MEMORANDUM  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:		January 21, 2010

SUBJECT:	Summary of the October 14, 2009 Teleconference with the
American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to discuss the Proposed Test Plan for Existing Stationary Spark
Ignition Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

1.0	INTRODUCTION

The American Petroleum Institute (API) requested this teleconference
with EPA to discuss the proposed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE), and to propose a plan to gather
additional test data for spark ignition (SI) RICE.  This meeting summary
will be available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).  The proposed NESHAP for existing stationary RICE
was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698).

2.0	ATTENDEES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Melanie King, OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

Michael Horowitz, OGC

Gary McAlister, OAQPS/AQAD/MTG

American Petroleum Institute

Jeff Panek, IES

Roger Zygmunt, Shell

Jenny Yang, Marathon

Tom McGrath, IES

Paul Little, Air Hygiene

Jeff Adams, BP

Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil

Jim McCarthy, IES

Lynn Reed, ONEOK

Janet Bounds, Chevron

Tim Helbig, ONEOK

Matt Todd, API

EC/R Incorporated

Bradley Nelson

3.0	SUMMARY OF MEETING

API started the teleconference by asking what the status was on the
extension for the SI engine portion of the final NESHAP.  EPA responded
that it is currently in discussions and expects a response on the
extension in the near future.

API stated that it was in the process of developing “white papers”
on the following topics: above the floor cost analysis, work practices
for area sources, and maintenance intervals for work practices.  The
papers will be submitted to EPA when they are complete.  API stated that
the test data collection process for SI engines is ongoing and that it
is currently looking for test contractors to perform the testing.  API
stated that testing would not begin until November 2009 and API plans to
look at emission variability during the testing campaign.  EPA asked how
many tests would be provided from the testing, in which API responded
approximately 100 tests.  The test plan for the proposed testing for SI
engines is presented as Attachment A at the end of this meeting summary.

API asked EPA if there had been any additional discussions on the
urban/rural issue for existing stationary SI engines at area sources.
API proposed only work practice standards for rural SI engines located
at area sources in comments on the proposed rule.  EPA indicated that no
final decisions have been made on this issue.  API also brought up the
issue of variability of emissions test data. EPA stated that it would
prefer to have variability data for all engines in the data set.  API
responded that it does not have the resources to test for variability
for so many engines and stated that it could perhaps provide test data
for the top 20 percent.  API stated it is finalizing a technical paper
on test data using Method 323 and will forward to EPA when the paper is
completed.

API asked EPA if it had received additional CI engine test data.  API
stated that the MACT floor for CI engines was based on test data from a
single engine tested at various loads, which was inappropriate in
API’s opinion.  EPA responded that no CI engine test reports were
received during the comment period, but emissions data was referenced in
a few of the comments.  EPA intends to follow up with the commenters to
see if the referenced emissions data is available as a test report and
will include in the MACT floor determinations.  API also asked EPA if
any decisions were made regarding the emission standards for cyclical
engines, and whether the urban/rural classification would be extended to
diesel engines.  EPA responded that the options are being looked at and
no final decisions have been made.

API stated that next steps were to wait for the decision on the final
rule extension for SI engines, and to send EPA the technical papers for
the Method 323 testing and the variability of emissions from SI
engines.

Attachment A

40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ

Natural Gas Fired Engine MACT Floor Test Plan

&

Equipment / Operations Information Gathering40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ

Natural Gas Fired Engine MACT Floor Test Plan

&

Equipment / Operations Information Gathering

PREPARED FOR:

Stephanie Meadows

Upstream Senior Policy Analyst

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

PREPARED BY:

innovative environmental solutions, inc.

P.O. Box 177

Cary, IL 60013-0177

September 30, 2009							Version 1

MACT Floor Test Program Background and Objectives

The March 2009 proposed revisions to the Federal National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reciprocating
internal combustion (IC) engines (74 FR 9698) include emission standards
based on insufficient and technically flawed emissions data.  The
resulting paucity of data makes it impractical to complete a MACT floor
analysis representative of the affected engine populations.  Flaws in
the existing data include emission test methods with known negative
biases and inappropriate engine operation during the testing.  Based on
industry comments, EPA has acknowledged that additional emissions data
and analysis is needed to define emission limits for the Final Rule.  To
address the data deficiency and inform the MACT floor analysis, API and
a consortium of engine rental companies are coordinating an emission
test project on existing reciprocating internal combustion engines at
oil and natural gas (O&G) facilities.  This document identifies the Test
Plan for that project to ensure accepted and consistent methods are used
for the testing.  The test results will be integrated into a single
emissions test report at the completion of the test program.

