption
expected to result in the smallest predicted risk of BSE spreading, whereas the “worst case” value
refers generally to that bounding value for an assumption expected to result in the largest
predicted risk of BSE spreading. For each alternative value, we again ran the simulation 1,000
times and recorded the mean values of the two outcomes described above.
Alternative assumptions evaluated fall into the following categories:
•
Section 3.2.1 – Maternal BSE transmission rate;
•
Section 3.2.2 – Slaughter process assumptions, including the quantity of
infectivity in an animal with clinical BSE, the probability that AM inspection
will detect an animal with clinical signs of BSE, the type of stunners used, the
probability that the spinal cord is removed;
•
Section 3.2.3 – Rendering and feed production process assumptions, including
the extent to which rendering reduces infectivity, the probability that prohibited
MBM will contaminate non-prohibited MBM, the magnitude of the
contamination when this it occurs, the probability that mislabeling prohibited
MBM will be mislabeled as non-prohibited, the probability that prohibited feed
will contaminate non-prohibited feed, the magnitude of the contamination when
it occurs, the probability that prohibited feed will be mislabeled as non-
prohibited, and the probability that correctly labeled prohibited feed will be
incorrectly administered to bovines on the farm.
•
Section 3.2.4 – Food inspection, including in particular, the fraction of tissue in
each tissue group recovered for human consumption;

Section 3
-
68 -
•
Section 3.2.5 – Farm practices, including the fraction of all animals that die on
the farm that are sent to rendering.
•
Section 3.2.6 – The possibility that BSE-infected cattle carry infectivity in blood
•
Section 3.2.7 – The possibility that humans are exposed to BSE infectivity in
trigeminal ganglia
The parameter values used for each analysis are detailed in Appendix 2.
3.2.1
Maternal BSE transmission Assumptions
We evaluated the assumption that the probability that a mother in the last one-sixth of its
BSE incubation period will transmit disease to a calf it gives birth to with 10% probability (base
case).  The best case value for this assumption was assumed to be 0% (i.e., mother-to-calf
transmission does not occur), and the worst case value for this assumption was assumed to be
13%.
3.2.2
Slaughter Process Assumptions
For assumptions related to the slaughter process that have been evaluated as part of the
uncertainty analysis, Table 3-8 details base case, best case, and worst case values.
Table 3-8
Base Case, Best Case, and Worst Case Values for Slaughter Process Assumptions
Assumption Base Best
Cas
e
Case
Worst
Case
Cattle oral ID s in carcass of a full-blown BSE case
50
10,000
5,000
20,000
Antemortem inspection clinical BSE detection rates
90%
99%
50%
Proportion of cattle stunned using an air-injection pneumatic
stunner
0% 0% 15%
Probability that the spinal cord is removed
Plants using AMR
98%
99.9%
80%
Plants not using AMR
50%
99%
10%

Section 3
-
69 -
3.2.3
Render and Feed Production Process Assumptions
For assumptions related to the rendering process, the feed production process, and to on-
farm feed practices that have been evaluated as part of the uncertainty analysis, Table 3-9 details
base case, best case, and worst case values.
Table 3-9
Base Case, Best Case, and Worst Case Values for Render Process, Feed Production Process,
and On-Farm Feed Practice Assumptions
Assumption Base Best
Cas
e
Case
Worst
Case
Proportion of animals rendered using various technologies
Batch (3.1 logs reduction)
5%
5%
5%
Continuous/fat added (2.0 log reductions)
45%


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25344-25346]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74822; File No. SR-BX-2015-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Relating
to Fees, Dues and Other Charges

