Attachment C. Demonstration that the SO, Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART A. BackFround On July 1, 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) published regulations to address regional haze visibility impairment. The new regulations require States to address Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment. The nine Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region States have the option to address this requirement as part of an overall strategy of emission reductions developed by the Grand Canyon Commission, including the establishment of regional sulfur dioxide ( S02) milestones.

§ 309( f)( l)( I) of the regional haze rule establishes the requirements for regional milestones to meet the stationary source obligations for the first long term planning period. The rule states,   The emission reduction milestones must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology ( BART) pursuant to section 51.308( e)( 2) and would be approvable in lieu of BART.  The requirements for BART are described in greater detail in section 51.308( e)( 2) as follows:

  A State may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the State must demonstrate that this emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. To make this demonstration, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:

( I) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted fiom the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State. This demonstration must be based on the following:

( A) A list of all BART eligible sources within the State.

( B) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source within the State subject to BART. In this analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source. The best system of continuous emission control technology and the above factors may be determined on a source category basis. The State may elect to consider both source specific and category wide information, as appropriate, in conducting its analysis.

( C) An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable fkom all such sources subject to BART located within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class I area, based on the analysis conducted under section 51.308( e)( 2)( I)( B).

In order to address these BART requirements, the WRAP used the following process:

Develop a list of BART eligible sources for the region. 0 Estimate emission reductions that could be made by BART eligible sources through   appropriate retrofit technology . # Estimate baseline emissions in the year 2018. a Evaluate the visibility improvement that could occur in the region if the   appropriate retrofit technology  emission reductions were implemented. # Evaluate additional factors that would contribute to   greater reasonable progress  than regional haze BART 0 Establish 2018 SO, emissions milestone Each of these steps is addressed in greater detail in the following sections of this report. This process was developed through the best efforts of the WRAP through a stakeholder based process and is based on the WRAP Sreading of the regional haze rule language and preamble. It is important to note that EPA guidance for determining regional haze BART is under development and so the WRAP had to make a number of assumptions about the analysis.

B. List of BART eligible sources.

Each of the nine Transport Region States developed a preliminary list of BART eligible sources for SO,. EPA identified BART eligible sources on tribal lands. EPA guidance for regional haze BART is still under development which leaves many unanswered applicability questions. The WRAP developed a draft methodology that was used to identify all of the BART eligible sources in the region. When final guidance is issued, the Transport Region States and Tribes recognize that changes to their initial lists of BART eligible sources may be necessary, however the WRAP believes that all sources that emit significant levels of SO, have been identified. The preliminary list compiled by the states is included as Attachment D to the Annex. The draft methodology used the following assumptions:

0 Where appropriate, BART eligible sources were identified on a unit by unit basis. Only individual units that met the BART criteria were included on the list. For e 2 ?

a.

?

i Q 01 r;] l some sources, such as copper smelters, this approach did not work because the units were so inter related. In those cases the entire source was examined to determine if it was BART eligible. Pollutants were treated independently. Therefore, only units that qualified as BART eligible for SO, were included on the list. Modifications during the 15 yearBART wiqdow were not considered, unless the modification qualified as reconstruction for that unit. Units were not considered BART eligible if the only modification that was made during the 15 year window was the installation of pollution control equipment. BART eligible sources that had, were in the process of, or were slated to have new emissions controls installed ( Navajo Generating Station, Page, Arizona; Hayden Generating Station, Hayden, Colorado; Mojave Generating Station, Laughlin, Nevada) were not included in the spreadsheet that was used to calculate the BART level emission reductions. In addition, BART eligible sources that will be controlled as part of the voluntary reductions for the Front Range power plants in Colorado were not included in the spreadsheet ( Cherokee Generating Station in Denver and Valmont Generating Station in Boulder). Emission reductions fiom these sources were treated as downward adjustments to the baseline.

B C. Appropriate Retrofit Technology Estimates The next step in the process was the identification of appropriate retrofit technologies for the BART eligible sources. BART has traditionally been developed through a case by case analysis that considers the unique situation of the source, including costs and the impacts that the source has on a particular mandatory Class I area. As provided in the following passage, the regional haze rule provides flexibility to states in developing, for comparative purposes, a method for calculating the emission reductions that would result fkom the installation of source specific BART:

To compare the emissions reductions and visibility improvement that would result fkom the application of source specific BART to that resulting from implementation of alternative measures, such as a regional emissions trading program, the state must estimate the emissions reductions that would result from the use of BART level controls. To do this, the states could undertake a source specific review of the sources in the state subject to BART or it could use a modified approach that simplifies analysis... the states accordinglyhave flexibilityin developing a method to determine the emissions reductions that could be achieved through the application of BART.'

The WRAP recognized that a case by case analysis of potential controls for each of the BART eligible sources in the region would be very resource intensive and require more time than allotted for the development of the Annex. Because the goal was to use these estimates to 1 40 CFR part 51, page 35742 ( July 1,1999).

c 3 \ establish a regional emission cap, the individual BART reductions were less important than the overall regional number. The WRAP therefore approached the analysis at the regional level, using a more simplified analysis, as provided for in the regional haze rule.

The WRAP used the following assumptions to estimate the regional emission reductions due to appropriate retrofit controls on the BART eligible sources in the region. It should be noted that the WRAP methodology was only used to obtain a regional estimate for BART level emission reductions to calculate the 2018 milestone. It was not intended to be a source by source BART analysis.

c] r Appropriate retrofit technologies were estimated for source categories rather than individual sources. a Emission reductions were estimated at the regional level. a All estimates of the level of control constitute an assumed average for that industry sector in the WRAP region. a The BART factors, including cost, energy and non air environmental impact, existing pollution controls, and remaining usell life were addressed in a broad way through the identification of technologies that were currently being used as retrofits in the region. Some consideration of the techmcal feasibility of installing control equipment at particular sources ( site constraints, special conditions, etc.) was considered. However, a comprehensive analysis was not completed for individual sources. Instead, the MTF looked at ranges of potential retrofit controls and established a level that was expected to be valid as a regional average.

Table 1 outlines the estimated appropriate retrofit technology for specific source categories in the region.

c 4 Source Category Copper Smelters Refineries Lime Plants and Cement Kilns Utility Boilers Industrial Boilers Pulp and Paper TABLE 1 Retrofit Technologies or Percentage Reduction Due to the uniqueness of the existing smelters, retrofit technology analysis must be performed on a smelter by smelter basis. Currently, the Hidalgo smelter is the only BART eligible source on the list in this category. A double contact acid plat will be considered the appropriateretrofit control equipment ( all smeltersin the region are currently equipped with double contact acid plants). On August 2 1,2000 New Mexico completed anengineeringanalysis that verified earlier determinations by the MTF that the fhgitive SO, capture system at Hidalgo satisfiesBART at 96% overall capture.

There are three sources of SO, emissions at the refiery level:

Descriution Assumed Average Control Level SRU ( pollution control for fuel 98% control or the equivalent of 3 stage Claus gas combustion units) units ( most already have th~ sin place).

Catalytic crackers 90% control. States will query these sources as to whether or not they have had to comply with subpart J with low sulh catalyst or hydro treating, which would amount to 90% control. If not already subject to part J, then 90% control will be required.

Flares no additionalcontrols 0 ( Approximately 70% of refinery emissions come from Claus unit, 25% from cat crackers if uncontrolled, and remaining 5% from all other sources)

No additional reduction. Approximately 50% control inherent in the process. Additional SO, controls are not typically applied tO these kinds of sources.