For major source engines and most area source engines, the Proposed Rule
includes emission limits.  The emission limits are based on the “MACT
floor”, and the technology basis is an “uncontrolled” engine.  In
some cases, the emission limit is the MACT floor emission level, while
in other cases EPA assumed that “above the floor” catalytic control
is warranted and based the emission limit on the floor level less a 90%
reduction from catalytic control.  These emission limits will not be
achievable by the vast majority of uncontrolled existing engines; that
is, for an uncontrolled unit to meet the emission level associated with
the “best performing” MACT floor limit, catalytic control will be
required for nearly all units.  Refer to API Comments 5.1 and 6.2 for
additional detail.

This test program is designed to obtain uncontrolled “as found”
emission data to support revisions to the MACT floor limits in the
upcoming Final Rule that will amend the NESHAP for reciprocating IC
engines 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ.  Data collected as part of this
intensive effort are needed to develop technically defensible emission
standards.

The MACT floor emissions test project objectives include:

Establish a test program to consistently obtain emission data for
developing MACT floor emission limits that address the size, type, and
operation of affected engines.  The focus of the MACT floor testing
program is primarily directed toward smaller natural gas fired engines
   (< 500hp).

Obtain operational variability data from engines that are expected to be
in the MACT floor data set (i.e. engines in the best performing 12
percent of engines in each category/subcategory) to allow determination
of emission limits that include normal operational variability.
Variability parameters may include:

Excess O2 from 4SRB;

Percent load;

Multiple engines of identical make / model;

Fuel quality; and

Ambient affects including temperature, relative humidity, & elevation.

Variability is an important consideration because it allows
consideration of operating factors when establishing the MACT floor
emission limit.  Thus, these data are a key component of the test
program.  For example, when establishing the standard, our understanding
is that EPA is not required to use an average of the best performing
twelve percent of units as the MACT floor emission limit.  Rather, EPA
has the latitude to select the limits at the worst reasonable condition
for the best controlled similar unit. [“EPA would be justified in
setting the floors at a level that is a reasonable estimate of the
performance of the ‘best controlled similar unit’ under the worst
reasonably foreseeable circumstances.” Sierra Club v.EPA, 167 F.3d 658
(D.C. Cir. 1999)].

In addition, in Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232
(D.C. Cir. 2004), the Court held that floors may legitimately account
for variability because “each [source] must meet the [specified]
standard every day and under all operating conditions.”  Thus,
emission variability can be considered in setting emission limits, and
MACT floor emission limit can be based on the highest emissions for MACT
floor engines considering operational variation.

Table 1 presents a draft test matrix template for the primary engine
categories.  The engine category priorities discussed in this plan are
based upon the RICE fleet used by natural gas production and gathering
facilities and test data reviewed in the RICE NESHAP proposal.  As
testing commitments, locations, schedules, and engine types are
finalized, Table 1 will be completed as a stand alone supplementary
document that identifies engine makes/models and counts.  At present,
industry and trade associations anticipate on the order of 100 tests
will be completed over a range of engine types, sizes, and operating
conditions.

Additional subcategories or further refinement of the horsepower ranges
can be completed based on participant direction and engine types
available for testing.  Since the MACT floor is based on an uncontrolled
engine, NSCR and oxidation catalyst equipped engines are not preferred
for the purpose of establishing the MACT floor.  Should controlled
engines be included in the measurement program, pre-catalyst testing is
recommended.   In addition, proper consideration of air fuel ratio (AFR)
system test impacts should be made.  Potential test considerations
includes disconnecting the AFR and reverting to manual adjustments or
AFR system bypass (see 4SRB O2 considerations below).

Similar to the proposed draft test matrix, Table 2 presents a table to
summarize emissions data that is compiled from previously completed
tests (i.e., available test results from O&G companies).  These data may
be used to establish or confirm MACT floor emission limits or further
the understanding of emissions variability.  These data are expected to
be very limited for smaller burn engines (i.e., where formaldehyde is
needed) and primarily encompass larger lean burn units.

Size Category

 (HP)	Number of

4SRB

Engines	Number of

2SLB

Engines	Number of

4SLB

Engines	Subcategory-Specific

(e.g. cranes, air compressors, etc.)