April 28, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or

``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 16, entitled
``Fees and Charges.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VI,
Section 16, entitled ``Fees and Charges.'' Today, the Exchange's Rule
at Chapter VI, Section 16 discusses participation Fees and notes that
the Board in its discretion may fix participations fees payable by
Options Participants on a quarterly basis.\3\ Also, Options
Participants shall pay a fee for each transaction they execute on BX,
as may be determined by the Board in its discretion. The Board may
prescribe different or no fees for different types of transactions
conducted on BX.\4\ The Board may fix and impose other fees,
assessments or charges to be paid to [sic] Options Participants or by
classes of Options Participants with respect to applications,
registrations, approvals, use of BX and Trading System facilities or
other services or privileges granted.\5\ Finally, an Options
Participant that does not pay any fees, assessments, charges, fines or
other amounts due to BX within thirty (30) days after they have become
due and payable shall be reported to the Board or its delegate which
may, after giving reasonable notice to the Options Participant of such
arrearages, suspend the Options Participant until payment is made or
terminate the Options Participant's participation on BX. An associated
person of an Options Participant who fails to pay any fine or other
amounts due to BX within thirty (30) days after such amount has become
due and payable and after reasonable notice of such arrearages, may be
suspended from association with an Options Participant until payment is
made.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(a).
    \4\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(b).
    \5\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(c).
    \6\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the title of Chapter VI, Section
16 to ``Fees, Dues and Other Charges'' and adopt the rule text of
current NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Rule 52 into current Chapter VI,
Section 16. The Exchange desires to harmonize Chapter VI, Section 16
with Phlx Rule 52.
    The new rule text would continue to permit the Board of Directors
to have the power to fix fees. The proposed new rule would permit the
Board: (i) to establish, assess and levy such fees, dues and other
charges (including, without limitation, any extraordinary assessments)
upon members and any other persons using the facilities or services of
the Exchange, and upon applicants for and persons being admitted,
registered, qualified and/or initiated to any such status, in each case
as the Board of Directors may from time to time establish by resolution
or in the Rules of the Exchange (which shall be deemed to include any
schedule of fees, dues, other charges and penalties as may be in effect
from time to time), (ii) to establish rebates, credits and discounts
with respect to any of the foregoing, (iii) to establish programs
whereby the Exchange shares or permits any person to participate in any
identified source of revenues (less any expenses or other charges as
the Exchange shall determine) of the Exchange, (iv) to provide for the
direct reimbursement to the Exchange of any cost, expense or category
thereof, and (v) except insofar as otherwise specified or provided for
in the By-Laws, to establish and assess penalties for failure to pay
any fees, dues or charges owed to the Exchange, including, without
limitation, termination of membership (which membership may be
reissued) and forfeiture of all rights as a member. The Board of
Directors may authorize any committee thereof or the Chair of the Board
of Directors to exercise any powers of the Board of Directors with
respect to the assessment of fees, dues, other charges and penalties
authorized in accordance with this Section.\7\ The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule text includes a more exhaustive list of powers
that the Board, or its delegate, may exercise with respect to fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors may also, from time to time, fix and impose
charges upon members, measured by their respective net commissions on
transactions effected on the Exchange. Such charges shall be payable at
such times and shall be collected in such manner as may be determined
by the Board of Directors.\8\ The Exchange believes that this rule text
is more expansive than the rule text in current rule Chapter VI,
Section 16 and provides the board with additional flexibility in
imposing fees. Participants shall abide by the provisions of the
Exchange's By-Laws and the Rules, which shall include, without
limitation, the obligation to pay all applicable fees, dues and other
charges imposed thereon by the By-Laws or the Rules of the Exchange.\9\
Participants today are obligated to abide by the provisions of the
Exchange's By-Laws and the Rules and pay all applicable fees, dues and
other charges imposed thereon by the By-Laws or the Rules of the
Exchange. This provision does not impose any new obligations on
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(b).
    \9\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Board of Directors or their designee may suspend or
terminate, after due notice, any permit or rights of any Participant or
employee thereof using facilities or services of the Exchange, or
enjoying any of the privileges therein, who shall not pay dues, fees,
other charges, other monies due and owed the Exchange, fines and/or
other monetary sanctions in accordance with the Rules of the
Exchange.\10\ Today, the Exchange has the power to suspend Participants
as noted in current rule Chapter VI, Section 16. The Exchange believes
that this new provision provides the Board with greater flexibility in
both suspending and now terminating Participants for failure to pay
fees. The Exchange's Rules today provide a process for the suspension,
cancellation and bar of its members.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(d).
    \11\ See BX Rule 9553, entitled ``Failure to Pay Exchange Dues,
Fees and Other Charges,'' specifies the process for suspension,
cancellation and bar applicable to BX members.