Technology determination dependent upon current level of control.

Descrintion Assumed Average Level of Control Uncontrolled units 85% Units controlled at less than 70% Treat as uncontrolled( see above). Units controlled between 70430% Increase reductionsby 5% ( i. e., if a unit is at 72%, would be assumed to control to 77%). Units controlled greater than 80% No additionalreductions.

Same as utility boilers.

Sulk sources are recovery furnaces and boilers. Boiler discussions covered with industrial boilers. Recovery furnaces: No additional reduction. Low emissionscoupled withlack of more than one example of scrubbing.

c 5 The technology assumptions listed above were incorporated into a spreadsheet ( Allstat7. xls) to estimate the regional emission reductions due to appropriate retrofit technologies. The spreadsheet used the following assumptions:

# Existing utility generating units operating at an average capacity factor of less than 85% of nameplate capacity during 1999were assumed to increase their capacity factor to a maximum level of 85% of nameplate capacity by 2018. Utility units operating at a capacity factor higher than 85% during 1999 were assumed to continue operating at that level. # All other source categories were assumed to continue operating at their current level of actual emissions, based on an average of 1996 1998 emissions. # The BART eligible units were assumed to reduce actual emissions by the applying the control efficiency listed in Table 1 for each specific source category. c1 The total emission reductions were then added to obtain a regional estimate. The individual source estimates were only calculated as part of the regional estimate, and are not intended to be used as a BART estimate for those individual sources.

The analysis described above led to an estimated emission reduction of 168,176 tons SO, due to the application of appropriate control technologies. For the purposes of this discussion, this number will be rounded to 168,000 tons.

D. Baseline Inventory for 2018 As part of the process of developing the end point for this program, an inventory of expected actual emissions in 2018 was estimatec!. The baseline inventory was calculated separately for utilities and non utilities using the following methods and assumptions:

1. Utilities. 1999 emissions data that were submitted to EPA for the acid rain program were used as the base inventory for the utility projections to 2018. In addition, data for several small power plants that were not in the acid rain data base were added to the inventory list. The 1999 inventory was then grown to account for increased capacity utilization as described below. Known emission reductions that have already been agreed to by the Public Service Company of Colorado ( a number of power plants along the Front Range that will be controlled in 2003) and by the Mojave Generating Station in Nevada ( controls will be installed by 2006) were subtracted from the emission projections.

a. Capacity Factor. Western utilities are increasing their utilization to meet increasing electricity demand. In addition, deregulation of the power industry is expected to further increase utilization of existing plants because it will be more cost effective to achieve peak performance from existing plants than to expend the capital to build new plants. Even though utilization is increasing, it is not C 6 realistic to estimate that plants will consistently operate at 100% capacity because units will require maintenance throughout the year. In addition, power demand fluctuatesthroughout the year, and full utilization may not be needed every day of the year.

The WRAP has assumed that all coal fired power plants in the west will be operating at an average of 85% of nameplate capacity in the year 2018. Any new growth in demand, beyond this capacity factor assumption, is assumed to be met by new power generation at an approximate control efficiencyof 98% for SO,.

b. Retirement Adjustment for Colorado Front Range Power Plants. Public Service Company of Colorado ( PSCO) has made a voluntary agreement with the State of Colorado to control a number of Front Range power plants by the year 2003. Several of the plants that will install controls are assumed to retire before the year 2018 according to the assumptions of the model. It is no longer realistic to assume that these plants will retire, because the capital investment in the plants will extend their lifetime. Therefore, a 4,000 ton adjustment was made to the inventory to account  or the continued operation of these plants.

2. Co generation Facilities. 1998 inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for future year projections. It was assumed that emissions from these sources would remain constant through the year 2018 ( no growth or retirements would occur).

3. Smelters. 1998inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for fbture year projections. There are two smelters that were operating in 1998 that have temporarily suspended operations due to economic conditions. For this reason, the inventory was projected both with these smelters in operation, and without. The milestones developed by the WRAP contain provisions for an automatic adjustment if one or both of the smelters come back on line. The 2018 inventory for smelters in the region if neither smelter resumes operation is assumed to be 48,000 tons. This inventory number assumes that emissions fkom smelters would remain constant ( no growth or retirements would occur). The 2018 inventory if both smelters resume operation is assumed to be 78,000 tons. This estimate assumes that there will be additional retirement of emissions fkom the smelter sector, equivalent to the estimates made by the Integrated Assessment System ( IAS) used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission for the year 2020.

4. Olther sources. 1998 inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for kture year projections. The growth and retirement assumptions developed for the IASwere used to project these emissions to the year 2018. The IAS did not assume any increase in capacity for existing sources, instead, their emissions were retired at a set percentage per year. Any increase in demand for the c 7  %

hr*& &+&' hLfl+ A d$& a,.&*

sector's product, as predicted by the REMI economic model, was assumed to be met by new sources, operatbg at a controlled emission rate. The growth and retirement rates, as well as the control efficiency for new sources, vary between sectors.

5. 2018 Baseline Inventory of Projected Actual Emissions ( rounded to nearest 1,000) ? ?

&. AN  a\ 4 Jh ' i LJ= Utility Emissions 421,000* r+ L Front Range Retirement Adjustment 4,000 +

iLJ& L'i@* imp Co Gen Units 8,000 4L. M~ dJ \ rc ,4n'"\~ Smelter Emissions 48,000 , a\* JdVI bd* Other Source Emissions 141.000 622,000 n/ sJz : e G lD. 2018 Inventory with Estimated Emission Reductions. The emission reductions estimated i for appropriate control technologies applied to BART eligible sources were then subtracted from 5@ the 2018 baseline.

1. CEMs Bias. The federal acid rain program requires coal fired utilities to monitor SO, emissions using continuous emission monitors ( CEMs). These monitors measure SO, concentration at a point in the stack, and also measure the volume of the gas stream passing through the stack. The combination of the two measurements provides total mass emissions from the stack in tondyear. Prior to the use of CEMs, utilities calculated their emissions using a mass balance methodology. The sulfur content of the coal was measured, and then total SO, emissions were determined by tracking the amount of coal burned.

Two sources of bias result in 8n over estimation of emissions as compared to a mass balance estimation.

a If two dimensional probes are used to measure the volume of gas passing through the stack, gas volume will, on average, be over estimated.

4.

# If a CEMS malfunctions, the rules require the use of a high bias estimate in the place of missing data.

The bias varies from plant to plant depending on the specific configuration of the stack, and other variables. :

In mid 1999, EPA published a new flow measurement technique that could be used for CEMs under the acid rain program. This new technique is voluntary, and it is not known how many sources will install the equipment ( it is significantly more expensive than the existing equipment). The new flow measurement technique is expected to reduce the CEM bias, but bias will never be completely eliminated because of the way emissions are I

C s ? required to be counted when data are missing.

The WRAP recognized that current CEM measurements are biased high, and that compliance measurements to future milestones will be made with CEMs that have less bias than those that were in use in the 1999 base inventory that was used for projecting future utility emissions. However, it is difficult to estimate how many sources will install the new measurement devices, and how much CEM bias will still remain after these changes. Utility emissions in the yeas 2018 are predicted to be approximately 269,000 tons ( afier the emission reductions due to appropriate control technology applied to BART eligible sources). Therefore the WRAP assumed an adjustment of 10,000 tons to account for the CEMs bias.