50-100 hp

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

100-250 hp

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

250-500 hp

e.g. …5 (Ajax DPC 280)

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

>500 hp

Total	X	Y	Z	AA

 Table 1.	Test Matrix and Test Engine Count (MACT floor basis is 12% of
the engines tested)

Table 2.	Existing Test Data to Support MACT Floor Determination

Size Category

 (HP)	Number of

4SRB

Engines	Number of

2SLB

Engines	Number of

4SLB

Engines	Subcategory-Specific

(e.g. cranes, air compressors, etc.)

50-100 hp

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

100-250 hp

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

250-500 hp

MACT Floor

Engine Count	X	X	X	X

>500 hp

e.g. …1 - (Clark TLA-6)

Total	X	Y	Z	AA

Reference Test Methods and Procedures

Testing should be conducted in accordance with EPA/ASTM reference test
methods and procedures; however, due to time constraints and limited
resources, data will typically not be specifically conform to
performance or compliance test criteria (e.g., three one-hour tests are
not recommended for the purpose of gathering MACT floor engine
performance data on multiple units when continuous test method (e.g.,
FTIR) is used).  Because these data will be submitted to EPA for
regulatory development, adherence to the test methods is necessary.  Any
exceptions or deviations to the reference method procedures must be
documented to assess the appropriateness, quality, adequacy, and
representativeness of the emission data.

The testing will include a single one hour test on an “as-found”
engine (i.e. no adjustment to the engine will be made – excluding 4SRB
O2 exhaust levels as discussed below).  For units identified as MACT
Floor engines, subsequent tests at varied load conditions, possible
varied ambient condition (e.g. early morning vs. mid-day operation),
and, for 4SRB units, varied exhaust O2 levels should be conducted to
gather data that characterizes emissions variability.

Preferred Test Methods and Notes

Although Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) – [EPA Method
320 or ASTM D6348] is more costly and resource intensive than the
alternative Method 323 acetylacetone method, it provides near real time
measurements and flexibility for assessing formaldehyde emissions from
rich burn MACT floor candidate units.  Alternatives to FTIR are
discussed below.  FTIR species include:

CO

CO2

NO and NO2

Formaldehyde

C1 – C6 speciated hydrocarbons (e.g., to determine VOCs)

Ammonia

Moisture

FTIR provides near real time instrument response and the ability to
judge test results (e.g., whether the unit is a MACT floor engine).
One-minute average data should be logged and archived for all FTIR
measured compounds.  If Method 323 formaldehyde data are obtained, care
must be taken to ensure that sample flow rates are within the prescribed
range (0.2 to 0.4 liters per minute) and three one hour test runs are
required.  A potential list of FTIR testing companies is provided as
Attachment 2.

O2 and CO2 by instrumentation – [EPA Method 3A] - Determination of
Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)] or portable analyzer [ASTM
D6522-00].

Moisture by FTIR or impingers [EPA Method 4].

Exhaust gas flowrate by F-factor [EPA Method 19].

Sample Ports and Location [EPA Method 1 or 1A].  Two sample ports should
be located at 90 degrees apart and at least two, and ideally eight,
stack or duct diameters downstream from and at least one half, and
ideally two, diameters upstream of any process change or exhaust to
atmosphere.  One port will be used for a thermocouple measurement and
the second for the heated FTIR sample probe.

For 2SLB and 4SLB engines, the NESHAP emission limits are based on the
surrogate compound CO and a simplified gas measurement approach can be
used.  CO, NOx and O2 can be measured using [ASTM D6522] - Determination
of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers.

Quality Assurance / Quality Control

All testing should be conducted in adherence with the reference test
methods.  Method deviations should be documented and explained (e.g.
sample port location).  Because formaldehyde is highly water soluble,
sample line temperature maintenance is required to avoid moisture
condensation. Recommended additional procedures to ensure data quality
include:

Low concentration O2 calibration gases for measuring oxygen in rich burn
engines exhaust.  From EPA Method 7E/3A “to the extent possible, the
measured emissions should be between 20 to 100 percent of the selected
calibration span.” Thus, to measure 0.5% O2, the calibrated range
should be about 0 – 2%.

Similarly, a range of CO2 calibration gases will be required to measure
CO2 from both rich burn and lean burn engines.

QA Spikes for the FTIR systems are recommended for each engine using
formaldehyde and the spiking compound.   Stack gas formaldehyde
concentrations should be measured immediately before and after the QA
spike.