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

    The Exchange is not proposing to adopt the provisions of Phlx Rule
52(e) as those provisions apply today to BX Participants.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See BX Rule 8320, entitled ``Payment of Fines, Other
Monetary Sanctions, or Costs; Summary Action for Failure to Pay.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes that these proposed rule changes will
harmonize the BX's Rules related to fees with that of Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's process for billing and collecting fees on BX today
is the same process which exists on Phlx. The Exchange therefore
desires to adopt Rule 52 to better describe the Board's powers and the
obligations of Participants with respect to fees. The Exchange believes
that this new provision provides the Board with greater flexibility in
both suspending and now terminating Participants for failure to pay
fees. The Exchange's By-Laws at Article IX, Section 4 provide the Board
with authority to fix and levy the amount of fees assessed to BX
members and Rule 9553 contemplates the ramifications and process by
which members are notified and sanctioned for a failure to pay such
fees.
    The adoption of an Exchange Rule similar to Phlx Rule 52 will align
the BX Rules with that of Phlx, with respect to fees, and reflect the
current process which exists at both exchanges. The new text adds
clarity to the BX Rules and better reflects the current process. The
Exchange believes that the adoption of the new rule text will provide
Participants with clear guidelines for the payment of fees and will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.

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 purposes of the Act. The proposed rule text does
not impose an undue burden on competition, rather it seeks to clarify
the power of the Exchange's Board and the manner in which the Exchange
manages the assessment of fees. BX Participants will all be subject to
the same obligations as specified in the proposed rule with respect to
fees.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-023 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-023. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-023 and should be
submitted on or before May 26, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10282 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITION

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4

PP# 1E7852

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) 1E7852 from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.475 by establishing a tolerance for residues of Difenoconazole,
1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmeth
yl]-1H-1,2,4,-triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the raw agricultural commodities; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at
0.6 parts per million (ppm), Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.6 (ppm),
Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.0 (ppm) and Low growing berry subgroup
13-07G, except cranberry at 2.5 ppm, and by  amending the  established
tolerance in or on the raw agricultural commodity Vegetable, tuberous
and corm, subgroup 1C at 4.0 ppm.  In addition, the petition proposes to
remove established tolerance in or on the raw agricultural commodities;
potato, processed waste at 0.04 ppm, vegetables, fruiting, group 8 at
0.6 ppm,  Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.6 ppm, Fruit, pome, group 11 at
1.0 ppm and strawberry at 2.5 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.

The nature of the residues in plants is understood for the purpose of
the proposed tolerance.  The metabolism of 14C-difenoconazole has been
studied using both phenyl and triazole labels in wheat, tomatoes,
potatoes, grapes, and spring rape.  The metabolic pathway was the same
in these four separate and distinct crops.  Therefore, the metabolism of
difenoconazole is considered to be adequately understood for all crops,
per EPA Test Guideline 860.1300.

	2. Analytical method. i. Food.  Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has
submitted a practical analytical method (AG-575B, master record
identification (MRID) No. 428065-04) for detecting and measuring levels
of difenoconazole in or on food with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that
allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in
the proposed tolerances.  EPA has validated this method and copies have
been provided to FDA for insertion into pesticide analytical manual
(PAM) II. Method REM 147.08 (MRID 46950222) is also available for
enforcement method, for the determination of residues of difenoconazole
in crops. Residues are qualified by liquid chromatography (LC)/mass
spectrometry (MS)/(MS) The method is available to anyone who is
interested, and may be obtained from the Field Operations Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

	3. Magnitude of residues. IR-4 conducted magnitude of residue trials on
potatoes under OPPTS 860.1500 to support the requested use of
difenoconzole. These residue trials satisfy the requested tolerance on
potato.

B. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk.  EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of
major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.  Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) from the toxicity studies can
be found at the following website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9759.htm.  A summary of the
toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used for human risk
assessment is discussed in Unit III.A and B. of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of April 28, 2009 (75 FR pages 22256-22263)
(FRL-8817-3).