The WRAP also acknowledges thatCEMs are the   gold standard  for determining compliance with the federal Acid Rain Program requirements. A protocol will be developed to make appropriate adjustments to the operation of this component of the regional haze program for participating states and Tribes as improvements in CEMs technology and procedures are implemented. This protocol is necessary to prevent a system of dual book keeping and to maintain the integrity of compliance with both the federal Acid Rain Program and this proposed backstop cap and trade program. The CEPvIs adjustment protocol is discussed in more detail in the Annex.

2. Operational headroom and uncertainty. The GCVTC agreements and recommendations contain two tenets that have uniquely informed the establishment of operational headroom and uncertainty under the market trading program. First, the Commission recommended that the market trading program   contain specific provisions to encourage and reward early emission reductions, including reductions achieved before 2000.  2 The GCVTC committed to achieve a 13% reduction in SO2 emissions fiom stationary sources by the year 2000. The GCVTC also recognized that there was a good possibility that actual emission reductions would be greater than this 13% goal. A general plan was derived to give some early reductions credit to the region and some to the environment. The emission reductions that were greater than 13% were to be split, with ? 4going to the environment ( through the establishment of milestones) and the other ? 4prloviding headr~ om.~

The   WRAP currently expects that emissions in the region will show greater reductions than the 13% commitment of the GCVTC. The WRAP has sought to preserve the Comission s approach to early reductions by setting aside as headroom some intermediate portion of the expected reductions in excess of 13%.

  Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 33 ( June 1996) ( emphasis added).

c 9 I Second, the Commission recommended allocations to tribes that are of practical benefit.' This recognized the concern that " tribes, by and large, have not contributed to the visibility problem in the region" and that "[ tlribal economies are much less developed than those of states, and tribes must have the opportunity to progress to reach some degree of parity with states in this regard.' I5 The tribes specifically recommended that if an emission trading strategy is adopted to achieve SO2 reductions fi om stationary sources that allocations be based on considerations of equity rather than historical emissions:

Credits should not be based on historical emissions, but should be based on equitable factors, including the need to preserve opportunities for economic development on tribal lands. In general, these lands are currently lacking in economic bases and have not contributed to the visibility problems. 6 Accordingly, the market trading program proposed by the WRAP contains a 20,000 allocation to tribes.

These two considerations  to reward emission reductions occurring between 1990 and 2000, and to provide an equitable allocation to the tribes  originate from the GCVTC recommendations. They reff ect distinct policy concerns of the Commission that are unique to the program under section 309 of the regional haze rule incorporating the Commission's recommendations.

In addition, because the baseline emissions inventory is a projection of actual emissions, uncertainty exists in the projection method including, for example, fluctuations in weather and changing economic conditions.

There are inherent uncertainties in the inventory calculation that need to be recognized.

Inherent measurement uncertainties. CEMs are calibrated daily to a relative accuracy of 20% using calibration gases. Fluctuations in measurements can occur due to the measurement techniques that are not indicative of actual changes in emissions. Pluses and minuses will cancel out to a certain degree, but some consideration of these fluctuations is needed.

Projections. Projections of future " actual" emissions are based on the best information available, but are inherently uncertain. This uncertainty increases further out in time. Growth rates may be underestimated, impacts of new ' Id. at 35.

51d. at 66 67.

' Id. at 71. 3 c 10 technologies or regulatory requirements may have unexpected effects, etc.

The WRAP recognizes that there are some competing uncertainties that the future " actual" emissions may be over predicted. However, in light of the Commission's specific recommendation to reward early reductions occurring between 1990 and 2000, the WRAP specifically set aside 15,000tons in 2018 for uncertaintyheadroom in addition to the allocation described above for tribes. The 15,000 tons represents 2% of the current SO2 emissions inventory ( 652,000 tons)^ encompassedwithin the trading program.

The WRAP also believes the likelihood exists that the hll complement of emissions set aside for uncertainty and headroom will not be utilized. All sources in the region operate below their allowable emissions to ensure that they are in compliance with emission limits. The regional milestones are comparable to allowable emissions because an exceedance of the milestone will trigger regulatory consequences. Individual sources will be tracking their emissions, as well as the overall regional emissions, and the possibility of avoiding a regulatory program will provide a powerful incentive for sources to keep emissions below the cap, This will also provide a disincentive for keeping regional emissions close to the cap, because that will increase the risk that an unexpected event ( such as increased production fkom one sector) will trigger the regulatory program. The incentive to operate below the cap should be especially powerful in 2018 when individual sources will face penalties if the cap is exceeded and a source has emitted SO2 in excess of its allowances.

3. 2018 SO, Milestone Calculation 2018 Baseline 622,000 Appropriate Technology Emission Reductions  168,000 CEM Bias adjustment  10,000 Uncertainty/ Headroom 35.000 Total 479,000 = 480,000 In thie event the suspended smelters commence operation or the production from those facilities is shifted to other smelters, as much as 30,000 tons may be added to this milestone.

c 11 1 E. Visibility Improvement Section 169A of the Clean Air Act lists a number of factors that must be considered as part of the BART determination. These factors are addressed in the regronal haze rule in a two step process. First, an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available is performed, considering the statutory factors of cost of compliance, the energy and non air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source. Second, an analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable from all sources subject to BART located within the region. The preamble to the regional haze rule indicates that the visibility analysis should be conducted using the cumulative emission reductions fkom all BART eligible sources in the transport region, not the impact of individual sources. The preamble also indicates that the States and Tribes should use this estimated degree of visibility improvement in determining the appropriate BART emission limitations for specific sou~ ces.~

When defining the visibility impact, the regional haze rule identifies the deciview metric as the appropriate measure of visibility impairment, and improvement. The regional haze rule preamble discusses the value of measuring visibility using a metric that takes into account both measurement of physical changes ( i. e., changes in air quality) and human perception.' A one deciview change in haziness is a small but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing scenes in Mandatory Class I areas. g The preamble also recognizes that in some cases a visibility change of less than one deciview is perceptible, while under other conditions a change of more than one deciview might be required in order for the change to be perceptible. lo The Regional Haze Rule requires the assessment of reasonable progress in terms of average annual visibility improvement overall, and for each of the 20% of the days in a year with the best and the worst visibility ( the first and last quintiles). Regional haze is the product of a wide variety of sources, generally associated with area sources and long range transport of emissions. Regional haze is, therefore, best assessed using averages, and addressed by strategies that reduce emissions on a region wide scale.

In keeping with this requirement, the WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The 64 FR 35741 ' 64 FR 35726 64 FR 35725 lo 64 FR 35726 35727 '

3

..

i c 12 WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System ( US) and used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. This modeling has 1imitation. swhich must be considered when interpreting the results.

The IAS models were designed to assess regional transport of emissions, and therefore only offers limited insight into the impact of local emission sources. The models are best at demonstrating the relative effects of changes in regional emissions on visibility. One other important limitation involves the number of receptors where pollution data were available. The GCVTC c. ollecteddata from only six receptors, and ultimately scaled its modeling for only four of these: Hopi Point, Mesa Verde, Canyonlands, and Bryce Canyon. The most detailed information came fiom one receptor, Hopi Point in Grand Canyon National Park.

Although the IAS has limitations, it was the only tool that could realistically be used in the short time frame that was provided to develop an Annex to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission report. Prior to the development of the IAS, little was understood about the contribution of various emission sources to regional haze. The GCVTC expended considerable time and energy developing the tools that are used today to evaluate the sources of regional haze. The WRAP intends to keep refining and improving the technical tools that are available to better inform policy decisions.