CO2 measurements by both continuous analyzer (EPA Method 3A) and by FTIR
can be used to gauge the uncertainty in the FTIR emission measurements.

The operator must identify the test load and report the basis for
determining the operating load for the test.

Reporting

Emissions should be reported in units of ppmvd, ppmvd @ 15% O2, lb/hr,
and g/hp-hr.  Test reports should be provided to IES to facilitate
review and validation of MACT floor units.  Multiple test reports are
not required for test campaigns on multiple engines.  A single summary
report is preferred.

Additional Test Considerations

Engines should be tested “as found”, and engine operation should not
be altered or adjusted prior to initial testing other than to adjust the
“baseline O2” for 4SRB engines as discussed below.  Operating
conditions should be logged (see Attachment 1).  Engine exhaust
temperature should be monitored for the duration of all tests.  For 4SRB
engines, emissions are dependent on the amount of excess oxygen (i.e.,
related to the air-to-fuel ratio).  Thus,

Four-stroke rich burn engine considerations:

If the “as-found” excess O2 is higher than 0.5%, then a short term
test will be completed before adjusting to a “baseline O2 level”.
In this case, test the 4SRB for approximately 10 minutes at the "as
found" oxygen measured value and record the data.  Stable operation of
the engine over this timeframe can be documented based on 1-minute test
data.

Baseline O2 level:  If the as found excess O2 is greater than 0.5%,
after the step above is completed adjust the fuel regulator or
carburetor setting to obtain an exhaust O2 concentration of
approximately 0.5% or lower (baseline test condition for 4SRB engines).
The manual adjustment is necessary because these engines are
unsophisticated and do not include active control of excess air.
Complete a one hour test at this condition.  This test point is likely
to be the “best performing level” for that particular test condition
(i.e., load, ambient conditions, etc.).  If exhaust oxygen is at 0.5% or
lower "as found", the one hour test will be completed at the as found
condition.  As found units greater than 0.5% O2 are unlikely to be MACT
floor engines – thus the excess air adjust will provide more valuable
data for the analysis and the range of “as found” O2 levels is also
pertinent information.

Subsequent fuel pressure adjustments or carburetor settings (e.g. for
variability testing) should result in exhaust O2 concentrations less
than 2 percent for consistency with the EPA definition of a rich burn
engine.  The “as found” conditions should be documented as indicated
above.

Two- and four-stroke lean burn engine considerations:

CO as surrogate for lean burn engines;

O2 calibrations should be within the expected range of operation (e.g.
approximately 10 to 18 % O2).

Variability Testing

If a particular engine appears to be a candidate “MACT floor” engine
(i.e., within the best performing 12% based on the number of engines in
the test program), then additional testing will be completed on that
engine.  These tests will vary the excess O2 level (via carburetor or
fuel pressure adjustment) over multiple test points and also vary load,
as feasible.  If the “as found” test was at reduced load, load
adjustment to a higher load will be attempted.  Lower load tests will
also be attempted.  Multiple excess O2 levels will be tested at each
load.  The number of data points to conduct this testing introduces test
timing issues, because there is not time or resources available to spend
multiple days testing a single engines.  Thus, abbreviated run times
will be used for most test conditions – i.e., ten minutes of FTIR data
with stable operation and emissions stability ensured for that period.

Excess O2 from 4SRB – Measure emissions for MACT floor units to
establish emission range.  Simplest matrix could be lowest excess O2
(nominally 0.5% or lower) and ~2% excess O2.  Additional excess air and
load conditions could be tested as time permits.

Percent Load – Engine load can be changed by adjusting the suction,
restricting the discharge, and/or changing the bypass valves.  Target
test loads are 50%, 75%, and 100% of maximum achievable load.  These
load levels are pertinent because the “maximum achievable” load in
practice for production engines will often be less than the rated load.

When load is changed to a different test condition, obtain a ten minute
test run for most excess O2 tests, with the 0.5% excess O2 test and
interim excess O2 test runs lasting 10 minutes.  For each load, the
higher excess O2 test run at 2% O2 will acquire one hour of data.  The
higher O2 test condition may bound the upper end of the emissions
variability range, so a one hour test run is proposed for these tests.
These data should provide insight on formaldehyde variability for
“MACT floor” 4SRB engines. Test data should be continuously recorded
during load transitions.