	1. Acute toxicity.

	2. Genotoxicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.

	5. Chronic toxicity.

	6. Animal metabolism.

	7. Metabolite toxicology.

	8. Endocrine disruption.

C. Aggregate Exposure

ctors utilized either the DEEM™ (version 7.87) default processing
factors or theoretical concentration factors listed in OPPTS860.1520.
Anticipated residues in meat, milk, and eggs were calculated by
constructing a theoretical “maximum reasonably balanced diet” (MRBD)
using the OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1 feedstuffs (June 2008 revision).
Percent crop treated (%CT) values were estimated based upon economic,
pest, and competitive pressures.  Drinking water estimates were selected
using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
for surface and ground water.  All consumption data for these
assessments were taken from the USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food
Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-1996 consumption database
and the Supplemental CSFII children’s survey (1998) consumption
database.

	i. Food.  The difenoconazole acute food risk assessment was performed
using an acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day based upon an
acute neurotoxicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) of 25 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The
100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations; no
additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate
risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin
of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the
exposure for each subpopulation.  In addition, exposure was expressed as
a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 99.9th
percentile, acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted
in a MOE of 864 (11.6% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most
exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 481
(20.8% of the aRfD of 0.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for
this assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for
exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current
and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.

Chronic Exposure.  The difenoconazole chronic food risk assessment was
performed for all population subgroups using a chronic reference dose of
0.01 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity
study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.96
mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor
includes intra- and inter-species variations; no additional FQPA safety
factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the
exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE),
which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each
subpopulation.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the
chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic food exposure to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE of 603 (15.9% of the cRfD of 0.01
mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed subpopulation was children (1-2 years
old) with a MOE of 241 (39.9% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).
Because the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and the EPA
generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100%
of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues
arising from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest
use on potatoes.

Cancer.  A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted.  Difenoconazole
is classified as a Group C, “possible human carcinogen,” with a
non-linear (MOE) approach for human risk characterization (CPRC
Document, 7/27/94, Memo, P. V. Shah, March 3, 2007, HED Doc. No.
0054532).

	ii. Drinking water. The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
of difenoconazole were determined using Tier 1 screening model SCI-GROW
(version 2.3) which estimates pesticide concentration in ground water
and Tier II PRZM/EXAMS (PE version 5.0) which estimates surface water
exposures.  EDWCs for difenoconazole from currently registered and
pending uses were determined.  For the proposed post-harvest use on
potatoes, there will be no environmental exposure to ground water and/or
surface water.  Based on the SCI-GROW modeling results, the highest
groundwater EDWC for difenoconazole was 0.0123 ppb (acute and chronic)
based on the currently registered citrus use.   Based on Tier II
PRZM/EXAMS modeling for surface water conducted by EPA (D367382), the
currently registered grape use provided the highest EDWCs of 15.8 ppb
and 10.4 ppb for acute and chronic, respectively (adjusted for 0.87
Percent Cropped Area, PCA).  Since the surface water EDWCs exceed the
ground water EDWC, the surface water values were used for risk
assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground
water exposure concerns.

The annual average (chronic) EDWC of 10.4 ppb (0.0104 ppm) for surface
water was input into the DEEM-FCID™ software as “water, direct and
indirect, all sources” to obtain the chronic dietary exposure from
water.  Drinking water exposures were determined by taking the
difference between the aggregate exposures (food + drinking water) and
food exposures (food only) for each population subgroup.  Chronic
drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of
4,379 (2.2% of the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed
sub-population was all infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 1,336 (7.2% of
the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg-bw/day).  Because the Benchmark MOE for this
assessment is 100 and the EPA generally has no concern for exposures
above the Benchmark or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic
exposure to drinking water residues arising from all current and pending
uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Difenoconazole is a broad spectrum fungicide
used in residential applications for landscape ornamentals and materials
protection.  Difenoconazole is formulated in Difenoconazole 2EC for
protection of landscape ornamentals and in DIFENO-Shield™ as an
additive to paint.  For landscape ornamentals, these residential
exposure assessments were run in support of registered uses of
Difenoconazole 2EC at a maximum single application rate of 8.0 oz
product/A (0.13 lb ai/A) for prevention of diseases in roses.  For
paints containing DIFENO-Shield™, these exposure assessments assumed a
maximum application rate of 0.01% ai w/w.  The toxicological endpoints
established by the EPA in the August 2007 HED difenoconazole risk
assessment were used (NOAEL = 1.25 mg/kg-bw/day).  The worse case
short-term margin of exposure (MOE) for all uses assessed was for adults
applying paint with an airless sprayer, with a combined (inhalation and
dermal) MOE of 387.  Because the residential MOE exceeds the EPA’s
Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from short-term exposures arising
from all current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on
potatoes.

D. Cumulative Effects

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

E. Safety Determination

»

8

<

=

c

u

”

²

³

Ë

!