The visibility modeling measured the degree of visibility improvement that would occur at each of the 16 Class I areas due to four different emission reduction scenarios and in comparison to the absence of any regional haze program ( i. e., as compared to the baseline emissions inventory). The four scenarios were developed to show the changes in visibility that would occur due to increasingky stringent emission reductions. Table 2 presents the visibility improvements for the scenario that best matches the original WRAP estimate of SO, reductions associated with the application of controls on BART eligible sources, at 155,000 tons, as modeled by ICF intheir economic impacts study.

When comparing the results of the visibility analysis for the   Command and Control  scenario to the   MTF  scenario, it is important to recognize the following facts:

a The emission inventory for the   Command and Control  scenaSio was developed as part of the economic impacts study by ICF to compare the cost of achieving various levels of emission reduction using a market approach with the cost of achieving similar reductions using a source specific command and control program.

Both the Command and Control and MTF scenarios started with the same baseline emissions inventory for 2018 ( 648,000 tons) .

  Note that the baseline inventory used by ICF is different from that used by the MTF. This is an artifact of the way the economic model was implemented. The important consideratioin is that the same baseline is used to assess the differences among the options. For C 13 For the Command and Control scenario, ICF applied the MTF BART assumptions to this inventory and calculated 139,000 tons of emissions reductions in 2018. These reductions were subtracted from the baseline, yielding an inventory of 509,000 tons.

For the MTF scenario, ICF subtracted the MTF s best estimate of BART reductions at the time ( 155,000 tons) and added back 35,000 tons for headrooduncertainty, consistent with the GCVTC recommendations discussed in section D. 2., above. This yielded an inventory of 528,000 tons.

Rounding to the nearest tenth of a deciview  a level of accuracy beyond which the results cannot be compared with any confidence  the average visibility benefit of the MTF scenario equals that of the Command and Control scenario  0.1 dv.

The use of the   Command and Control  scenario as a surrogate for comparing the visibility benefits of the Annex to a true   BART  scenario is limited because it does not recognize the overall air quality benefits of the emissions caps. Some of the air quality benefits of the emissions caps as compared to a source by sourceBART approach are described in SectionF, beginning on page D 17. These benefits include setting caps that limit increased utilization and emission rates at BART and non BART sources, setting caps based on the assumption that 47,000 tons of emissions from existing non utilityhon smelter sources will be retired between 1998 and 2018, and setting caps based on the assumption that new source growth will be limited to 27,000 tons between 2003 and 2018. While the   Command and Control  scenario used for the visibility modeling has these same assumptions included, in actuality these benefits would not accrue to a BART program under Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. For these reasons , the use of the   COWXUI~ and Control  scenario as a surrogate for comparing the benefits of the Annex to a true BART scenario is of limited value.

As can be seen, the maximum visibility improvement expected f? om installation of appropriate control technology for SO, on BART eligible sources in the Western United States, amounts to about one third of a deciview, which is not perceptible to the average person.

Table 3 provides the results of the visibility modeling for an approximation of the four 2018 milestones offered for public comment in May 2000. The modeling distinguishes among the milestones based on the estimated BART level emissions reductions.

These visibility results show that, even under the most aggressive emissions reduction scenario, no perceptible change in visibility will accrue. Further, the visibility improvements of all of the different approaches would be indistinguishable for regional haze purposes. This is not intended to imply that the lack ofperceptible visibility improvement is ajustification for taking no details, refer to the ICF final report, Economic Impacts of Implementing a ReGonal SO, Emissions Cap for Stationarv Sources in the Western United States ( September 2000).

C 14  action to < reduceSO, emissionsfrom stationary sources. To the contrary, it emphasizes the need to develop a comprehensive plan that reduces visibility impairing emissions from all types of sources if the goals of Subpart C of Title I of the Clean Air Act are to be achieved in the West.

Table 2 Modeled Visibility Improvement in 2018: Command and Control Scenario Deciview Improvement Class I Area Davs Davs Average Arches National Park 0.17 0.28 0.22 Brvce Canvon 0.02 0.16 0.08 Black Canyon of the Gunnison 0.08 0.08 0.10 l~ GG& Ezj Canyonlands Cmitol Reef Flat Tops tHopi Point Maroon Bells t Mesa Verde National Park Mt. Baldy Petrified Forest SanPedro Parks Sycamore Canyon Wleminuche Wilderness West Elk Zion National Park 0.16 0.26 0.21 0.06 0.21 0.13 0.09 0.23  0.16 0.03 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.35 0.19 0.04 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.32 0.21 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.34 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.06 Averacre 0.08 0.19 0.13 Min 0.02 0.07 0.06 Max 0.17 0.35 0.22 1 C 15 F. Other Considerations There are a number of other considerations that must be taken into account in the overall determination as to whether or not the 2018 milestone developed by the WRAP achieves greater '

reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application of BART.

1. Remedy and Prevention. When Congress established the visibility program in 1977 it declared as a national goal " the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing" anthropogenic visibility impairment in mandatory class I federal areas. l2 BART is an emission limitation established at a specific source and is designed as a remedy to impairment at specificmandatory Class I areas. By contrast, the market trading program proposed by the WRAP serves the dual purpose of remedying existing impairment and preventing future impairment by requirin issions reductions and ___ mpphgsmissions for stationary sources. is prevented by capping emissions growth fiom sources not eligible under the BART requirements, from BART sources that are expected to significantly increase utilization, and from entirely new sources in the region.

2. Additional Sources Included. The backstop trading program designed by the WRAP will include all stationary sources with emissions higher than 100 tondyear of SO,. The W'XP designed this program as part of an overall strategy to address all sources of visibility impairing pollutants, rather than focusing on a subset of stationary sources.

2018 SO, Number of Sources Emissions" BART Eligible 47 201,615 Other Stationary Sources 157 4 246,570 " Note: The 2018 Emission estimate does not include 2 shut down smelters, or a CEM's bias adjustment. The estimate includes an emission reduction estimate of 168,000Ji. om BART eligible sources.

The inclusion of all major SO, sources in the progrqn is necessary to create a viable trading program, and also sewes a broader purpose to ensure that growth inemissions from non BART eligible sources does not undermine the progress that has been achieved. BART applied on a case by case basis would not affect these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future operations under their existing permit conditions. Because the milestones will cap these sources at actual emissions ( which are less than current allowable emissions), the overall effect of their inclusion is to provide greater reasonable $? ogress* would have been acheved if only BART eligible sources were included in the program.

l2 CAA 0 169A( a)( l).

C 17 3. Cap on New Source Growth. The milestones designed by the WRAP will cap the growth of SO, emissions in the west. These milestones include estimates for growth, but then lock these estimates in as an enforceable emission cap. The WRAP strategy is consistent with the statutory goal of preventing any hture visibility impairment that results fkom man made air pollution. The entire region is experiencing rapid growth which could erode the progress that has been achieved in the last two decades towards improving visibility. BART applied on a case by case basis would have no impact on future growth, and in the long run would not achieve the regional emission reductions that are guaranteed by the program.