Identical Make / Model – Document information on identical or
“similar” MACT floor units.  “Location-based” issues that may
affect emissions such as altitude and ambient temperature may need to
consider data from an engine that is the same make and model as MACT
floor engines.  (For example, MACT floor data in Texas; altitude and
temperature data may be available for an identical engine in New Mexico
or Colorado.)

Fuel Variability – Obtain and document fuel analyses for evaluating
effect on emissions.

Ambient parameters temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity,
and altitude – should be documented during testing for evaluating the
effect on emissions

Other

The dataset will be reviewed to evaluate whether ambient effects can be
discerned.  Depending upon that review, it may be necessary to consider
data from engines that are not MACT floor units, but identical make and
model to MACT floor units, to assess variability from external
environmental factors. Fuel analysis records will be collected and the
data analyzed to assess potential impacts of varied fuel quality on
emissions.

Schedule

Pending a potential extension request, EPA has requested all supporting
MACT floor data by the end of October.  Industry responses on test
engines completing Table 1 and available test reports for Table 2 should
be accompanied with tentative schedule(s) for completing the test or
providing the data.

Attachment 1

Supplemental Engine Data

In addition to the source test report, the following information will
assist in the determination of whether an engine is a “best performing
12 percent MACT floor engine” [Clean Air Act mandated target from
§112(d)(2)]. All emissions data should be reported as ppmvd @ 15% O2.

Required Supplemental Information

Company

Contact Name __________	email address __________	Phone number __________

Engine and Driven Equipment

Engine Make __________	Engine Model ___________	Installation Date
__________

Engine serial number or unique identifier
__________________________________________

Engine Age ________________________

Nameplate hp _________________	Site Rated hp __________

Circle One 	4SRB		2SLB		4SLB

Location _________________________________	Elevation __________(feet
above sea level)

Pollution Controls	Y / N		Description (including make and model):
_____________

________________________________________________________________________
______

Ignition system _______________ (e.g. Altronic)

Engine condition upon arrival:
__________________________________________________

Date and description of last preventative maintenance:
_______________________________

Maintenance interval and description:
_____________________________________________

Engine life cycle (overhaul interval (yr) remaining life of overhaul
(yr)) _________________

Aftermarket AFR __________	As Found Setting __________

Driven Equipment

Make __________	Model ___________

Compressor Cylinder Bore __________ Stroke __________

Generator Rating __________

Test Conditions & Murphy Panel Data

Percent Load __________	including parasitic hp __________

Description of how load was determined:
____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________

RPM __________	Suction Pressure __________ Suction Temperature
__________

Discharge Pressure __________	Discharge Temperature __________

Manifold Temperature __________	Pressure __________

Water Jacket Temperature __________		Compressor VVCP position:
_____________

Fuel Gas Analysis: include representative fuel gas analysis

Fuel Meter: make __________	model # __________	accuracy __________ ( %

Fuel Line:  pressure _____________ (psig)   temperature ____________ °F

EPA Test Method deviations

Describe all deviations:
________________________________________________________________________
________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________

Test Company ___________    email address ______________	Phone number
__________

Contact

Ambient Test Conditions

Temperature __________	Atmospheric Pressure __________ Relative Humidity
_________

Optional Information

Exhaust Temperature __________

Measured Fuel __________

Sample Port Location Description
__________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________

________________________________________________________________________
________

Attachment 2

Selected FTIR Test Companies: Note that this list is for informational
purposes only and does not represent an endorsement of any source test
firm

ACCT a Division of CECO

5440 Alder, Houston, TX 77081-1798

(800) 836-7333

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Spectral
Insights LLC

214 Argonne Drive

Durham, NC 27704

(919) 620-6549

  HYPERLINK "http://www.spectralinsights.com"  www.spectralinsights.com

Air Compliance Testing, Inc.

5525 Canal Road

Cleveland, Ohio 44125

216-525-0900

  HYPERLINK "http://www.aircomp.com"  www.aircomp.com 	TRC Environmental
Corporation

Ross A. Thompson

Lead Project Manager - Operations Manager - Lubbock Air Measurements

7902 Oakridge Avenue Suite One

Lubbock, Texas 79424

806/ 744-8422 Office

806/ 744-8423 Fax

806/ 773-8851 Cell

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Air Hygiene, Inc.

Paul Little

Director of Customer Service

5634 South 122nd East Avenue, Suite F

Tulsa OK 74146

(918) 289-6378

  HYPERLINK "http://www.airhygiene.com"  www.airhygiene.com

	Clean Air Engineering, Inc.