)

-

/

8

9

:

and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 530 for the
U.S. population.  Because the worst case aggregate MOE of 205 for
short-term aggregate exposures exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100,
Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
occur to the U.S. Population from acute, short-term, and chronic
aggregate exposures arising from all current and pending uses plus the
proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.

	2. Infants and children. Using the conservative assumptions described
above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity
data, the acute aggregate exposure analysis for all current, pending and
proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE of 466 for children
1-2 years old.  The short-term aggregate exposure analysis for all
current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole resulted in a MOE
of 333 for children 1-6 years old.  The chronic aggregate exposure
analysis for all current, pending and proposed uses of difenoconazole
resulted in a MOE of 223 for children 1-2 years old.  Because the worst
case aggregate MOE for chronic exposures of 223 for children 1-2 years
old exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children
from acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposures arising from all
current and pending uses plus the proposed post-harvest use on potatoes.

F. International Tolerances

	Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for residues of difenoconazole per
se have been established on a number of commodities including banana,
grapes, meat milk eggs, milks, peach, plums, pome fruit, potatoes,
soybeans, tomatoes, and wheat.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53295]
[DOCID:fr31au10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG10-39-000]

Hatchet Ridge Wind, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt
Wholesale Generator Status

August 23, 2010.
    Take notice that during the month of July 2010, the status of the
above-captioned entity as an Exempt Wholesale Generator became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
366.7(a).

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21649 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for the Site Remediation NESHAP Final Rule FROM: Frederick J. Thompson, ( Acting) Group Leader Source Measurement Analysis Group ( D243 02)

TO: K. C. Hustvedt, Group Leader Waste and Chemical Processes Group ( C439 03)

At your request, the Emission Measurement Center ( EMC) conducted searches and reviews to address the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) requirements on the use of voluntary consensus standards ( VCS). The NTTAA directs EPA to use VCS in regulatory and procurement activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. This memorandum documents the results of the EMC searches and reviews to determine if VCS are available and practical for use in lieu of stationary source methods cited in the Site Remediation NESHAP Final Rule.

In 1998, the EMC began implementing the requirements of the NTTAA by conducting searches to identify VCS. Searches continue to be performed to meet the requirements of the NTTAA. While we have made a reasonable effort to identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS, our findings do not necessarily represent all potential alternative standards which may exist.

The EMC participates in the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM), which is one of the most active VCS organizations on emissions testing, and has been invited to participate in the USA Technical Advisory Group for International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) relating to emissions monitoring. We expect these additional efforts will help us to support a periodic review of all EPA reference methods and performance standards for possible incorporation by reference ( IBR) of VCS in lieu of or as alternatives to EPA procedures. We anticipate that these activities will provide an opportunity for further review, consideration and possible IBR of VCS overlooked in the National Standards Service Network ( NSSN) searches or finalized after work group closure in the EPA rulemaking process.

We conducted searches for the Site Remediation NESHAP Final Rule through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were 2 conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 9, 18 ( total organic HAP or total organic compounds), 21, 22, 25, 25A, 25D, 25E, 27, 305, 316 of 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A, and Method 9095A in SW 846, " Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods." No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 9, 21, 22, 25D, 25E, 27, 305, 316, and SW 846 Method 9095A. Please see the attached tables for a detailed summary of our findings.

The attached tables describe the VCS found, which EPA standard reference method( s) the VCS potentially affects, if the VCS is equivalent to the EPA standard reference method, and EPA's comments after review of the standard. During the search, if the title or abstract ( if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference method, the EMC ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EMC may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS.

The search identified ten VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that eight of the ten candidate VCS ( ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, ASTM D3154 00, ASTM D3464 96 ( 2001), ASTM D6060 96 ( 2001), ASTM D6420 99, EN 12619 ( 1999), ISO 10780: 1994, ISO 14965: 2000( E)) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. These eight methods are listed in Attachment 1, along with the EPA review comments. Two of the ten candidate VCS ( ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, ASME/ BSR MFC 13M,) are new standards under development. These two methods are listed in Attachment 2, along with the EPA review comments.

I hope our research into this matter has been useful and timely to your Group's efforts in this rulemaking. Please contact me at ( 919) 541 2707 with any further questions in this matter.