4. Actual vs. Allowable Emissions. The baseline emission projections, and assumed reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit controls to BART eligible sources, are all based on actual emissions, using either 1998 or 1999 as the baseline. The use of actual emissions has an effect in several ways. If the BART process was applied on a case by case basis to individual soukes, emission limitations would be established based on the maximum level of operation of the unit. The   allowable emissions  are typically higher than actual emissions, because sources do not always rununder full load conditions, over the Eull year s available time. In addition, the allowable emissions would account for variations in the sulk content of fuel and alternative operating scenarios. The differencebetween actual emissions and allowable emissions is particularly large when a source is permitted to burn two different fuel types, such as oil and natural gas, or when the source is part of a cyclical industry where production varies fi om year to year due to the changing demand for their product.

The WRAP S method of emission projections allows for some increase in capacity for the electric utility industry which will partially address this difference between actual and allowable emissions. Even in this case, the utilities are assumed to operate at an average of 85% of nameplate capacity, even though they are permitted to operate at 100% capacity. Non utility sources, on the other hand, are assumed to retire at a certain percentage rate each year with no provision for emission growth from existing sources. Any growth that is projected for those industries ( refineries, pulp and paper, cement, etc.) is assumed to be met by new sources at highly controlled emission rates.

In addition to the cap on growth of actual emissions, the difference between an emission projection for future years, and a regional emission cap must also be considered. The milestones will act as a regulatory trigger that will be converted into an enforceable emission cap if the milestones are not met. This essentially creates a regional   allowable  emission level. When sources are managing their operations they have a large incentive to maintain headroom under any enforceable limit to ensure that they stay in compliance. This process is expected to happen on a voluntary basis prior to the program trigger, and will be strengthened if the milestones become enforceable emission caps. The net effect is that compliancewith the milestones should lead to actual emissions that are below the milestone. The difference between actual emissions and allowable emissions is commonly referred to as headroom. .,

C 18 5. Mass based Cap vs. Rate Based Emission Limits for BART. Emission limitations folr stationary sources ( including BART limits) are typically expressed as emission rates ( Ibs/ how or IbsflMMBtu), while the WRAP milestones are expressed as total mass during a given year ( tons/ year). One effect of this difference is that rate based limits can lead to higher emissions when production is increased or when higher sulfbr he1 is used, as explained in the discussion of actual vs. allowable emissions above. Another difference is that mass based limits will include excess emissions that may occur due to malfunctions or during the start up or shut down of emission units. A good example of this difference is the requirement in the acid rain program that emissions must be assumed to be the highest value recorded from the past year during the time period that continuous emission monitors are not functioning on a stack. These higher emissions are calculated as part of the overall tonsfyear, and must be accounted for under the mass based cap for the acid rain program.

6. 1990 as a baseline for Section 309 Regional Haze Plans. The regional haze rule rec( ognizedthe significant work that had been completed by the Grand Canyon Commission, and section 309 ofthe rule was therefore designed to incorporatethe Coinmission recommendations. A key element of this section of the rule is the use of 1990 as a baseline for measuring progress. There have been significant emission reductions in the west since 1990, and this improvement needs to be considered when measuring the overall effects of the Commission's strategies. The Commission established a goal of a 13% reduction from 1990 emissions. It is anticipated that the actual emission reductions in the region will be closer to 20%. Emission reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit technology on BART eligible sources between 1990 and 2018 are estimated to be 28' 7,176tons of SO, ( See Table 4). This estimate includes a reduction of 119,000 tons of SO, & om BART eligible sources that have occurred or have been legally committed to between 1990and 2000 ( assuming that these plants are operating at 85% of nameplate capacity). The 2018 milestone of 510,000 represents a regional emission reduction of around 321,000 tons of SO, & omthe 1990 baseline emissions of 831,000 tons. This overall reduction due to the milestones is approximately 35,000 tons greater than what has been estimated due to the application of appropriate retrofit technology to BART eligible sources,

C 19 Table 4 Calculation of BART Level Emissions Reductions from the 1990 Baseline Emissions 1990 1990 1990 level Emissions at Level of after Emissions Facility and Unit Emissions Capacity of control 85% capacity control Controls Reductions Navajo # 1 20,497 62% 0% 27,952 90% 2,050 18,447 Navajo # 2 26,101 81% 0% 27,252 90% 2,610 23,491 Navajo # 3 29,621 90% 36% 29,62 1 90% 2,962 26,659 Hayden # 1 4,857 77% 0% 5,344 85% 729 4,128 Hayden # 2 6,420 78% 0% 7,039 85% 963 5,457 Cherokee # 4 4,689 55% 38% 7,298 85% 703 3,986 Valmont # 5 3,007 65% 0% 3,924 85% 451 2,556 Mojave # 1 21,605 56% 0% 32,834, 85% 3,241 18,364 Mojave # 2 18,720 68% 0% 23,2971 85% 2,808 15,912 Total Effected and Planned Emission Reductions fiomBART eligible sources 119,000 WRAP Calculated BART level reductions ( rounded to nearest 1,000. from allstat7. xls) 168.000 I TOTAL I 287,0001 7. Commission Strategies are a Total Package. The GCVTC recommendations go well beyond stationary sources, and include strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution prevention, and emissions in and near Mandatory Class I areas. The reductions from these additional strategies have not yet been quantified, but are expected to be significant. The stationary source strategies need to be viewed as part of this overall package. Visibility impairment in the west is caused by multiple sources and pollutants, and a narrow focus on stationary sources may not achieve the same results as a broad based program. The WRAP is in the process of quantifLingthe effect of the rest of the Commission s strategies, and the entire package will be included in the State and Tribal Implementation Plans in 2003.

G. Comparison of Trading vs Command and Control BARTRequirements. One additional issue that must be considered when determining if the 2018 milestone achieves greater reasonable progress than BART is the geographic location where emission reductions will occur. For example, if all of the emission reductions under a trading program scenario are concentrated . in one small part of the region, the visibility improvement may be less than what would be achieved if reductions occurred at specific locations under a command and control approach.

To address this question, the WRAP modeled the improvement in visibility impairment that would occur under two different scenarios: a command and control scenario where the emission reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit controls on BART eligible sources were assumed to occur at locations, and a second scenario where least cost modeling was used to identify where these same emission reductions would occw under a trading program. The visibility transfer coefficients and control cost assumptions developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System were used for this analysis. Tables 2 and 3 provide the data for the comparison of the visibility improvement associated with these two approaches c 20 The results of this analysis showed that there would be an imperceptible improvement in visibility , impairmentunder the command and control scenario. The maximum difference between the two scenarios at any of the 16 Class I areas was only 0.1 deciview.

c 21


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20671-20672]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8169]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66698; File No. SR-BX-2012-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Non-Display of Primary Pegged Orders With an Offset Amount