500 W. Wood Street

Palatine, IL 60067, USA

800-627-0033

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cleanair.com"  www.cleanair.com

	Enthalpy Analytical, Inc.

Bryan Tyler

2202 Ellis Road

Durham, NC 27703

919.850.4392

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Pace Analytical

1700 Elm Street SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414

(612) 607-6398

  HYPERLINK "http://www.pacelabs.com"  www.pacelabs.com

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

October 2, 2009

Final Draft Test Plan

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59740-59743]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23539]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70470; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make Minor Modifications To Pricing Incentive Programs Under NASDAQ's
Schedule of Fees and Credits Applicable To Trading on the NASDAQ
Options Market

September 23, 2013.
    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 September 9, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ is proposing to make minor modifications to pricing
incentive programs under NASDAQ's schedule of fees and credits
applicable to trading on the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'').
Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to exclude from volume-based pricing
calculations any trading day on which NOM is closed for trading due to
early closing or a market-wide trading halt. This exclusion exists
today for the

trading of [sic] on NASDAQ's equities trading facility.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ is not proposing to exclude trading on the day of the
Russell Reconstitution from the calculation of volume-based pricing
for the trading of options. The Russell Reconstitution has little or
no impact on options trading because the options market does not
operate a closing cross such as occurs on the equities market. Thus,
there is little or no impact on the volume of options trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ Options Rule Chapter XV, Section 2 contains a number of
pricing incentive programs that are designed to encourage member
participation in NOM by increasing rebates or reducing fees for firms
that trade on NOM in increasingly higher volumes.
    NASDAQ has determined for purposes of calculating Monthly Volume
Tiers under Chapter XV, Section 2, any day that the market is not open
for the entire trading day should be excluded from such calculation.
This formulation would exclude, for example, days on which the market
closes early for holiday observances. It would also exclude days where
NOM declares a trading halt in all securities or honors a market-wide
halt initiated by another market. This would apply to the market-wide
trading halt of approximately three hours on August 22, 2013, which NOM
plans to exclude from Monthly Volume Tiers for the month of August.
    The proposed rule change will impacted [sic] billing rates for all
eight Monthly Volume Tiers by which NOM determines the rebate per share
for firms that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity based on
increasing percentages of total industry customer equity and ETF option
average daily volume (``ADV'') contracts per day in a month (Tiers 1
through 4). It would also apply to the calculation of Average Daily
Volume for a specific member (Tiers 5 through 8). The rebates range
from $0.25 to $0.48 per contract:

Tier 1...................  Participant adds Customer and/          $0.25
                            or Professional liquidity of
                            up to 0.20% of total
                            industry customer equity and
                            ETF option average daily
                            volume (``ADV'') contracts
                            per day in a month.
Tier 2...................  Participant adds Customer and/          $0.40
                            or Professional liquidity of
                            0.21% to 0.30% of total
                            industry customer equity and
                            ETF option ADV contracts per
                            day in a month.
Tier 3...................  Participant adds Customer and/          $0.43
                            or Professional liquidity of
                            0.31% to 0.49% of total
                            industry customer equity and
                            ETF option ADV contracts per
                            day in a month.
Tier 4...................  Participant adds Customer and/          $0.45
                            or Professional liquidity of
                            0.5% or more of total
                            industry customer equity and
                            ETF option ADV contracts per
                            day in a month.
Tier 5...................  Participant adds (1) Customer           $0.42
                            and/or Professional
                            liquidity of 25,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a
                            month, (2) the Participant
                            has certified for the
                            Investor Support Program set
                            forth in Rule 7014, and (3)
                            the Participant executed at
                            least one order on NASDAQ's
                            equity market.
Tier 6...................  Participant has Total Volume            $0.45
                            of 115,000 or more contracts
                            per day in a month, of which
                            25,000 or more contracts per
                            day in a month must be
                            Customer and/or Professional
                            liquidity.
Tier 7...................  Participant has Total Volume            $0.47
                            of 150,000 or more contracts
                            per day in a month, of which
                            50,000 or more contracts per
                            day in a month must be
                            Customer and/or Professional
                            liquidity.
Tier 8...................  Participant (1) has Total               $0.48
                            Volume of 325,000 or more
                            contracts per day in a
                            month, or (2) Participant
                            has Total Volume of 200,000
                            or more contracts per day in
                            a month, of which 70,000 or
                            more contracts per day in a
                            month must be Customer and/
                            or Professional liquidity or
                            (3) adds Customer and/or
                            Professional liquidity of
                            1.00% or more of national
                            customer volume in multiply-
                            listed equity and ETF
                            options classes in a month.