Attachments cc: John Bosch, EMC ( D243 02) Mike Ciolek, EMC ( D243 02), w/ attachments Greg Nizich ( C439 03), w/ attachments Conniesue Oldham, EMC ( D205 02), w/ attachments Peter Tsirigotis, EMAD ( C304 02) 1 Attachment 1. List of Voluntary Consensus Standards Not Applicable to the Site Remediation NESHAP Rule SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 4 ASTM D3154 00  Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct ( Pitot Tube Method) This standard appears to cover EPA's Part 60 Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, 4, but lacks in quality control and quality assurance requirements.

Specifically, ASTM D3154 00 does not include the following: 1) proof that openings of standard pitot tube have not plugged during the test; 2) if differential pressure gauges other than inclined manometers ( e. g., magnehelic gauges) are used,

their calibration must be checked after each test series; and 3) the frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature sensors.

EPA Method 2 ASTM D3464 96 ( 2001)  Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer Applicability specifications are not clearly defined ( example: range of gas composition, T limits). It appears to have the correct calibration procedures and specifications, but without supporting data.

Some of the variability issues were not adequately addressed. The EPA cannot call this equivalent to EPA Method 2 without supporting data.

EPA Method 2 ISO 10780: 1994  Stationary Source Emissions  Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts ISO 10780: 1994 recommends the use of an Lshaped pitot, which historically has not been recommended by EPA. The EPA specifies the Stype design which has large openings that are less likely to plug up with dust. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 2 EPA Method 3 ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10  Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses The instrumental procedures in this standard only include general descriptions of the procedures and are not true methods.

EPA Method 18 ASTM D6060 96 ( 2001)  Practice for Sampling of Process Vents with a Portable Gas Chromatography This standard lacks key quality control and assurance that is required for EPA Method 18. For example: lacks acceptance criteria for calibration,

details on using other collection media ( e. g. solid sorbents), and reporting/ documentation requirements.

EPA Method 18 ASTM D6420 99  Standard Testing Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS) This standard only detects 25 of the 98 specific organic HAP constituents subject to regulation by this rule. The specific organic HAP composition of the remediation material to be cleaned up is often unknown and using a method to determine compliance with total organic HAP emissions limitations that only detects a narrow subset of the entire group of 98 organic HAP compounds subject to the rule is not appropriate. Method 18 is the only method currently available to ensure that all 98 HAP compounds regulated by this rule are accounted for in the computation of the total organic HAP emissions from an affected source. SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD 3 EPA Methods 25 and 25A ISO 14965: 2000( E)  Air Quality

Determination of Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds  Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method This standard is an impractical alternative to EPA Method 25A because it does not measure solvent process vapors in concentrations greater than 10 ppm carbon. A method whose upper limit is 10 ppm carbon has a measurement range too limited to be useful in measuring source emissions.

EPA Method 25A EN 12619 ( 1999)  Stationary Source Emissions Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue Gases Continuous Flame Ionization Detector Method This standard is an impractical alternative to EPA Method 25A because it does not measure solvent process vapors in concentrations greater than 40 ppm carbon. A method whose upper limit is 40 ppm carbon has a measurement range too limited to be useful in measuring source emissions. 1 Attachment 2. List of Voluntary Consensus Standards Not Final for the Site Remediation NESHAP Rule SIMILAR EPA STANDARD REFERENCE METHOD VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA'S COMMENTS ON VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD EPA Method 2 ( possibly 1) ASME/ BSR MFC 13M  Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Methods 1 and 2.

EPA Method 2 ASME/ BSR MFC 12M  Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters Under development when search was completed.

Possibly similar to EPA Method 2.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16840-16841]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06608]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulations 14D and 14E, Schedule 14D-9, OMB Control No. 3235-
0102, SEC File No. 270-114.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget the request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation 14D (17 CFR 240.14d-1--240.14d-11) and Regulation 14E
(17 CFR 240.14e-1--240.14f-1) and related Schedule 14D-9 (17 CFR
240.14d-101) require information important to security holders in
deciding how to respond to tender offers. This information is made
available to the public. Information provided on Schedule 14D-9 is
mandatory. Schedule 14D-9 takes approximately 260.56 hours per response
to prepare and is filed by 150 companies annually. We estimate that 25%
of the 260.56 hours per response (65.14 hours) is prepared by the
company for an annual reporting burden of 9,771 hours (65.14 hours per
response x 150 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06608 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P