March 30, 2012.
    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 March 23, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 4751(f)(4) to provide
that Primary Pegged Orders with an offset amount will never be
displayed. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the Exchange'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, 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 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
    BX proposes to amend Rule 4751(f)(4) to provide that Primary Pegged
Orders with an offset amount will be non-displayed, a change that will
improve system and inter-market price stability. Pegged Orders are
orders that, once entered, adjust in price automatically, in response
to changes in the inside bids or offers of the BX Equities Market or
the national market system, depending upon the type of pegged order. A
Primary Pegged Order specifies that its price will equal the inside
quote on the same side of the market; a Market Pegged Order will equal
the inside quote on the opposite side of the market. A Midpoint Peg
Order will equal the midpoint of the national best bid and offer
(``NBBO''), excluding the effect that the Midpoint Peg Order itself has
on the inside bid or inside offer. As the bids and offers change, so
move the pegged orders. A Pegged Order may have a limit price beyond
which the order shall not be executed. Primary Pegged Orders and Market
Pegged Orders may establish their pricing relative to the appropriate
bids or offers by selecting one or more offset amounts that will adjust
the price of the order by the offset amount selected.
    Under the Exchange's current rule, Midpoint Pegged Orders are not
displayed, while Primary and Market Pegged Orders may be displayed or
not displayed, at the option of the person placing the order. The
display of Primary Pegged Orders with an offset amount can potentially
result in excessive messaging when multiple venues display pegged non-
marketable orders. In these scenarios, it is possible for the Primary
Pegged Orders on each venue to react to and change in relation to each
other, resulting in excessive messaging and ``quote flickering.'' A

rule change to eliminate display of Primary Pegged Orders with an
offset amount will prevent this feedback loop, adding to system
stability and improving market quality.
    Market participants retain the ability to display orders through
other order options available under the Exchange rules, including by
using Primary Pegged Orders without an offset amount or Market Pegged
Orders. Because Primary Pegged orders without an offset amount are
priced at the inside quote, they do not present the same messaging
problem. Rapid updates to displayed Primary Pegged Orders may still
occur, but are more likely to be the result of rapid trading. Market
Pegged Orders, in contrast to Primary Pegs with an offset amount, are
typically priced to execute and rarely post, and thus also do not
present the excessive messaging problem.
    The Commission approved the non-display of Pegged Orders when it
approved the application of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), for
registration as a national securities exchange and found BATS' proposed
rules consistent with Section 6 of the Act.\4\ BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8)
provides that Pegged Orders ``are not displayed on the Exchange.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58375 (August 18, 2008)
73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57322 (February 13, 2008), 73 FR 9370 (February 20,
2008).
    \5\ BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. Non-display of Primary Pegged
Orders with an offset amount will minimize excess messaging that
distracts from, rather than improves transparency and stability. Market
participants can elect to display orders by using other available order
types. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule
4751(f)(4) meets the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in
that it will improve the stability, quality and transparency of the
national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that providing for non-display of Primary Pegged Orders will
not burden competition since at least one other exchange currently
offers the same attribute for pegged orders.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\10\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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-2012-022 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-BX-2012-022. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-2012-022 and
should be submitted on or before April 26, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8169 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 97 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23435-23437]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80684; File No. SR-ISE-2017-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees To Modify Fees and Rebates for PIM Orders

May 16, 2017.
    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 May 1, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 the Schedule of Fees to modify fees
charged and rebates provided for orders executed in the Price
Improvement Mechanism.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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 the Schedule of
Fees to modify fees charged and rebates provided for orders executed in
the Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''). In particular, the proposed
rule change makes the following changes for both regular and complex
orders in Select Symbols \3\ and Non-Select Symbols: \4\ (1) Amends the
fee PIM orders other than Priority Customer \5\ orders to be $0.10 per
contract, regardless of the size of the order; (2) provides discounted
fees for PIM orders such that members that execute an average daily
volume (``ADV'') of 7,500 or more contracts in the PIM in a given month
will pay a fee of $0.05 per contract, and Members that execute an ADV
of 12,500 or more contracts in the PIM in a given month will not pay a
fee for PIM orders; (3) amends the fee for Responses to PIM orders to
be $0.20 per contract; and (4) eliminates the PIM break-up rebate. Each
of these proposed changes are described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the Nasdaq ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \4\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols.
    \5\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Rule
100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee for PIM Orders
    Currently, regular and complex PIM orders of 100 or fewer contracts
in Select and Non-Select Symbols are charged a fee of $0.05 per
contract for Market Maker,\6\ Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker,\7\ Firm
Proprietary,\8\ Broker-

Dealer, and Professional Customer \9\ orders (``non-Priority Customer
orders''); \10\ Priority Customer orders receive free executions in the
PIM. This fee for non-Priority Customer PIM orders of 100 or fewer
contracts is reduced to $0.03 per contract for orders executed by
Members that have an ADV of 20,000 or more Priority Customer contracts
in a given month executed in the PIM.\11\ PIM orders of more than 100
contracts pay the fee for Crossing Orders, which is $0.20 per contract
for Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and
Professional Customer orders for both regular and complex orders in
Select and Non-Select Symbols.\12\ Regular Market Maker orders in
Select Symbols and Market Maker complex orders in both Select and Non-
Select Symbols are charged a fee of $0.20 per contract; Regular Market
Maker orders in Non-Select Symbols are also charged a fee of $0.20 per
contract if sent by an Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') and are
otherwise charged a fee of $0.25 per contract, subject to applicable
tier discounts.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Nasdaq ISE
Rule 100(a)(25).
    \7\ A ``Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \8\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \9\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \10\ Fees apply to the originating and contra order. Firm
Proprietary and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker contracts traded are
subject to the Crossing Fee Cap, as provided in section IV.H of the
Schedule of Fees. The Schedule of Fees is currently missing a
reference indicating that footnote 6 under section II., Complex
Order Fees and Rebate, relating to the Crossing Fee Cap applies to
the fee for PIM orders. The Exchange proposes to add this reference.
    \11\ This discounted fee is applied retroactively to all
eligible PIM volume in that month once the threshold has been
reached. Priority Customer ADV includes all volume in all symbols
and order types. All eligible volume from affiliated Members will be
aggregated in determining total affiliated Priority Customer ADV,
provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the Members
as reflected on each Member's Form BD, Schedule A. For purposes of
determining Priority Customer ADV, any day that the regular order
book is not open for the entire trading day or the Exchange
instructs members in writing to route their orders to other markets
may be excluded from such calculation; provided that the Exchange
will only remove the day for members that would have a lower ADV
with the day included.
    \12\ Fees apply to the originating and contra order. Firm
Proprietary and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker contracts traded are
subject to the Crossing Fee Cap, as provided in section IV.H of the
Schedule of Fees.
    \13\ See Schedule of Fees, section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to: (1) Adopt a fee of $0.10 per contract
for non-Priority Customer orders executed in the PIM, and (2) remove
the distinction between PIM orders of 100 or fewer contracts and PIM
orders of more than 100 contracts. As proposed, non-Priority Customer
PIM orders for both regular and complex, and in both Select and Non-
Select Symbols, will be charged a fee of $0.10 per contract. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to allow members to qualify for lower
fees (or no fees) based on the amount of volume they execute in the
PIM. In particular, members that execute an ADV of 7,500 or more
contracts in the PIM in a given month will be charged a reduced fee of
$0.05 per contract, and members that execute an ADV of 12,500 or more
contracts will not be charged a fee for PIM orders. As is the case for
the Exchange's other volume based fees, the discounted fees will be
applied retroactively to all eligible PIM volume in that month once the
threshold has been reached.
PIM Response Fees and Break-Up Rebates
    Currently, for regular orders in Select and Non-Select Symbols, the
Exchange charges all market participants a fee of $0.50 per contract
for Responses to Crossing Orders. For complex orders, the fee for
Responses to Crossing Orders is $0.48 per contract in Select Symbols
for all market participants, and in Non-Select Symbols is $0.91 per
contract for Market Maker orders and $0.96 per contract for Non-Nasdaq
ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, Professional
Customer, and Priority Customer orders. In addition, the Exchange
provides a PIM break-up rebate for contracts that are submitted to PIM
that do not trade with their contra order.\14\ This PIM break-up Rebate
is provided to Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-
Dealer, Professional Customer, and Priority Customer orders, and is
$0.35 per contract for regular and complex orders in Select Symbols,
$0.15 per contract for regular orders in Non-Select Symbols, and $0.80
per contract for complex orders in Non-Select Symbols. The Exchange now
proposes to (1) charge a lower fee of $0.20 per contract for Responses
to PIM orders for all market participants, and (2) eliminate the PIM
break-up rebate provided for contracts that do not trade with their
contra order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The applicable fee is applied to any contracts for which a
rebate is provided. For complex orders submitted to the PIM the
rebate is provided per contract leg except when those contracts
trade against pre-existing orders and quotes on the Exchange's order
books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ 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, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee for PIM Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for PIM orders are
reasonable and equitable because they are designed to increase
participation in the PIM. In particular, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fee for PIM orders is reasonable and equitable as it is
designed to reward members that send a high volume of PIM orders to the
Exchange. As proposed, although the Exchange is removing incentives for
small PIM orders of 100 or fewer contracts, members will pay a fee for
PIM orders that remains lower than the fees charged for other Crossing
Orders, and will qualify for volume based discounts, including free
executions in the PIM for members that meet the higher proposed volume
threshold. The Exchange believes that this fee structure will
incentivize members to execute their orders in the PIM to the benefit
of all market participants that trade on the Exchange. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that this proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory as all non-Priority Customer orders will continue to be
subject to the same fees, and can qualify for further discounts based
on volume executed in the PIM. Priority Customer orders will also
continue to receive free executions in the PIM. The Exchange believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge lower
fees for Priority Customer orders as a Priority Customer is by
definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does
not apply to participants whose behavior is substantially similar to
that of market professionals, including, Professional Customers, who
will generally submit a higher number of orders than Priority
Customers. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that all market participants
can qualify for free executions in the PIM if the member executes the
required volume of contracts in the PIM.
PIM Response Fees and Break-Up Rebates
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to PIM
response fees and break-up rebates are reasonable and equitable as they
are designed to make it more attractive for market participants