If the Exchange did not exclude aberrant low volume days when
calculating ADV for the month, as a result of the decreased trading
volume, the numerator for the calculation (e.g., trading volume) would
be correspondingly lower, but the denominator for the threshold
calculations (e.g., the number of trading days) would not be decreased.
This would result in an effective cost increase.
    The proposed rule change would also apply to the monthly volume
tiers NOM uses to determine the Rebate to Add Liquidity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Monthly  volume                               Rebate to add liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..............  Participant adds NOM      $0.25.
                       Market Maker liquidity
                       in Penny Pilot Options
                       of up to 39,999
                       contracts per day in a
                       month.
Tier 2..............  Participant adds NOM      $0.30.
                       Market Maker liquidity
                       in Penny Pilot Options
                       of 40,000 to 69,999
                       contracts per day in a
                       month.
Tier 3..............  Participant adds NOM      $0.32.
                       Market Maker liquidity
                       in Penny Pilot Options
                       of 70,000 to 99,999
                       contracts per day in a
                       month.
Tier 4..............  Participant adds NOM      $0.32 or $0.38 in the
                       Market Maker liquidity    following symbols BAC,
                       in Penny Pilot Options    GLD, IWM, QQQ and VXX
                       of 100,000 or more        or $0.40 in SPY.
                       contracts per day in a
                       month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposal does not apply to other transaction fees or rebates in
Section 2, or to other fees on the pricing schedule outside of Section
2.
    Absent the authority to exclude days that the market is not open
for the entire trading day, members will experience an effective
increase in fees or decrease in rebates. The artificially low volumes
of trading on such days reduce the average daily activity of NOM
members both daily and monthly. Accordingly, excluding such days from
the monthly calculation will diminish the likelihood of an effective
increase in the cost of trading on NOM, a result that is unintended and
undesirable to NOM and to NOM members.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed change to eliminate from the
calculation days on which the market is not open the entire trading day
is reasonable because it preserves NASDAQ's full intent behind adopting
volume-based pricing. The proposed change is equitable and non-
discriminatory because it applies equally to all members and to all
volume tiers. In the event that NASDAQ identifies a disparate impact on
one or another volume tier in the future, NASDAQ may determine to
modify that volume tier via an additional proposed rule change.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ notes that
it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, NASDAQ must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, NASDAQ believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed rule change should not impact
competition because it merely preserves the full intent of NASDAQ's
already-filed prices. Moreover, the proposed rule change regarding days
on which the market is not open the entire trading day will result in
an effective reduction of fees or increase in rebates such that the
total cost of trading on NOM should decline. This is evidence that a
proposed rule change is pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change 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) of the Act \6\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
NASDAQ wishes to exclude August 22, 2013, from the calculation of
volume-based pricing for August of 2013. Waiver will allow the Exchange
to immediately implement the proposed rule change, thereby reducing the
potential for confusion among member organizations and the public about
how the Exchange will calculate volume-based pricing for August of
2013. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-117 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-117. 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 on official business days between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-117, and should
be submitted on or before October 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23539 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78141-78143]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31462]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0762; FRL-9939-54]

Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens MBI600 (Antecedent Bacillus Subtilis
MBI600); Amendment to an Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the existing exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus subtilis strain MBI600 to change the name to Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600 (antecedent Bacillus subtilis strain
MBI600) in or on all food commodities, including residues resulting
from post-harvest uses, when applied or used in accordance with good
agricultural practices. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
amendment to the existing exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain
MBI600.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 16, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 16, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0762, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0762 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 16, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0762, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-
00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 4F8336) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1128 be
amended to change the species name of the pesticide chemical substance
covered by the existing exemption, i.e., from the microbial pesticide
``Bacillus subtilis strain MBI600'' to ``Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
strain MBI600 (antecedent Bacillus subtilis strain MBI600).'' The
remaining terms of the exemption would remain the same, i.e., residues
of the pesticide would be exempted from the requirement of a tolerance
in or on all food commodities, including residues resulting from post-
harvest uses, when applied or used in accordance with good agricultural
practices. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner BASF Corporation, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
. '' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that 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.''
    EPA evaluated the available identity, toxicity and exposure data on
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600 (antecedent Bacillus subtilis
strain MBI600) and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessment based on that data can be found within the October 5, 2015,
document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Considerations Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600.'' This
document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the
docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its
evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600. Therefore, the existing tolerance
exemption for Bacillus subtilis strain MBI600 is amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the biofungicide Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600
(antecedent Bacillus subtilis strain MBI600) in or on all food
commodities, including residues resulting from post-harvest uses, when
applied or used in accordance with good agricultural practices.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is amending an existing exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation for the reasons contained in
the October 5, 2015 document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
strain MBI600.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Revise Sec.  180.1128 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1128  Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI600; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the biofungicide Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI600
(antecedent Bacillus subtilis MBI600) in or on all food commodities,
including residues resulting from post-harvest uses, when applied or
used in accordance with good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2015-31462 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42383]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17015]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulation S-T. OMB Control No. 3235-424, SEC File No. 270-375.

    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'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.10 through 232.501) sets forth the
general requirements and procedures for the electronic submission of
documents on the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval
(``EDGAR'') System. Regulation S-T is assigned one burden hour for
administrative convenience because it does not directly impose any
information collection requirements.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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.
    Please direct your written comment to 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>
    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17015 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8716]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03405]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 19, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03405 Filed 2-13-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29653-29654]
[DOCID:fr27my10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0697; Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-10]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Beatrice, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Beatrice, NE.
Decommissioning of the Shaw non-directional beacon (NDB) at Beatrice
Municipal Airport, Beatrice, NE, has made this action necessary to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 29, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 15, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Beatrice,
NE, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Beatrice Municipal Airport (75
FR 12166) Docket No. FAA-2009-0697. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T
signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace for the Beatrice, NE area.
Decommissioning of the Shaw NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at
Beatrice Municipal Airport has made this action is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Beatrice Municipal Airport,
Beatrice, NE.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

ACE NE E5 Beatrice, NE [Amended]

Beatrice Municipal Airport, NE
    (Lat. 40[deg]18'05'' N., long. 96[deg]45'15'' W.)
Beatrice VOR/DME
    (Lat. 40[deg]18'05'' N., long. 96[deg]45'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Beatrice Municipal Airport, and within
2.4 miles each side of the 320[deg] radial from the Beatrice VOR/DME
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.5 miles northwest of the
airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 003[deg] radial from
the Beatrice VOR/DME extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.5 miles
north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 13, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-12723 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58437]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23182]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67867; File No. SR-NASD-2005-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Thereto, To Require Members To Provide
Customers in TRACE-Eligible Debt Securities With Additional,
Transaction-Specific Disclosures and To Notify Customers of the
Availability of a Disclosure Document

September 14, 2012.
    On August 19, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change that would have (1) adopted NASD
Rule 2231, which would have required members, subject to specified
exceptions, to provide customers in transactions in debt securities
that are TRACE-eligible securities, as defined in former NASD Rule
6210(a),\3\ with additional, transaction-specific disclosures relating
to applicable charges, credit ratings, the availability of last-sale
transaction information, and certain interest, yield and call
provisions; and (2) amended NASD Rule 2340 (customer account
statements) to require members to notify certain customers of the
availability of a disclosure document discussing debt securities
authored by FINRA and deliver the document to customers upon request.
NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on December 21,
2005, Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on January 26, 2007,
and Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on July 16, 2007. FINRA
filed Amendment No. 4 on August 21, 2007. The proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 19, 2007.\4\ The Commission received four
comments on the proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ NASD Rule 6210 was superceded by FINRA Rule 6710 as of Dec.
15, 2008. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 08-57, SEC Approves New
Consolidated FINRA Rules (October 2008) available at http://finra.complinet.com/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/f/i/finra_08-57.pdf.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56661 (Oct. 15,
2007), 72 FR 59321 (Oct. 19, 2009).
    \5\ All comments are posted on the Commission's Web site, http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasd-2005-100/nasd2005100.shtml(last
visited Sept. 14, 2012). FINRA filed a response to comments. See
letter from Sharon Zackula, FINRA, to Florence E. Harmon, SEC, dated
Sept. 5, 2008 available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasd-2005-100/nasd2005100-5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2012, FINRA withdrew the proposed change (SR-NASD-
2005-100).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23182 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P