to respond to PIM auctions, thereby increasing price improvement
opportunities for PIM orders. As proposed, market participants that
respond to PIM auctions will pay a response fee that is significantly
lower than that charged for responses to other Crossing Orders, and
members that initiate a PIM auction will no longer qualify for break-up
rebates if they enter an order into the PIM that does not trade against
its contra order. The Exchange believes that these changes will make it
easier for firms to participate in the PIM by responding to these
auctions with price improvement. Furthermore, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change is unfairly discriminatory as all
market participants that respond to PIM auctions will be charged the
same fee for Responses to PIM orders, and no market participants will
be eligible for PIM break-up rebates, which are being eliminated.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is pro-competitive
as it is designed to provide incentives for members to submit orders to
the PIM, and to encourage members to respond to PIM auctions and
thereby increase price improvement opportunities for orders submitted
to the PIM. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct their order flow to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2017-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-39. 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 also will 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-ISE-2017-39 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10306 Filed 5-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35007]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-454-000]

Wyckoff Gas Storage Company LLC; Notice of Application

June 15, 2010.
    On June 10, 2010, Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC, (``Wyckoff''),
6733 South Yale, Tulsa, OK 74136, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
filed an abbreviated application to amend its certificates of public
convenience and necessity to (1) drill and complete the previously
authorized, but not yet drilled, injection/withdrawal well I/W
6 into the Onondaga reef zone as a horizontal well with two
laterals; and (2) rework the existing well I/W 3 so as to
extend it horizontally across the reef with two separate laterals. This
filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to John
A. Boone, Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC, 6733 South Yale, Tulsa, OK
74136,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: July 6, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14949 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 EPA Registration Division contact:

Barbara Madden ( 703) 305 6463 Interregional Research Project Number 4 PP 6E7052 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 6E7052) from Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390, 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 180.362 by establishing a tolerance for residues of hexakis ( 2 methyl 2 phenylpropyl) distannoxane ( also know as Fenbutatin oxide, Bis [ tris ( 2 methyl 2 phenylpropyl) tin] oxide) in or on the raw agricultural commodity pistachio at 0.5 parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. Studies with apples and oranges indicate that residues are primarily found on the fruits' surface. Since the parent compound comprises the majority of the terminal residue in plants, only the parent will be included in the tolerance expression for plant commodities. ( MRID 00113018)

2. Analytical method. An adequate enforcement method is available for fenbutatin oxide residues in plants and animals. The GLC/ FPD method MMS R 494 2 has successfully undergone Agency method validation for plants and animals and has satisfied the requirements of PR Notice 88 5 concerning independent laboratory validation. Method MMS R 494 2 individually quantifies each analyte to a detection limit of 0.05 ppm. A spectrophotometric method for determining total organotin and a GLC/ EC method ( MMS R 391 1) for determining the parent compound are published in PAM, Vol. II as Methods I and II, respectively. These methods are inadequate for both data collection and enforcement purposes. In addition, the TLC methods MMS R 391 1, published in PAM, Vol. II as Method A, and MMS R 345 1 ( the section for SD 31723 analysis only), are adequate only for confirming GLC results. ( MRID's 41110901 and 41520701)

3. Magnitude of residues. The tolerances listed in 40 CFR § 180.362( a) are for the residues of fenbutatin oxide. Sufficient data are available to ascertain the adequacy of the established tolerances listed for: almonds; almonds, hulls; apples; cherries, sour; cherries, sweet; 2 citrus fruits; cucumbers; eggplant; grapes; papayas; peaches; pears; pecans; plums; prunes; strawberries; and walnuts. Certain commodity definitions of the above tolerances are not in accordance with the definitions listed in the Commodity Index Report dated 10/ 28/ 92; see the table and discussion below for modifications in commodity definitions. The individual tolerances for " almonds" ( 0.5 ppm), " pecans" ( 0.5 ppm), and " walnuts" ( 0.5 ppm) should be revoked, and a tolerance for residues in or on " tree nuts group" should be established at 0.5 ppm. The available data from almonds, pecans, and walnuts will support this crop group tolerance.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. In a rat acute oral study, the LD50 of fenbutatin oxide was 4400 mg/ kg. The dermal LD50 in rabbits was > 2000 mg/ kg, the highest dose tested. Rat 4 hour inhalation LC50 values ranged from 0.06 0.23 mg/ L. Fenbutatin oxide was a severe eye irritant and a mild skin irritant in rabbits, but did not produce skin sensitization in guinea pigs. In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, the NOEL was 20 mg/ kg based on minimally decreased motor activity in male rats at 100 mg/ kg and effects on body weight, nutritional parameters, clinical signs of toxicity and effects on motor activity in both sexes at 1000 mg/ kg. There were no effects on neuropathology at any dose ( highest dose tested 2000 mg/ kg).

2. Genotoxicty. Fenbutatin oxide was negative in a battery of genotoxicity assay including Salmonella or Chinese hamster ovary cells with or without activation. It did not induce chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes. Fenbutatin oxide did not produce an increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in the bone marrow of mice at dose up to and including 5000 mg/ kg. It did not produce unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat hepatocytes.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A two generation rat reproduction study was conducted at dietary concentrations of 0, 40, 75, 250, and 750 ppm. The NOAEL for maternal and reproductive toxicity were both 75 ppm ( 5 mg/ kg/ day) based on effects on body weight and nutritional parameters in parental animals and body weight effects in pups at 250 ppm ( 20 mg/ kg/ day).

In a developmental toxicity study, pregnant female rats were administered fenbutatin oxide at 0, 15, 30, or 60 mg/ kg/ day on days 6 to 15 of gestation. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 15 mg/ kg/ day based on diarrhea and reduced body weight at 30 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental NOAEL was 60 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose tested.

Pregnant female rabbits were administered fenbutatin oxide at 0, 1, 5, or 10 mg/ kg/ day on days 6 to 18 of gestation. Rabbits dosed with 5 mg/ kg/ day exhibited anorexia and lesions of the gastrointestinal tract but without any effect on body weight. Rabbits dosed with 10 mg/ kg/ day had anorexia, reduced body weight, gastric lesions, maternal mortality, and increased abortions. The NOAEL for developmental effects was 10 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose tested. 3 4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90 day feeding study was conducted in rats at dietary concentrations from 50 to 600 ppm. Effects on body weight, nutritional parameters, and clinical chemistry occurred at 300 ppm and higher. Blood urea nitrogen levels were also increased in females at 100 ppm. There were no treatment related gross or microscopic pathologic effects at any dietary concentration.

A 90 day neurotoxicity study in rats was conducted at the same dietary concentrations. The NOAEL was 100 ppm ( 7.63 mg/ kg/ day) for females and 300 ppm ( 18.8 mg/ kg/ day) for males based on effects on body weight and nutritional parameters at higher dietary levels. There were no treatment related effects on neurobehavioral endpoints or neuropathology at any dietary concentration.

Skin irritation but no systemic toxicity occurred in rabbits in a 21 day dermal study in which fenbutatin oxide was administered at doses up to 5 mg/ kg/ day.

5. Chronic toxicity. Fenbutatin oxide was not carcinogenic in rats or mice. In a two year feeding study, rats were administered up to 600 ppm in the diet. The NOAEL was 100 ppm ( 5 mg/ kg/ day) based on decreased body weight, reduced total white cells in males, increased serum alkaline phophatase, and organ weight changes at 300 ppm ( 15 mg/ kg/ day).

Mice were fed up to 600 ppm fenbutatin oxide in the diet for 18 months. The only significant treatment related effect was a reduction in body weight at 300 ppm ( 45 mg/ kg/ day). There were hematologic, clinical chemical, or pathologic effects at any level. The NOAEL was 100 ppm ( 15 mg/ kg/ day).

Dog were administered fenbutatin oxide by gelatin capsule up to 60 mg/ kg/ day for two years. The NOAEL was 5 mg/ kg/ day based up clinical observations of vomiting and diarrhea at the LOEL of 15 mg/ kg/ day. There were no specific compound related histopathologic changes at any dose.

6. Animal metabolism. In a rat metabolism study, fenbutatin oxide was excreted virtually unchanged from the feces. Only a very small amount (~ 1%) of fenbutatin oxide was absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract producing two minor metabolites. Over a 5 day period, 83 100% of the radioactivity was found in the feces or urine indicating the potential for bioaccumulation is minimal. Metabolism studies were conducted in goats and laying hens. In goats, fenbutatin oxide was extensively eliminated in the feces as parent material. Small amounts of radioactivity were found in the tissues. Concentrations of radioactivity in the milk were below levels of detection. In study with laying hens, the majority of administered radioactive dose was found in the excreta as intact parent compound. Very small amounts of radioactivity were found in tissue and eggs.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The nature of the residues in plants and animals are adequately understood. The tolerance expression for plants is for fenbutatin oxide only. EPA has determined 4 residues to be regulated for meat, milk, poultry, and eggs are the combined residues of parent and two metabolites calculated as parent  hexakis ( 2 methyl 2 phenylpropyl) distannoxane.

8. Endocrine disruption. There are no apparent estrogenic effects from fenbutatin oxide based on the collective findings from developmental, two generation reproduction, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies conducted in multiple species, including histopathological evaluation of the reproductive tract and other endocrine organs.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. An assessment was conducted to determine the acute and chronic exposure of all population groups to fenbutatin oxide. Tolerance values have previously been established for all crops except pistachio. This analysis included all crops and animal commodities with established tolerance values and the proposed crop of pistachio.

i. Food. The chronic dietary exposure assessment of the currently approved uses of fenbutatin oxide and the proposed use on pistachios is well within acceptable limits for all sectors of the population. The chronic module of the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCIDTM ) was used to conduct the assessment with the chronic reference dose ( cRfD) of 0.05 mg/ kg body wt/ day. The analysis used mean residue values from either field trials or from the USDA Pesticide Data Program ( PDP). Percent crop treated data from National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS) and Doane Marketing Research were used. The chronic exposure to fenbutatin oxide for the overall US population is 0.000618 mg/ kg body wt/ day, which is 1% of the cRfD. The exposure of the most sensitive subgroup, children 1 2 years, is 0.002469 mg/ kg body wt/ day, which utilizes 5% of the cRfD. There are large margins of safety for all population groups.

The acute dietary exposure assessment of currently approved uses of fenbutatin oxide and the proposed use on pistachios is well within acceptable limts for all sectors of the population. The acute module of the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCIDTM ) was used to conduct the assessment with the proposed acute reference dose ( aRfD) of 0.20 mg/ kg body wt/ day. The analysis used a probabilistic assessment with residue data from USDA PDP and field trials. Percent crop treated data from NASS and Doane Marketing Research were used. The acute exposure to fenbutatin oxide at the 99.9 percentile for the overall US population is 0.011824 mg/ kg body wt/ day, which is 6% of the proposed aRfD. The exposure of the most sensitive subgroup, children 1 2 years, is 0.031390 mg/ kg body weight/ day, which utilizes 16% of the aRfD. There are large margins of safety for all population groups.

ii. Drinking water. The FIRST and SCI GROW models were used to estimate conservative concentrations of fenbutatin oxide in surface and ground water, respectively. The peak ( 12.7 ppb) and average annual ( 2.3 ppb) surface water values from FIRST were 5 used in the DEEM FCIDTM software to determine aggregate exposure to food and water on an acute and chronic basis, respectively, since they were higher than the ground water values. The resultant aggregate exposure values were not significantly greater than the exposure values determined on the basis of food alone. The margins of safety for all population groups remain large.

2. Non dietary exposure. In the 2002 document " Overview of Fenbutatin Oxide Risk Assessment" HED concluded that non occupational ( residential) risks are not of concern for fenbutatin oxide.

D. Cumulative Effects It is not necessary at this time to consider cumulative effects because there is no indication that toxic effects of fenbutatin oxide have a common mechanism with those of any other chemical compounds.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Based on the risk assessments there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate exposure to fenbutatin oxide. No additional safety factors are warranted.

2. Infants and children. Based on the risk assessments there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the infants and children from the aggregate exposure to fenbutatin oxide. No additional safety factors are warranted.

F. International Tolerances International tolerances are not applicable for fenbutatin oxide.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		October 27, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	October 21, 2014 Meeting with Environmental Defense Fund Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY On October 21, 2014, attorneys from EPA in the EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) met with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). EDF gave their views on legal issues related to the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.         ATTENDEES EDF attendees: Vickie Patton (EDF) Megan Ceronsky (EDF) Tomas Carbonell Sean H. Donahue (Donahue & Goldberg)

EPA attendees: Lorie Schmidt (OGC) Elliott Zenick (OGC) Howard J. Hoffman (OGC)  Scott Jordan (OGC) Aileen Roder (OGC) Marguerite McLamb (OAQPS) Kellie Ortega (OECA)

[Attachment]